Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

15:59

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 12th Report from the Constitution Committee. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I preface my remarks to the hearty few who are left behind by saying that the Marshalled List is fiddly today, so bear with me if I go off the rails. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely. I remind the Committee that, unless they are leading a group, remote speakers speak first after the mover of the lead amendment in a group and may therefore speak to other amendments in the group ahead of the Members who have tabled them.

Clause 32: Exercise of fire and rescue functions

Debate on whether Clause 32 should stand part of the Bill.

Member’s explanatory statement

The notice to oppose Clause 32 standing part of the bill would remove provisions allowing chief constables to exercise certain fire and rescue functions.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my policing interests, which are set out in the register. The stand part propositions on Clauses 32 to 38 all highlight to your Lordships the ridiculous state that North Yorkshire will be in should these clauses remain in the Bill. For the sake of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I say that at this point I will not be pressing these propositions.

At Second Reading, I raised the question of the split of responsibilities between the mayor and the chief constable. I have done a bit of digging since then. I was concerned that the chief constables would be given responsibility for the fire and rescue service, alongside their duty to manage their forces. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing this in her letter to us of 27 January. However, I wonder whether the Government have fully understood or considered the dilemma that the police, fire and crime commissioner will have if the single-employer model is used in North Yorkshire, which is destined to become a unique—as far as I am aware—mayoral combined authority or MCA.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in which the policing protocol sets out the independent direction and control of a chief constable, would be in conflict with the employee status of the current fire chief model. How do the Government propose to change this to have the same independent direction and control if this model is chosen?

The staff of the fire service are employees, employed in an entirely different way from police officers, who are servants of the Crown. Police staff are employed on different terms and conditions of work again, albeit under the direction and control of the chief constable. Of course, fire staff have different pay structures and a completely different pay negotiation mechanism. I leave to your Lordships’ imagination the chaos that would be caused should these two entirely different organisations be merged into one. There would be equal-pay concerns and pay rise inequality unless the staff were transferred into one organisation, which would have to be done if you used the single-employer model, in order to resolve these complexities.

However, in such a model, the legislation would still have to afford independent direction and control of the fire service to the chief officer for it to be viable for the practical, day-to-day delivery of the service. The outcry from police officers, who may be offered a meagre pay rise when fire officers are offered more, because of the different way their employment models are constructed even though they work alongside each other, will be a recipe for disaster.

At Second Reading, I was anxious to point out that the chief constable, certainly in North Yorkshire, will have this unique MCA and should not have to take on the responsibility of all the fire officers and staff—around 900 persons. This is not what chief police officers are about. In reality, it would fall to the chief constable, as the chief officer. What a conundrum for her; I am not sure that she has the capacity to do that. I am not sure that the chief constable—any chief constable—faced with the single-employer model would want to be responsible for that.

Unfortunately, when the first of our three PCCs in North Yorkshire decided to take on to herself the responsibilities for overseeing the fire service as well as the police, she cannot possibly have envisioned the mess that would ensue if a combined authority—now a mayoral combined authority—were to come under a mayor’s jurisdiction. Nor do I think that any incoming mayor in my county would relish being immediately responsible for 900 fire personnel. What a muddle.

There are significant problems too with data protection and vetting standards when sharing IT systems, which would have to be overcome. We have already seen in our recent North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service’s HMICFRS report that there are concerns surrounding a shared support function that is in place in North Yorkshire. HMICFRS commented that:

“It needs to make sure collaboration activities, such as those with police”


are effective and “provide value for money”. It currently shares some business services with North Yorkshire police and the office of the police, fire and crime commissioner, but there is little evidence to show its benefits to the service.

These problems were well highlighted by both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council back in 2018, when it was proposed that PCCs could take on the responsibilities of fire authorities too. The PCC for North Yorkshire at that time decided to grow her empire and take on the task. It was proved to be wrong then and it is certainly being proved to be wrong now. In the recent HMICFRS report cited above, the inspectorate stated that the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire had actually deteriorated during this time. I do not know how many other PCCs have taken on the role—most, I believe, just stick to their policing role—but we still have this problem in North Yorkshire.

These problems have not been thought through properly at all, which is why I was so keen at Second Reading to address them. There are enough problems in policing today without them having to take on fire services as well. A number of forces apart from the Met are in special measures, so how would they be able to take on the added responsibility of the fire service? This needs to be clarified, and quickly, before even more of a mess is allowed to get into legislation around policing.

I think that we need to take out the whole section of the Bill about chief constables being responsible for fire authorities, certainly unless and until this quirk in the proposed legislation would see the North Yorkshire problem solved. As I said at the beginning, I will not press for their removal at this stage, but I will listen intently to what the Minister has to say about them. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 122A, which is in this group. Before I start, I want to say how much I appreciated the contribution just made by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, which illustrated another example of Ministers putting provisions into Bills which they do not fully understand themselves. If they had spoken to any chief constable, any chief fire officer, or possibly anybody from North Yorkshire they would have known that this will not work. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister responds.

My amendment takes a broader look. It is not specifically concerned with the clauses relating to the problems my noble friend so ably outlined. It addresses the phrase which appears time and again:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations”,


et cetera. I ploughed my way through the first 38 clauses, and 18 start with exactly those words, three start with

“A Minister of the Crown must”

and four simply start with “Regulations may be made”. So 25 out of the first 38 clauses essentially say that the Secretary of State can do what he likes.

My amendment is not about that. It is about Clause 38(4), which goes far beyond that. It states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend, revoke or repeal a provision of or made under an enactment in consequence of provision”


in subsection (1). To paraphrase, the Secretary of State can change his mind at any time and change the regulations to suit. It occurs to me that it would have been much quicker for the Government actually to take out those 38 clauses and to have a simple one-clause Bill, the first subsection of which would say, “The Secretary of State may by regulation do whatever he chooses”, and the second, “The Secretary of State may by regulation make any change of mind he has at any time he chooses”, because that covers the essence of these 38 clauses. Explaining the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers takes 245 pages in the memorandum, so it is, even by the Government’s own reckoning, a significant problem.

Almost nothing of substance appears in the Bill. Everything is subject to regulations. Even the missions are not defined, and every attempt so far to pin the Government down on any detail, or even on the broad principles, has been resisted by the Front Bench opposite. Everything is left to the supreme genius of the Secretary of State for the time being to decide what is to be done and how. In this case, in this clause, he or she is allowed to change his mind, to revoke, repeal, et cetera. Of course, that will produce regulations that we can, if we are lucky, in due course express an opinion on but which we ourselves in Parliament certainly will not be able to amend, revoke or repeal. The Secretary of State is taking powers that are certainly denied to those of us who will subsequently look at his regulations.

If it is good enough for the Secretary of State to have the power, at the drop of a hat, to amend, revoke and repeal, then why is it not good enough for Parliament? But that, of course, is a silly question; I realise that. How naive can I be? Power is to remain in Whitehall, not to be given to town halls and certainly not to Parliament. The provision in Clause 38 illustrates the point exactly. The Bill is not handing out new powers to anyone; it simply hands out new regulations. Going through your Lordships’ House in parallel with this Bill is the retained EU law Bill. The starting point of that is that there is far too much regulation, red tape and bureaucracy, and we need to go through every Act and regulation that has been passed in the last 46 years and decide what to throw away. I think it is part of the two-out, one-in rule.

I suggest to the Government that the difficulties they face with that Bill would be substantially relieved if they were to produce a different Bill: the retention of local government law Bill, which would do exactly the same for local government as they are trying to do in respect of EU law.

16:15

As a result of what we have in this Bill so far, levelling up is going to be largely incidental to the provision of additional levers of central government control. The Government’s capacity to design and manage the whole process as they choose is going to be strengthened. Then, when it does not work, this Clause gives them the power to tear it up and replace it with something else—all in the name of levelling up, of course. I would like the Minister to accept Amendment 122A just for the fig leaf of devolution, empowerment and levelling up, so that it can remain in place as we plough our way through the remaining 82 groups. It is emblematic of a systemic problem the Government have, and I have to say that the amendments moved by the Minister are yet another branch of the same thing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, obviously, I completely support the argument of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond that Clause 32 and the other clauses in this group should not stand part of the Bill. She made a powerful argument, as did my noble friend Lord Stunell, about the regulations and the power that is going to be devolved to the Secretary of State through these clauses. Further, my noble friend Lady Harris amply demonstrated the shortfalls of such mergers. This is a pilot example of what happens when provision is made for a chief constable to take over the responsibilities of a fire service. According to the argument made by my noble friend and the evidence in the HMICFRS report, it is not going well. I am beginning to think that the Government despise local government and local democracy. My noble friend Lord Stunell has just suggested a retention of local government law Bill, and perhaps that is what we have to start considering.

Clause 32(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … authorising … the chief constable … to exercise fire and rescue functions”.


I know the Government have wanted to merge these two emergency services for some time, but this is being proposed without reference to local informed discussion, debate and solution. Furthermore, Clause 33(2)—this was where I got really quite concerned—states that “A request” for such a merger

“must be accompanied by a report which contains … an assessment of why”.

That is fair enough. There are two criteria: that

“it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the regulations to be made”;

“or” that

“it is in the interests of public safety”.

We are taking about emergency services, so surely you would want to consider a merger according to the first criterion: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. But you would then use the word “and” before the phrase

“in the interests of public safety”.

However, the Bill uses the word “or”, and it does so several times in these clauses. The message that sends to me is that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are far more important than public safety—even for an emergency service.

Clause 33(4) indicates that even if two-thirds—this is where the democracy bit concerns me—of the constituent members of the combined county authority oppose such a merger, the mayor could just ignore that and continue with the merger plan despite the considerable scale of opposition by involving the Secretary of State. Where is the case for merging two emergency services with very different skills? How is it going to improve public safety? As I have said, public safety seems to be a secondary requirement when considering a merger. Can the Minister let us know where to access any detailed examples, apart from the North Yorkshire model which has already been exposed as not successful, of how such mergers improve public safety? That must, after all, be key to any decision in principle that this Bill proposes.

I end with the words of my noble friend. The problems that she outlined have not been thought through properly. If the Government wish to merge two emergency services with very different backgrounds, pay structures and requirements, then we need a proper assessment prior to the Bill proposing, as it does in these clauses, that they can go ahead just by writ from the mayor and Secretary of State.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has brought her concerns forward. This is clearly a really important issue in Yorkshire, where she lives. I also think it draws to your Lordships’ attention that much in the Bill is perhaps not as straightforward as it would appear at first glance, and that things affect different areas in different ways. Perhaps the Government should look again at some parts of the Bill where there will be different impacts from those perhaps originally envisaged. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has drawn attention to one of these areas.

The noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the Government’s recent review of police and crime commissioners, as that puts it in the context of these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to fire. The Government said that they would further look at:

“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor … Legislating to create operational independence for Chief Fire Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”


They stated that

“the Government is clear that further reform of fire and rescue is required in order to respond to the recommendations from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Kerslake Review and to build on the findings from Sir Thomas Winsor’s State of Fire and Rescue Report”.

Any reform would

“focus on three key areas: people; professionalism; and governance”.

In response, the National Fire Chiefs Council said

“if fire services are governed by a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC)”—

we already know that some already are—

“it is imperative CFOs roles are safeguarded and have the same standing as a Chief Constable. Currently, Chief Constables … act as the employer and have operational independence. The same operational positioning for CFOs is vital, together with”

a wider status sitting alongside police forces. We know that fire services are driven by risk and risk factors; they are not as demand-led as police forces, and a number of key operational, organisational and cultural differences sit between the two services. When working with them, we need different approaches; there are different functions, and a different kind of political understanding needs to come with that.

We only need to look back over the last couple of years to see the response to the pandemic and how fire services were able to adapt quickly to the frequent challenges which emerged. However, it also showed that there are some areas that need reform to ensure that the public continue to receive the outstanding response they expect. We know that the public have huge respect and support for our fire services.

We must not forget the role of the fire services to serve communities, putting them first while reducing risk and saving lives. We must not lose sight of that when making reforms, because any reform that happens will be a pretty major undertaking and will need to be resourced appropriately. If changes come from the Bill to the way fire services are managed, we must not lose resources, and they must be carried out in a consistent, joined-up manner.

There also has to be proper clarity around the political leadership. How will that operate? With appropriate political oversight, CFOs will be well placed to deliver the operational running of services, using strong data and the evidence they need. However, if we are moving in the direction that the Bill is suggesting, there must be a democratic mandate, good governance, accountability and robust political decision-making, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the community’s trust in those services, which is critical.

We also need clear lines of responsibility, and we should have national guidance and standards on this for all forces, PCCs and fire services to follow. Any strategic direction of budgets has to be properly evidence-based, with clearly defined roles for the people who are part of those services.

To conclude, one of the things we are concerned about, which came across in the earlier contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is the confusion presented by so many different models, both those which currently exist and those which will be expanded by the proposals in the Bill. So clarity going forward is critical.

I turn, very briefly, to Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State in this part of the Bill is basically being allowed to do whatever they like. The whole Bill has been pitched as devolving power, but this is centralising power, and it goes against the spirit of what we felt the Bill proposed to be. We need proper checks and balances on any powers given to PCCs and the Secretary of State, so we completely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Any Secretary of State should not be able to amend, revoke or repeal at a whim.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the police and crime commissioner role and fire and rescue functions.

This allows public safety functions to be taken as a package where there is a local desire for this—we are not imposing it—and boundaries are co-terminous. It is worth noting that this is a choice for the local area, allowing the decision to be taken at the most local level, in line with the principle of localism. We are also keen to ensure that, whenever possible, the functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities should be the same. This starts to answer the noble Baroness opposite: we are trying to simplify things; we are not trying to add different complications. We are trying to make the combined authorities and combined county authorities—

16:30

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that

“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”

can indicate that

“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,

and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.

We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.

As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.

Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.

This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.

Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.

Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.

Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.

Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.

Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.

Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have listened very carefully both to the speeches that were made regarding the power of fire and rescue and police being together and the noble Baroness’s answers. I assume the purpose of this is not just an administrative difference but actually to improve the services of fire and police to people where this merger happens. Has the Minister looked at the four areas where this has happened, and His Majesty’s inspector of fire and police? Do those areas actually have a better service, an average service or a worse service than the national average?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail, but I will look into it and make sure he has those comparisons and knows what they are.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I can help the noble Baroness: having looked at the comparisons, I can say that they are actually below the national average. So, what is the purpose of going through this huge administrative issue if it does not improve the services to people on the ground?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Because this is localism. If local areas want to take on those responsibilities, the Government have been listening to local authorities and combined authorities and listening to the fact that they want to take these on. The fact that there are only a few of these combined police and crime responsibilities and fire and rescue responsibilities—at the moment, there are not very many—means that it is quite difficult to tell, but we need to keep an eye on it, obviously, and I will come back to that in a minute under Amendment 122A.

The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to apply legislation relating to police and crime commissioners in relation to combined county authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the ability to make the chief constable the single operational head of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation consequential on that power. This is important because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the power that could be used if any area has implemented the single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not happen.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which I am not sure entirely clarifies the situation. What she seems to be saying is that the Bill introduces a new scheme whose outcome is so uncertain that we need an extra provision for it to be changed if it goes wrong. That is in light of what my noble friend has just said, which is that the four actual examples that exist at the moment have all performed below average. So, in that sense, her caution about having such a power is perhaps quite sound, but does that not rather indicate that the model itself should not go ahead in this form until the Government are satisfied that it will achieve the objectives of improved performance, or at least not deteriorating performance, before she proceeds?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think we will not know exactly until we try it, but there will always be this power to say that, if those local people are not getting the service they require, the Secretary of State can revoke.

16:45

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I think I am right on this, although the noble Baroness might correct me. I got through the first 38 clauses and I think this was the first time I saw this particular revocation and amendment power being given to the Secretary of State. I believe that would have the effect of that amendment being made without any further reference to Parliament, other than through a set of regulations that we cannot amend—so its absence would simply mean that, should something need to be corrected, it would come back to Parliament. Is that interpretation correct?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is a power for the Secretary of State.

The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply police and crime commissioner legislation in relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this area.

Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying legislation that relates to a police and crime commissioner to a combined county authority mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause would hinder the effective full implementation of the single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of State could not make further regulations applying local policing enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors of combined county authorities who have implemented the model.

I hope that my explanation will reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of the importance of this group of clauses to the effective conferral of fire and rescue functions on combined county authority mayors, specifically on those opting to use the single-employer model to exercise these functions, and will therefore enable her to withdraw her opposition to them standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. All the clauses stand together, so I need to read Hansard carefully and go through her comments on each clause. I believe there was some contradiction in what she said, so it is important that I am quite clear going forward that I have understood absolutely what has been said this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will withdraw my opposition at this point to the clauses standing part, but we will come back to this on Report.

Clause 32 agreed.

Clause 33: Section 32 regulations: procedure

Amendment 122 not moved.

Clause 33 agreed.

Clauses 34 to 37 agreed.

Clause 38: Section 32 regulations: application of local policing provisions

Amendment 122A not moved.

Clause 38 agreed.

Clause 39: Mayors for CCA areas: financial matters

Amendment 123 not moved.

Clause 39 agreed.

Clause 40: Alternative mayoral titles

Amendment 124 not moved.

Clause 40 agreed.

Clause 41: Alternative mayoral titles: further changes

Amendment 125 not moved.

Clause 41 agreed.

Clause 42 agreed.

Clause 43: Proposal for new CCA

Amendment 125A

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

125A: Clause 43, page 38, line 37, at end insert—
“(ba) a district council whose area is within the proposed area;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add district councils to the list of local authorities who may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA and to be able to submit such a proposal to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had at least two debates so far on the role of non-metropolitan district councils within the new framework, and I want to return to this theme for my two amendments in this group.

My concern is that district councils are essentially being marginalised in the new arrangements and excluded from being a component part of new arrangements for combined county authorities. It seems that this is part of a government trend to want to create ever-larger units of local government, undermining local democracy and the local involvement of the public. I very much agreed the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on Monday when he spoke of a “mania” in government that bigger is automatically better when it comes to local government. That is of course reinforced by the desire of many London-based quangos, public authorities and pressure groups to limit the number of local authorities they have to deal with.

It has been argued by some that larger local authorities are more efficient, but I have seen scant evidence of this. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a very telling intervention on the combined police and fire authorities, saying that so far, the four in question have performed poorly. I suspect that the main reason why Whitehall has always wanted to create larger local authorities is simply that it makes it easier for it to control local government.

Two weeks ago, in discussing his Amendment 71 to Clause 8, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded the Committee why district councils are so important. They deliver 86 out of 137 essential local government services to some 22 million people, which is 40% of the population of England. They cover such things such as waste collection, street cleaning, housing, economic development, planning, leisure, recreation, and many others. They are also better known, more popular and more trusted than other tiers of government. I remind the noble Lord that years ago, when my own Government tried to introduce regional government, starting with a referendum in the north-east, one of the key reasons why it failed was that people did not want local district councils to be abolished.

Frankly, it was a bit to my surprise and with no little consternation that I realised in preparing for this debate that in two months’ time, I will celebrate the 50th anniversary of being elected a member of Oxford City Council, in May 1973. I was in good company, since my noble friend Lord Liddle, and the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott, and Lord Patten, were similarly elected. My excitement at being elected a councillor at the age of 23 was tempered by the fact it was a shadow authority preparing to take over in 1974, when there was a major restructuring of local government. Oxford lost its county borough unitary status and became a second-tier authority, essentially subordinate to an enlarged county council that was mainly concerned with rural interests. For an international city of huge strategic importance, which I think the Chancellor emphasised again today, that was a bitter pill to swallow. It has made me very wary of a Whitehall/Westminster drive over the years to press for ever larger local government units, as evidenced by the Bill.

Our debates on district councils have so far been in relation to Clause 8(11) and the constitutional arrangements for combined county authorities, whereby non-unitary district councils are not to be classified as constituent councils. Two weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said she found it insulting that democratically elected district councils are to be aligned in the new arrangements with non-constituent bodies and put in the same category as local business groups, chambers of trade and trade union bodies, which, of course, are not elected by the public. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said he had come to the conclusion that district councils within a CCA area should become full members. My noble friend Baroness Hayman, speaking for the Opposition, said that district councils should be constituent, not non-constituent, members of a CCA to ensure they can play a full part in decision-making for their area. I think there is a growing consensus, at least in some parts of the House, that district councils need to have a greater stake in the new arrangements.

In referring to Clause 8, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, justified the Government’s exclusion of district councils by arguing that the model will provide the flexibility required for devolution to areas with two-tier local government and remove the risk of one or two district councils vetoing the wishes of the great majority for devolution. My understanding is that that has happened in only one place, which is scant evidence for excluding district councils completely from these new arrangements. The noble Earl went on to say that the Government expect the upper-tier local authorities with which they are agreeing devolution deals to work with their district councils. The problem is that it is entirely up to county councils whether they are going to embrace district councils officially.

Let me return to Monday’s debate and Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. Page 54 of the Bill states, remarkably, that non-constituent members of a combined authority can have a vote if the members of the combined authority agree to it. I take the noble Earl, Lord Howe, back to the example of Oxford, in response to which he said:

“it is entirely possible that a combined authority may have provided for an associate member—for example, a local business leader—" —[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1107.]

to have an input, and thereby a vote. He may not know it because he is so young—comparatively speaking—but up to 1974 the University of Oxford had two places on Oxford City Council, and it did appoint. Thinking of Oxfordshire in a new CCA arrangement, it is quite likely that the university will get a place as an associate member. Under these provisions, it could have a vote, and yet Oxford City Council would not. That is not justified.

In a sense, this debate is a bit of sideshow compared to the Clause 8 debate, but at least when it comes to the way applications can be made for the establishment of CCAs, surely district councils should have a formal right to play a part. Why not just give them the ability to make applications, or a recognised role in so doing? If the Government are serious about wanting a stronger incentive for districts, counties and unitaries to collaborate, surely this is one way to provide it. That is all my amendment asks for. It does not give them a veto; it says that, as elected statutory bodies, it is not unreasonable for them to be formally involved in the application process.

I hope that at the end of this Bill, we will have restored district councils to their rightful place as important local authorities with the right to participate and vote in CCAs, but also to play a part in the application process. I beg to move.

17:00

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and reiterate my perplexity at how the politician loves to know better than the people. The higher the politician goes, the more that politician loves to think that they know better than everybody else. That is not a powerful model of democracy. The idea that somehow jumbling around boundaries and structures, and who has which powers, will advance anything positively for society, or for the people, is a perplexing notion.

Some people have kindly suggested that I might want to stand for mayor of some body called Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I cannot think of anything more appalling than being stuck in some office, trying to influence an incoherent geographical structure that, if anything, thrives on its rivalry rather than on what brings it together. It is a nonsense. The notion that bigger is best for how to change things in society, whatever the Government’s agenda, is a nonsense.

I cite one example, referring, as I have before, to where I live. In neighbourhood planning, planning for rail and community planning, which district council has more such plans in place than any other? I know the answer: Bassetlaw has the most. Why does it have the most? I take a little personal credit for going out and spending many, many weeks—probably months—persuading local people that this was a good idea. It originated under a Labour Government but was put into practice with enthusiasm by coalition and Conservative Governments. I went out and sold that model to people: “Here, you can determine, at the most local level, what should happen in your area”—and people love it. The Government’s objective, which they hid away—I was more up front—was to bring forward more housing. Strangely, when local people decided what happened in their local area, they said, “Here’s where it should go” and, “That would be good”. There was not just small consent but huge consent behind it. There were remarkably high levels of agreement.

This modest amendment is on the same principle. Of course district councils have some flaws; for example, in their ability to recruit the highest grade of staff in a very competitive market. If they have someone brilliant, but it is a small unit, that person can easily be poached by a larger unit and paid more. There are some inherent weaknesses but not in the principle of where democracy lies. I would say that, across the country, the overwhelming majority of lifelong Conservative Party voters would wholeheartedly endorse this amendment, as would many more people who support other parties whole- heartedly or whose votes would float all over the place. However, if the Government do not listen to this, they are hitting their own heartland in the heart, which is not a very clever move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the cogent arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Mann. They made me almost sentimental for our time in the other place and I was taken back to the comments and speeches there from the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

Although, superficially, I can see the merit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he does not take the concept of subsidiarity into account. This is what district councils are best at doing and it is at the lower level, although the functions are important. The purpose of the Bill is to leverage funding for strategic economic benefit. It is about inward investment, strategic transport and returns to scale from, for instance, police forces and fire services working together. It is not about diminishing the role, heritage and historical legacy of district councils.

My own area, Peterborough, in 1968 was a small, semi-rural, cathedral market town. No one imagined that it was ready to become a new town and have the significant growth that it saw between then, when it was designated a new town, and the 1990s. There was massive residential housing growth, big industries coming and the expansion of Perkins Engines, Thomas Cook, et cetera. My point is that, when it was a small district council, Peterborough could not have brought that economic powerhouse and growth itself; it had to work with other agencies and the Peterborough Development Corporation.

I am not arguing for a reconfiguration of development corporations, although the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, knows a lot about how they benefited Stevenage. My point is that you have to work with these larger bodies, which are below national but above small district council level. Take another example from the county of Suffolk. Local authorities, such as St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath were tiny; they could not deliver the core functions, in a globalised world, to bring jobs, opportunities, apprenticeships and new businesses to their areas. That is the point of this legislation; it is not about diminishing the role of district councils, but about helping them better fulfil their roles and responsibilities.

I can imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mann, becoming the mayor of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I cannot think of a better candidate and am sure he would stand a good chance.

Oxford is a slightly strange example because it is, in effect, a world city. Three or four of our universities are in the world top 10, and Oxford is at the very heart of the success story of British academic repute. So Oxford is not a good example, but it obviously functions as a very important part of the greater Thames Valley, as an area of economic regeneration.

Having been a local councillor for eight years, albeit for a London borough, my heart is with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I think that the Government’s endeavours go in the right direction. Only if we can think big, work together and collaborate can we generate the economic activity, jobs and skills that will, eventually, we hope, regenerate local government and complement central government.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made very clear the key part that district councils play, in particular in local communities but also in the bigger architecture of local government outside the big cities. It is an argument that the noble Lord and these Benches have advanced before and we support it.

I like the noble Lord’s amendment, of course, but I want to move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, had to say. He was, I think, claiming credit for neighbourhood plans. I am delighted to hear that, because I usually claim credit for them and I know a number of Conservatives who always claim credit for them as well. They have been remarkably successful and have done just what they said on the tin. I have a tip for the Government; it is one that I keep making but they keep forgetting. Neighbourhood plans have been so successful that they have designated more housing sites than the local plans that they supersede in their areas. Rather than some of the gimmicks that flow through Whitehall and get into Acts of Parliament, neighbourhood plans have actually done the job and filled the gaps. I hope that that point will be registered strongly.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, made a sound point about economic development. It is clearly very important, but that brings me to my criticism of the Government’s intentions as far as it is concerned. Economic development is one of the core functions of district councils. If they are not going to be seen as an important component in delivering it, something has been missed out of the system. Clause 86(2) says that

“regard is to be had to … the development plan, and … any national development management policies.”

It would make an alteration to a preceding Act; the addition is

“any national development management policies.”

My point is that the development plan is there. If you want development, it is going to be in the development plan. Who is responsible for that? It is the district council.

We have a situation where the development plan is in the gift of the local planning authority, which is the district council in two-tier areas. The district council has statutory responsibility for housing, economic planning and, for that matter, the location of social infrastructure such as clinics, schools, colleges and so on. They are in fact integral to delivering levelling up. I cannot understand—I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us this—what the architecture is for the delivery of the national development management plans, which, as far as Clause 86 is concerned, clearly sit bang alongside the local plans of the district council.

On the face of it, the CCAs are completely bypassed. They do not have a role in deciding what the national plan is, nor in deciding what the local plan is. The connection is straight between the local planning authorities and district councils, not CCAs, when it comes to those planning decisions.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Would not the noble Lord concede that a large number of functions at the district council level, such as environmental health and planning, are delivered through the collaboration of district councils together for the reason that individual district councils do not have the resources in staffing or money to deliver them on their own? Therefore, a complex district plan being delivered by just one local authority may have been the case in the past but is not necessarily happening at the moment.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

One part of what the noble Lord says is certainly true, because a lot of local plans are not happening at the moment. All I say is that the Bill restates that development plans are a key lever, together with national development management plans. Those are in the custodianship of district councils, albeit that they may well work alongside other district councils or, for that matter, in combination with the county. I am simply making the point that the legal architecture in Clause 86 links district councils’ local plans to the national development plans, while the CCAs are not in the picture. Clearly, CCAs are intended to be the absolute economic driver for levelling up; that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. It seems odd that the principal vehicle at the local level for setting that scene—the development plan—will be outside the grip of the CCAs, for better or worse, and that the people who do the district plans will be outside the CCAs. There is a disconnect there that, frankly, disables the whole process. There I am completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Surely they should be at the heart of the process and, by the logic of that, should have the capacity to at least put forward a proposal, which would still be subject to the Secretary of State’s decision about how it might develop.

17:15

I cannot go back to 1906 or whatever the date was—1974, I think. I go back to only 1979 so I am quite young in this, but I did manage to fit in 11 years on a district council, 10 years on a county council and then eight years on a metropolitan borough, so I have a well-scarred back. If you get partnership and ownership, you can get joint endeavours and you success. If you get alienation, that is a recipe for failure. If you leave district councils out of the equation—if you make them subsidiary, just adjuncts to CCAs—I would not be surprised if, at least in some places, their co-operation was significantly less than it would be if they were active and valued partners of the CCA. I say that to the Minister because, sometimes, politics has to give way to human nature or at least has to recognise the existence of human nature, and if district councils are spurned, they are going to be less helpful and co-operative. He may say, “We’ll soon deal with that”, but that is not a recipe for success. All I say to him is that he should please give serious consideration to what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, because he is giving the Government an avenue—a gateway—to unleash that co-operation between the two tiers of local government so that CCAs in fact prosper.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling the amendment. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his 50 years in local government and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on his many years in local government. I went into local government in 1997. I was leader of my council for nearly 17 years before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I am the baby of the party here. However, I learned a few things along the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, kindly remarked. I want to cover some comments about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and to make some general points about the role of district councils in the new world that we are looking at following the Bill.

The big question here was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which is: where does democracy lie? This is a very important question. We think about it often in local councils. In previous sittings, we have heard set out clearly before your Lordships’ House the incredibly valuable role that district councils play in many of our communities in the UK, and I am grateful that this has been brought before us once again today. That is why it is so disappointing that the Bill, which purports to be all about devolution and bringing decision-making closer to people, seems to ride roughshod over the very tier of local government and the 183 councils that are closest to many people and communities. District councils outstrip county council colleagues and national government by a very long way indeed on issues such as helping people feel proud of their area, tackling social issues in our neighbourhoods, responding to and dealing with emergencies and, importantly, bringing the views of local people into decision-making in their local area. The figures are 62% for the district councils, 32% for county councils and 6%—yes, just 6%—for national government. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, district councils cover about 40% of the UK’s population but, importantly for the purposes of the Bill, they cover 68% of the land of the UK.

In this country we already have the lowest number of elected representatives per head in Europe; France has 35,000 communes with mayors and Germany has 11,000 municipalities. It is the UK that has abnormal levels of underrepresentation, and our councillors lack the powers and finances of many of our continental counterparts. Across the country we have around 2,000 electors per district councillor, which may account for their approachability, whereas there are 9,000 electors per county councillor.

They also represent communities that people recognise —I think this is key for the Bill. The comments by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, were very important here; people relate to the communities represented by our district councils. Surely the Bill should aim to keep the devolution we already have, not snatch it away to bigger and bigger combined authorities. That does not sound like progress to me.

This is not to set up any false conflict or rivalry between counties and districts. We all have a job to do and county councils are currently doing a valiant job in very trying circumstances. But with the high-cost services at county level, such as adult care services and children’s services, impacting on around just 5% of the population, whereas district council services impact on 100% of the population, it is perhaps not surprising to see how valued district councils are by their communities. As well as environmental services like the ones that my noble friend Lord Hunt commented on—waste collection, fly-tipping, street cleaning, licensing and food safety—districts look after leisure, parks and culture. They often take a role in preventive public health initiatives—in my own borough we have a Young People’s Healthy Hub tackling mental health issues for young people—town centre and high street management, tourism and so on. They also deal with key strategic services. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on this, because without key strategic services such as planning and economic development, there would be no levelling up. Leveraging £1 billion of town centre investment, as we have done in my borough, and £5 billion for a cell and gene therapy park—these are important contributions to the local area.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, referred to neighbourhood planning, which is a key part of how we drive forward issues around housing. It is well documented that it is neighbourhood planning that has actually delivered housing; it is a very important part of what has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to issues around the structure and architecture of the national development management policies. Frankly, I do not understand how this is going to work in the way it is currently set out in the Bill.

There are plenty of other contributions that district councils make. It was alarming to hear the Minister contend in our earlier session this week that

“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC.”—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]

That does not take into account the very successful partnership working between district councils and the police. As well as managing CCTV systems and often funding neighbourhood wardens, districts have extensive programs for tackling anti-social behaviour and for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and are often linked with Housing First provision, domestic abuse, engaging communities in setting local policing priorities and tackling enforcement issues in licensing, fly-tipping and environmental crime, to name but a few. During the pandemic, in two-tier areas it was often district councils that stepped up to either take on the support of those who were shielding or help mobilise hyperlocal resources to do so.

Forgive me for perhaps labouring the point a little, but the premise of the Bill, which seeks to override the very important role that district councils play in our communities, may be based on a misunderstanding or an outdated view of what district councils actually do. Of course, on planning issues, when we are looking at big strategic planning, districts have to work in partnership with other bodies—the health service, local enterprise partnerships and county councils—but I contend that this means they must have a vote and a voice around that table. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment in this group, as I have with others in earlier sessions that give district councils—and indeed town and parish councils—the voice that they deserve and that their communities expect them to have.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 125A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, brings us back to a set of issues that we have discussed in a number of our earlier debates: the question of which authorities can prepare a proposal for the establishment of a combined county authority and submit the proposal to the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to add second-tier district councils within the proposed CCA’s area to this list of authorities. However, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides that only upper-tier local authorities—county councils and unitary councils—can be constituent members of a CCA. District councils cannot be constituent members of a CCA and, as such, cannot prepare and submit a proposal for a CCA.

Let me take the Committee through the rationale for this approach. When CCAs come into being, they will ensure that there is a mechanism for strategic decision-making across a functional economic area or whole-county geography; in other words, co-operation over matters for which upper-tier local authorities already have responsibility.

In the Government’s view, therefore, it makes sense to enable upper-tier local authorities to decide, albeit following appropriate consultation, whether a CCA across a wider geographic area might offer advantages for such whole-county strategic decision-making. That is not to say that district councils should have no voice in the way a CCA comes into being; quite the contrary. While we believe that it is right for district councils not to form part of the constituent membership of a CCA, they are nevertheless key stakeholders in the devolution process. As we stated in the levelling up White Paper, while we will negotiate devolution deals with upper-tier local authorities across a functional economic area or whole-county geography, we expect county councils to work closely with the district councils in their area during the formulation of the proposal and subsequently. This is exactly what has been happening to date, and we have been pleased to see it.

How can we ensure that the voice of district councils is heard as a CCA proposal is being put together? As discussed in Committee previously, authorities proposing a CCA must undertake a public consultation on the proposal. As key local stakeholders, district councils would be consulted. Their views would be reflected in any summary of consultation responses submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration.

The task of the Secretary of State is then to assess whether the consultation has been sufficient. In doing so, the Secretary of State will have regard to whether it reflects the views of a full range of local stakeholders, including district councils should there be any. The Cabinet Office principles for public consultations are very clear that those conducting a public consultation must consult the full range of local stakeholders, not simply local residents but businesses, public authorities, voluntary sector organisations and others with a legitimate interest. If the Secretary of State, mindful of those principles and in the light of the evidence presented, deems the consultation not to be adequate, they themselves must consult on the proposal. Any such consultation would include consulting district councils.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I do not accept the principle that the district councils in an area, which are the democratically elected representatives for their people, are the same as all the other stakeholders that the noble Earl referred to and just another consultee in this process. Fundamentally, that is where the discussions we have had on this so far have given us such a deal of trouble. District councils have an elected mandate from the people they represent. I appreciate that there are very strong rules around Cabinet Office consultations and so on in the principles that the noble Earl has set out, but surely there must be a different approach to district councils because of the elected mandate that their representatives hold.

17:30

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I obviously listened with great care to the noble Baroness when she made her initial intervention. I take on board the point she made, which I understand. It was made by other noble Lords. I am trying to set out for the Committee the direction the Government are coming from in framing the Bill’s provisions.

I just want to emphasise a point that I made in an earlier debate, which may not be sufficiently appreciated. I look in particular at the noble Lord, Lord Mann. The Bill in no way removes any powers or functions of district councils, which are rightly their own sovereign bodies and will continue to exercise their own powers and functions within the broader context of the CCA. Indeed, as we have already debated, we fully expect that, in many cases, CCAs will decide to give district councils a seat at the table as non-constituent members, should they deem that this will usefully inform decision-making. It would be open to a CCA to give voting rights to such a non-constituent member, if it considered this appropriate. It is right that we should give CCAs that freedom. The sub-strategic matters for which district councils are primarily responsible will often be directly germane to the strategic issues being considered and decided on at CCA level.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for the points he made. As I am sure he is aware, we will immerse ourselves in the issues he raised on national development plans when we move to the parts of the Bill relating to planning, but I hope for now that that explanation will assist the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in understanding why—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for intervening at this late stage, having made no speech, but I would like to ask a couple of questions of my noble friend that relate to Clause 43. The first is a simple one. There is a reference to a combined authority being able to make a proposal relating to a new combined county authority. I am confused, since I understood that a combined county authority would not be able to encompass any part of the area of an existing combined authority. Is it anticipated that circumstances might arise where a combined authority would transfer some of its area to a new combined county authority? That is just a question for future reference.

Secondly, the clause includes a reference, which we have seen before, to an “economic prosperity board”—which I take in most cases to mean local enterprise partnerships—having the right to make a proposal or having the requirement to consent to a proposal for a new CCA. The Government announced in the Budget today that they intend, as they put it, to withdraw support for local enterprise partnerships from April 2024. What does this imply? How does the business community have a voice and through whom, since the Government intend the functions of the local enterprise partnerships to be devolved to local government? Would my noble friend at least agree that something might be said about this at an early stage, before we complete this section relating to what an economic prosperity board is supposed to do?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I think that my best course is to write to my noble friend on both issues. He is perfectly right that Clause 43(2)(e) refers to

“a combined authority the whole or any part of whose area is within the proposed area”

as being a body to which the section applies; that is to say, a body which may prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA for an area and submit that proposal to the Secretary of State. It would be wise of me to set down in writing the kinds of circumstances in which we envisage that particular geographic area playing a part in the formation of a CCA. On the questions my noble friend raised on economic prosperity boards, I again think it best that I should write to him.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the policy for CCA establishment and operation, as reflected in the Bill, neither belittles nor marginalises the important role played by district councils. When a CCA is formed, any district councils within its geographic radius will be important stakeholders—it is very hard to see how they could not be—albeit alongside many others. However, they cannot be a constituent member of a co-operative local government grouping whose membership is determined by reference to strategic functions and powers which are the primary province of upper-tier and unitary authorities. That is the logic.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate; I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and to the Minister for his very careful response. At heart, I come back to the contributions from my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on the importance of district councils to local democracy. It seems to me that there is a risk that they are ridden over roughshod in the Bill. I listened with care to what the Minister said at the end; it is interesting that he referred to them as being second-tier, but I am not sure that I accept that. I find that to be pejorative in itself. Housing, local planning and environmental health are not second-tier; they are the statutory body. There is a big risk here.

I have experience as a member of Birmingham City Council, where we had metropolitan counties and metropolitan district councils. To call Birmingham City Council second-tier to the then West Midlands County Council would have been greeted with absolute horror. I know that the powers were slightly different, because the met districts had more powers than the non-met districts, but the principle still arises.

I take what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said— I understand the point about leverage and economic development—but the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is surely right in saying that the district councils’ own responsibility in terms of the preparation of development plans means that, tactically if nothing else, they need to have a seat at the table. The trouble with being associates is that it really does not convey the importance that the district councils have.

I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when he talked about geographically incoherent CCAs—surely, he is right. I am afraid that I have to refer back again to 1974: the proposals were made during the Heath Government, when Peter Walker was the Environment Secretary, but it fell to the 1974 Labour Government to preside over the new arrangements.

Do noble Lords remember Avon County Council, Humberside County Council and Hereford and Worcester? They were hated because people did not accept that they were coherent authorities. Put Worcestershire and Herefordshire together and you begin to see some of the problems: these CCAs are very artificial architecture, are they not, really? We will see these large units that will appear so remote from the public. The argument here is that at the very least, surely, we should make sure that the non-met district councils have a proper role and seat at the place. There have been a number of amendments and debates, and I think that between now and Report we have to find a way to signify that district councils are important. Having said that, it has been a good debate and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 125A withdrawn.

Amendment 126 not moved.

Clause 43 agreed.

Clause 44: Requirements in connection with establishment of CCA

Amendment 127 not moved.

Clause 44 agreed.

Clause 45 agreed.

Clause 46: Requirements for changes to existing arrangements relating to CCA

Amendment 127A not moved.

Clause 46 agreed.

Clause 47 agreed.

Clause 48: Boundaries of power under section 47

Amendment 128

Moved by

[Lord Scriven]

128: Clause 48, page 43, line 18, at end insert–
“(3A) A CCA may, with the consent of its constituent authorities, request that the Chancellor of the Exchequer devolve further fiscal powers to that CCA to help its regeneration powers, and those fiscal powers may not be unreasonably withheld.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to assess the Government's willingness to empower a CCA to drive its regeneration plans forward using enhanced fiscal powers.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the only amendment in this group, Amendment 128 in my name and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley. This is a probing amendment to tease out the Government’s thinking on this issue. It was a deliberate decision to have this amendment in a group on its own because this really is the elephant in the room: fiscal devolution. We can talk about structures and systems but, without the proper levers of finance and autonomy at a local level, the structures and the systems will achieve very little and will not deliver the equalling up of areas and regions across the country.

I think we need to be clear about what this amendment is not about. This is not about handing down moneys raised by national taxation to areas so they have a little extra leeway on how that money can be spent. As welcome as this is, it is a small step that is not going to solve the regional inequalities that exist in the country. This is what the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands authority calls the “begging bowl approach”. It is nothing more than spending decentralisation. It was quite amusing, listening to the Chancellor earlier today talk about a pothole fund. The very notion that a Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up in the national Parliament to deal with potholes is ludicrous. A predetermined pot of money handed down, usually with strings from Whitehall, to have local areas determine key projects in areas to spend that money is not fiscal devolution.

It was also telling that the Chancellor today, in announcing that the West Midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities will have departmental-type arrangements, sees these arrangements as nothing more than decentralisation of central government departmental spending. It is even more telling, as has been reported in the Financial Times, I think it was, that even when the areas get this extra leeway on how the money is spent, there may be a committee set up here in Westminster to oversee how that money is prioritised and then spent. Other parts of the world that understand and implement devolution will be laughing in disbelief at this ridiculous notion of local autonomy.

17:45

Let us be clear about what this amendment does talk about and what we are trying to glean from the Government. It is about extra levers the Government are thinking of giving to local areas to either raise extra money or vary existing taxes so that they can raise money or vary the amounts of taxes in an area to invest with full autonomy in their local areas and economies to try to deal with regional inequalities.

Local taxes represent a very small proportion of the total revenue of local government in the UK. Figures indicate approximately 15% of total local revenue is raised by local taxes in the country, compared with 60% in Sweden, 45% in Italy, 48% in France, 40% in Germany and 52% in Spain. Even with this Bill, local government in the UK will still be dependent on inter-governmental transfers. Approximately 67% of local government revenue in the UK was in this form of government grants. This compares with only 31% in Sweden, 33% in Spain, 40% in Italy, 37% in Germany and 25% in France.

At the city or combined authority level, the difference becomes even more apparent, particularly in comparison to other world cities. More than 73% of the West Midlands combined authority’s revenue and almost 69% of London’s revenue come from central government transfers. This is compared with Frankfurt at 13%, Berlin at 33%, New York City at 26%, Madrid at 32%, Paris at 16% and Tokyo at 12%. The lack of any significant financial autonomy is apparent. We are the most centrally fiscally controlled nation in the western world.

As I pointed out at Second Reading, in England

“only two property-based taxes are the levers that local politicians”—[Official Report, 17/1/23; col. 1756.]

have. For one of those, council tax, a ceiling is set here in this national Parliament. For business rates, again, the valuation amount is done centrally. There are very few levers any local government can have full autonomy over here in the UK. In France, local areas have nine taxes; in Germany there are more than 12; and in New York the figure is 22. The OECD has reported that, for regional and local government to be really effective and deal with regional inequalities, local areas need to have the fiscal powers, with a split of taxes and levies based on 60% property and 40% non-property.

Again, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands combined authority is seeking a role in VAT and wants the proportion that can be held and raised to be discussed locally. Other types of revenue that are raised and varied at local level in other countries include the real estate levy, refuse levy, sewer levy, pollution levy and levies for the use of municipal land, as well as tourist levies, among others. In Germany, income tax is shared and distributed across the three levels of government. The share of the tax is not the same for every level of government, with municipal shares being the smallest. However, the principle of shared use and local autonomy over the money that is devolved is baked into how that income tax is spent. The local business tax is the most important source of revenue for local municipalities in Germany. Self-employed persons, including doctors and accountants, are exempt from it. The tax is calculated on company annual profits in the area and municipal involvement is in the tax multiplier.

I am not suggesting that all of these can or should be used here in the UK, but they are examples of what can be done when there is real political will to unleash the opportunities for local areas’ social, economic and environmental potential and to reduce regional inequalities. This can be achieved only when pinned to real fiscal devolution. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on the Government’s thinking on this issue, not just on spending decentralisation and structural changes. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate, because it goes to the heart of the discussion about whether we believe in decentralisation and about the role of local government in a decentralised country.

The levelling up White Paper says:

“We’ll usher in a revolution in local democracy.”


Later on, it states that local leaders in other countries have

“much greater revenue-raising powers”,

a point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has just made. As I said at Second Reading, there is nothing about greater revenue-raising powers in the Bill, and the probing amendment that we have just heard moved puts that right by initiating a broader discussion.

I welcome some of the announcements in the Budget about devolving more powers to mayoral authorities and allowing local authorities to retain more of the business rates, but devolving greater ability to spend central government money and keeping more of their own money is not actually the move towards a more self-sufficient, independent and confident local government that many of us would like to see.

I take this opportunity to briefly restate a suggestion that I made in January. Over the next 10 years, some £25 billion in fuel duty will disappear as we all buy electric vehicles, and the revenue foregone will be met by road pricing, now made possible by in-car technology —a transition that successive Governments have ducked but, I suspect, will not be able to duck much longer. However, that revenue from road pricing should not go to the Treasury or central government; it should complement the existing revenue from parking and congestion charges, where it would logically sit, and go to the larger units of local government which we have been debating today. That would give local government greater autonomy and a sounder basis for local taxation than the increasingly discredited and out-of-date council tax.

There are other ways of raising local revenue, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, touched on a few. However, in replying to this debate, I wonder whether my noble friend can show just a little bit of ankle on the Government’s thinking—whether they are really interested in empowering genuine local democracy by giving the sort of powers implied in this amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this very good and interesting probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young, who I know has great expertise in local government. We represented different parts of the London Borough of Ealing in different capacities over many years.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has not compared apples with apples but apples with pears. We are a unitary state—we are not a federal state like Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy or France, where they have regional government and a culture of accretion of power to the local level. Therefore, we have to have some central sanction and control of the disbursal of funds. So I do not think that the noble Lord is necessarily comparing the situation that we are in wholly accurately.

However, the noble Lord makes a very astute point about the hoarding of power, particularly financial power, by the Treasury. Any Minister will tell you that, over the years, the Treasury has not wanted to give power away and has wanted to bring in power. The noble Lord is absolutely right that far too much of the funding of core local services is in effect subject to the begging-bowl approach, as enunciated by Andy Street, the executive mayor of the West Midlands.

The problem with the situation that we now have—the disparity of local councils being responsible to their electorate for decisions, in effect, taken centrally—is that central government of whatever party is in power gets the income in and can make those judgments based on its manifesto, but it is local councillors and officers who are accountable and often take the brickbats for failures. For instance, many people have argued for many years about residential real estate investment trusts leveraging private sector money to provide new, good-quality housing for young people in particular. The Treasury has never really advanced that properly, and local government could be very much involved in it. Social care is another area. All Governments should look at tax breaks for providing extra care facilities—in terms of nutrition, housing, exercise and so on—for old people from the age of 60 all the way through to death, as many countries have across the world. That is an example of a central government policy that could also help local government.

I have great sympathy for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I hope there is further debate on it. It cannot be right that we cannot follow other modern liberal democracies such as the United States where local authorities and mayors have the capacity, for instance, to raise funds for the issuance of bonds, local infrastructure and capital projects. We have very restrictive financial and legal rules in this country that prevent us doing the same. On that basis, we have begun a good debate and I look to my noble friends on the Front Bench to run with it and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, show some ankle, as it is long overdue.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we have begun the debate. That is the intention of this probing amendment, because we must have it.

Today’s Budget decentralises—but does not devolve—some powers, although not fiscal ones, to combined authorities, which is welcome but comparatively minor. In other words, if a combined authority was able to adjust a block grant and make different decisions on how to commit expenditure from it, that would be welcome. However, it is not a fiscal policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, it would be helpful if the Government could explain their thinking on devolving real fiscal powers.

I would pick up the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on one statement. He said that we are not a unitary state. That would be hard to explain in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and it goes to the heart of the problem as I see it. Substantial devolved powers, including fiscal ones, reside in Scotland, Wales and, theoretically, Northern Ireland that do not apply in England. Yet England is a country of 56 million people. It is far too big to operate out of centralised control in Whitehall, but there is a very strong argument for saying that, in terms of Treasury control and the Government’s desire to do things on a hub and spoke model in which all the financial resources are controlled in London, England is a unitary state.

I want to add one thing to the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the other contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which I really appreciated. Can the Government explain why Scotland and Wales can have fiscal powers but no constituent part of England is permitted to have them? That is the nub of the problem, and it is why starting the debate on this issue is very important.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to add to the political breadth of this debate and to offer Green support for the introduction of this amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley. Localism is at the absolute heart of Green politics, but I think we have seen right across your Lordships’ Chamber a great desire for an end in England to the incredible concentration of power and resources in Westminster.

18:00

It is noteworthy that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cited the Tory Mayor of the West Midlands. I will cite a 2020 report from the Local Government Association entitled Fiscal Devolution, and I should declare at this point that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The foreword of that report, written by the then Conservative chair of the Local Government Association People and Places Board, says that greater fiscal freedom is “crucial” for “genuine devolution”. So that is another Conservative voice adding to the voices we have heard from around your Lordships’ Chamber.

To pick up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, some of the comparisons made have been with federal states, which are quite different from England. The report, however, looks extensively at the Netherlands, which is much more comparable, and how its model of local tax-raising powers is used to meet local needs. It is worth thinking about: we do not want a race to the bottom—certainly the Greens do not—but we could see a race to the top. There is increasingly huge competition for human resources—for people—and to be a desirable, attractive, healthy place to live. We could see a real race to the top if local councils had the power to raise funds by themselves and use them according to their own preferences.

It is interesting that we are conducting this debate on the day of the Budget. About an hour ago, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities issued a press release entitled “Levelling up at heart of Budget”. It trumpets investment zones, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go; it trumpets levelling-up partnerships, in respect of which Westminster is to decide where the money will go. Westminster is very much keeping control of the purse strings. This is not any kind of devolution of power or resources. Those two things have to go together; otherwise, devolution is meaningless.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley for raising this important part of the levelling-up agenda. I of course also thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for linking it to the estimable White Paper on levelling up which, in many ways, has pointed to the importance of full devolution being equated with autonomy over local funding.

At the moment—I have probably said this before in the Chamber—we have the delegation of powers and funding from the centre to local government, be it combined authorities or local councils. This is therefore an important debate because, if we really want to be on the path to devolution, we have to address the issue of more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government.

The Minister may wish to pause at this point and take time over the weekend to refer to a House of Commons report that called for more autonomy and fiscal powers for local government. To be fair, it is 10 years old but sometimes, these big changes take a long time. It was published by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was of course all-party. I draw the Minister’s attention to two elements of the conclusion, and I hope she will then have time to read more of it:

“Power and finance must go together if local government is to become an equal partner… any attempt to make the relationship between central and local government more balanced would be meaningless without giving local government its own source of revenue… to achieve fully the potential of localism, a key plank of the Government’s policy platform, local government requires financial freedoms.”


The report stated that the Government, under the same political colours as now, should consider giving local authorities in England a share of the existing income tax for England. The committee did not propose a change in income tax rates, but:

“The concept of tax transparency would allow local people to see more clearly what their taxes pay for locally and encourage them to hold local councils to account for their expenditure.”


I agree. There is obviously much more in that report.

The debate here is about having real devolution. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can have it, why not Yorkshire, the population of which is bigger than each of them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Why not Hertfordshire, with a population of 1.2 million people? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young, for drawing us back to the White Paper and the ambition contained therein. One of the key themes of discussion on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill so far has been the missed opportunity to tackle some of the critical financial issues that, in my view, are holding local government back from playing as full a part as it can in delivering the Bill’s stated agenda and missions. There is a significant lack of ambition in not taking this further, described by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as the elephant in the room. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted that a key aspect of this is the extent to which the Government seek to reduce the current chronic overcentralisation of decision-making in the UK by empowering CCAs with enhanced fiscal powers. A great deal more could be done in that regard.

In the probing and thoughtful report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the LGA carried out a comparative study of fiscal devolution in the UK, Holland, Germany and Switzerland. It concluded that the UK should be working with local government to explore the full extent of fiscal devolution and what it could add to ensure that authorities have the strongest financial muscle to deliver what they know their areas most need. Commenting on the Netherlands, for example, the report says that

“fiscal freedom means that the broad suite of local taxes available to Dutch municipalities, and their tendency to collaborate cross borders, gives local government more placemaking levers while also providing residents with greater transparency on council finances. Fiscal freedom means a difference between money for core services and for place-specific social and cultural issues. It does not argue for fiscal autonomy with the idea that local government can become fiscally self-sustaining units of tax and spend but focuses on the potential that revenue-raising could have for placemaking.”

That goes right to the heart of this argument.

Even with the so-called trail-blazer authorities in Manchester and the West Midlands, one often gets the impression that achieving the fiscal freedoms they feel they need to serve their communities is like getting blood out of a stone. In previous sessions we commented frequently on the regressive, unhelpful and expensive method of creating multiple funding pots that means councils have to waste their precious funds pulling bids together.

If the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, were adopted, or something very similar to it, it would set into legislation the devolution of fiscal powers that, in my view, should always have been in the Bill. On Budget Day, it is important to say that no one in local government believes that a magic money tree is coming our way. I quote the LGA report again:

“Fiscal devolution entails the same suite of local taxes as we currently have in the UK, except with a higher level of devolution of central taxes. Unlike with fiscal freedom, this would not necessitate the introduction of ‘new’ taxes, but rather a reconsideration of the obligations and duties of each level of government. If fiscal devolution deals were done on the basis of local need for finance, following this German model would mean local authorities could fund their own care services in line with their own requirements.”


Europe also benefits from federalised banking institutions. How much more ambitious could local government be if that were the case here?

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to all finance being controlled from London. I am pleased to say that, in Wales, the Labour Government have already developed this and are making great strides in developing local banking institutions. Incidentally, Wales is also undertaking a comprehensive review of council tax.

Earlier this week a Question was asked in your Lordships’ House on the huge potential of pension funds in contributing to fiscal devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke about the extent to which local government and local decision-making is controlled by national finance, with council tax set by Parliament, business rates set by the Treasury and even rents set by DLUHC. That does not make any sense. It is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, to end up needing a pothole fund. When that announcement was made earlier today in the Budget, my first comment was, “Why don’t you fund local government properly? Then we could fix our own potholes.”

These revenue-raising powers are important to local government. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly pointed at self-sufficient, independent and confident local government, and finding ways of delivering that through a different fiscal settlement. That is really important. We are not a federal state, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said, but surely an aim of the Bill must be to create the kind of state where we can have a much more effective system of fiscal devolution, with local government having the freedoms to fund itself properly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Baroness is making a very good point, but she will no doubt agree with me that sometimes things go wrong— for instance in the recent experiences in Slough and Thurrock —with inappropriate spending or error. In the absence of the Audit Commission, which I remind noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches was abolished under the coalition Government, surely there must be some sanction at central government for inappropriate expenditure. It may be just incompetence, and not even at a criminal level. In the absence of an equivalent to the National Audit Office for local government, there must be ways for Ministers to exercise discretion on financial issues in local government on behalf of taxpayers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not disagree that audit is required. We debated that earlier on the Bill. The authorities mentioned are Conservative authorities, as in Northampton, where my good friends in Corby lost their council because of the actions of a council of another political persuasion. That is a political point, which I probably should not make here.

A proper consideration of the role of further fiscal powers, with full engagement of local government— I am not suggesting that this is done to us because it would go against all the principles that we are talking about—could provide the basis for an empowered, innovative and dynamic shift for CCAs and their constituent members, sitting alongside the completion of the fair funding review, which has been outstanding for years now and which we have discussed previously.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, relates to the potential fiscal powers of combined county authorities, although we were slowly moving into a debate on English devolution, which we should leave for another time.

As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, level 3 devolution deal areas can look to finance local initiatives for residents and businesses. These include regeneration through a mayoral precept on council tax, and supplements on business rates. The Government are already considering putting powers in the hands of local people through greater fiscal freedoms and are exploring this further fiscal devolution, initially through the trail-blazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing well. It says in my notes that they are expected to conclude in early 2023, so I assume that it will be very soon.

18:15

Clauses 16 and 17 already provide the mechanism for such fiscal powers to be conferred on to a combined county authority where the Secretary of State considers that doing so meets the statutory tests—that is important; I think it is what my noble friend Lord Jackson was talking about—where the area consents, and where Parliament approves. I therefore suggest that there is no need for an addition to Clause 48, which relates to the boundaries of a CCA’s general powers.

I want to answer the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on these small competitive funding pots. I know that noble Lords are particularly concerned about the ones for levelling up. The Government recognise the inefficiencies in and complexity of the decision-making and reporting burdens that result from this number of local funding pots and the strings attached to them. I have to say, some competitive funding for individual pots can be a good thing; for example, it can support innovation. We recognise that a number of different funds have become difficult for councils to navigate and deliver. As the Levelling-Up Secretary told the committee last year, ideally, we would like to move to a situation where there are fewer funding streams; we are working on that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that, when the Bill passes, I will certainly read the report. However, at the moment, all my reading time is taken up with the Bill.

I hope that the explanation I have given reassures noble Lords that the Bill already captures the amendment’s intent, and that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has shown that this is not a party-political issue, but an issue for those of us who believe that you cannot deal with levelling up unless you give real fiscal powers to local areas that require them, to be able to make autonomous decisions in the locality on where to invest and where to make the biggest changes. It is also about stopping this particular view in England that local areas have to look to Westminster to be able to make decisions that many local areas across the vast majority of the western world, whether they are federal or not, can take.

I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Shipley said: we are not a unitary state. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, fiscal devolution exists. We are talking predominantly about 56 million people in England, where fiscal devolution is totally off the table at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, was quite right to point out that, in itself, the Bill does not bring about fiscal devolution; it brings about departmental decentralisation, with predetermined spending limits being able to be made a little differently at the local level. Everything that the Minister said reinforces that view. Nothing in the Bill significantly gives further fiscal devolution to local areas if they so wish. In fact, she made the same mistake again: she talked about the trail-blazers in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester that have been announced today. As welcome as they are, they are not fiscal devolution. They are the decentralisation of departmental spending decisions; that is the fundamental issue.

This debate, on all sides of the Chamber, has stipulated that the Government are not going far enough and the Bill does not go far enough. We may have to return to this on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128 withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed.

Clauses 49 to 52 agreed.

Clause 53: Guidance

Amendments 129 and 130 not moved.

Clause 53 agreed.

Clause 54 agreed.

Schedule 4: Combined County Authorities: Consequential Amendments

Amendments 131 to 154

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

131: Schedule 4, page 266, line 6, at end insert—
“Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)
A1 In section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Trustee Investments Act 1961 (c. 62)
A2 In section 11(4)(a) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (local authority investment schemes), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Records) Act 1962 (c. 56)
A3 The Local Government (Records) Act 1962 is amended as follows.A4 In section 2(6) (acquisition and deposit of records), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.A5 In section 8(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
A6 In section 28(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (retention or resumption of land required for public purposes), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)
A7 The Transport Act 1968 is amended as follows.A8 (1) Section 9 (Areas, Authorities and Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (a)(i), after “a combined authority area” insert “or a combined county authority area”;(b) after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) any reference to a “combined county authority” is to an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 for an area which is or includes a metropolitan county;(ad) any reference to a “combined county authority area” is to an area for which a combined county authority is established;”;(c) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ia) insert—“(iaa) in relation to a combined county authority area, the combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”. (4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(5) In subsection (5) for “or a combined authority area” substitute “a combined authority area or a combined county authority area”.A9 In section 9A (general functions of Authorities and Executives), in each of subsections (3), (5), (6)(a) and (b), (7) and (8), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A10 (1) Section 10 (general powers of Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (5), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A11 In section 10A(1) (further powers of Executives), for “or combined authority area” substitute “, combined authority area or combined county authority area”.A12 In section 12(1) (borrowing powers of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A13 In section 14(1) (accounts of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A14 (1) Section 15 (further functions of Authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (6), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A15 In section 16(1) (annual report by Authority and Executive), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A16 (1) Section 20 (special duty with respect to railway passengers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2A), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A17 (1) Section 23 (consents of, or directions, by Minister) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A18 In section 56(6) (assistance by Minister or local authority towards expenditure on public transport), after paragraph (bc) insert—“(bd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”A19 (1) Schedule 5 (Passenger Transport Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In Part 2, in paragraph 2, after “the combined authority area”, in both places it occurs, insert “, the combined county authority area”.(3) In Part 3, in paragraph 11, after “a combined authority area”, insert “, a combined county authority area”.Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (c. 2)
A20 In section 1(3) of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (provision for grants), for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (c. 57)
A21 In section 3(2)(b) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (employers exempted from insurance), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)
A22 In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (provision for grants), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

132: Schedule 4, page 266, line 8, at end insert—
“1A “(1) Section 70 (restriction on promotion of Bills for changing local government areas, etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.1B In section 80(2)(b) (disqualification for election and holding office as member of local authority), after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.1C In section 85(4) (vacation of office by failure to attend meetings), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1D In section 86(2) (declaration of vacancy by local authority), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.1E In section 92(7) (proceedings for disqualification)—(a) for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”, and(b) for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.1F In section 99 (meetings and proceedings of local authorities), after “combined authorities,” insert “combined county authorities,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

133: Schedule 4, page 267, line 10, at end insert—
“3A In section 138C(1) (application of sections 138A and 138B to other authorities), after paragraph (n) insert—“(na) a combined county authority;”.3B In section 142(1B) (provision of information relating to matters affecting local government), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3C (1) Section 146A (joint authorities etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in the opening words, after “(1ZE)” insert “, (1ZEA)”, and (b) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (1ZB), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(4) After subsection (1ZE) insert—“(1ZEA) A combined county authority is not to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 111 (but see section 47 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023).”3D In section 175(3B) (allowances for attending conferences and meetings), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.3E In section 176(3) (payment of expenses), for “and a combined authority” substitute “a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3F In section 223(2) (appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3G In section 224(2) (arrangements by principal councils for custody of documents), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.3H In section 225(3) (deposit of documents with proper officer), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3I In section 228(7A) (inspection of documents), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3J In section 229(8) (photographic copies of documents) after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3K In section 230(2) (reports and returns), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.3L In section 231(4) (service of notice on local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3M In section 232(1A) (public notices), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3N In section 233(11) (service of notices by local authorities), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3P In section 234(4) (authentication of documents), after “a combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.3Q In section 236(1) (procedure for byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3R In section 236B(1) (revocation of byelaws), after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) a combined county authority.”3S In section 238 (evidence of byelaws), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.3T In section 239(4A) (power to promote or oppose bills), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

134: Schedule 4, page 267, line 14, at end insert—
“4A In Part 1A of Schedule 12 (meetings and proceedings of joint authorities etc), in paragraph 6A, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a consequential amendment to Schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

135: Schedule 4, page 267, line 14, at end insert—
“Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35)
4B In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (interpretation), after paragraph (fzc) insert—“(fzd) the exercise by a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 of any of its functions;”Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
4C The Local Government Act 1974 is amended as follows.4D In section 25(1) (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (cf) insert—“(cg) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4E (1) Section 26C (referral of complaints by authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) in relation to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, a member of a constituent council of the authority;”(3) After subsection (8) insert—“(9) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g)—(a) a county council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the county council, or part of that area, is within the area of the combined county authority;(b) a district council is a constituent council of a combined county authority if the area of the district council is within the area of the combined county authority.”Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (c. 37)
4F In section 28(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (restrictions on disclosure of information), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
4G In section 44 of the Local Government Act 1976 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (a), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”;(b) in paragraph (c), after “section 103 of that Act, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)
4H In section 5(3) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (no statutory tenancy where landlord’s interest belongs to local authority), after paragraph (bbzb) insert—“(bbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Rent Act 1977 (c. 42)
4I In section 14(1) of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord’s interest belonging to local authority etc), after paragraph (cbc) insert— “(cbd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c. 43)
4J In section 3A(8) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (excluded tenancies and licences), after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)
4K The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.4L In section 2(1) (duty of authorities to publish information), after paragraph (kac) insert—“(kad) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4M In section 98(8A) (disposal of land at direction of Secretary of State), after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4N In section 99(4) (directions to dispose of land), after paragraph (dbzb) insert—“(dbzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”4P In section 100(1)(a) (interpretation and extent of Part 10), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.4Q In Schedule 16 (bodies to whom Part 10 applies), after paragraph 5BZB insert—“5BZBA A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)
4R In section 4C(4) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (power of senior traffic commissioner to give guidance and directions), in paragraph (e), after “of combined authorities” insert “established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, of combined county authorities established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c. 67)
4S In section 17(4)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (local authority land), in the definition of “local authority”, for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)
4T The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 is amended as follows.4U In section 33(9) (enforceability by local authorities of covenants relating to land)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”; (b) in paragraph (b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4V In section 41(13) (lost and uncollected property), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (ezb) insert—“(ezba) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Stock Transfer Act 1982 (c. 41)
4W In Schedule 1 to the Stock Transfer Act 1982 (specified securities), in paragraph 7(2)(a), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28)
4X In section 60(3) of the County Courts Act 1984 (rights of audience), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51)
4Y The Local Government Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YA In section 72(5) (accounts and audit), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”4YB In section 73(2) (financial administration), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 1985 (c. 67)
4YC The Transport Act 1985 is amended as follows.4YD In section 27A(7)(b) (additional powers where service not operated as registered), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.4YE In section 64(1)(a) (consultation with respect to policies), after “combined authority,” insert “combined county authority,”.4YF In section 93(8)(b) (travel concession schemes), for “and a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.4YG In section 106(4) (grants for transport facilities and services), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) any combined county authority;”.4YH In section 137 (general interpretation), after subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) References in this Act to a combined county authority are references to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)
4YI (1) Section 4 of the Housing Act 1985 (other descriptions of authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(e), after “combined authority,” insert “a combined county authority,”.(3) In subsection (2), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;” Housing Associations Act 1985 (c. 69)
4YJ In section 106(1) (minor definitions) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, in the definition of “local authority”—(a) for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”;(b) after “such a combined authority,” insert “such a combined county authority,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c. 70)
4YK In section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (minor definitions), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10)
4YL The Local Government Act 1986 is amended as follows.4YM In section 6(2)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 2), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.4YN In section 9(1)(a) (interpretation and application of Part 3), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c. 31)
4YP In section 58(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (exempt landlords and resident landlords), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)
4YQ In Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1988 (public supply or works contracts: the public authorities), after the entry for a combined authority established under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and on a new line, insert “A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

136: Schedule 4, page 268, line 15, at end insert—
“Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)
9A The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.9B In section 74(8) (transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts), after paragraph (fc) insert—“(fd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”9C In Schedule 1 (tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies), in paragraph 12(2), after paragraph (fb) (and before the “and” at the end of that paragraph) insert— “(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
9D In section 144(2)(a)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security), for “or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Housing Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

137: Schedule 4, page 268, line 16, at end insert—
“9E The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces the consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

138: Schedule 4, page 268, line 17, leave out “of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 268, line 16.

139: Schedule 4, page 268, line 20, at end insert—
“10A In section 152(2) (interpretation), after paragraph (izb) insert—“(izc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10B In section 157(6) (periodic payments of grants)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (j), and(b) after paragraph (k) insert—“(l) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”10C (1) Schedule 1 (political balance on local authority committees etc) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2(1), for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.(3) In paragraph 4(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant authority”, for “(jb)” substitute “(jba)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

140: Schedule 4, page 268, line 20, at end insert—
“Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)
10D The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.10E In section 252(12) (procedure for making orders), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.10F In Schedule 14 (procedure for footpaths and bridleways orders), in paragraph 1(3), in the definition of “council”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”. Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)
10G In section 54(1)(e)(ii) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (duty to give information), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

141: Schedule 4, page 268, line 37, at end insert—
“Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (c. 25)
13A In section 1(10) of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power to provide advice and assistance), after paragraph (dzb) insert—“(dzc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Railways Act 1993 (c. 43)
13B The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.13C In section 25(1) (public sector operators not to be franchisees)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.13D In section 149(5) (service of documents), in the definition of “local authority”, for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40)
13E In section 79A of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (meaning of “local authority”: England), after paragraph (mb) insert—“(mc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)
13F After section 86B of the Environment Act 1995 insert—“86C Role of combined county authorities in relation to action plans(1) Where a local authority in the area of a combined county authority intends to prepare an action plan it must notify the combined county authority.(2) Where a combined county authority has been given a notification under subsection (1) by a local authority, the combined county authority must, before the end of the relevant period, provide the local authority with proposals for particular measures the combined county authority will take to contribute to the achievement, and maintenance, of air quality standards and objectives in the area to which the plan relates.(3) Where a combined county authority provides proposals under subsection (2), the combined county authority must— (a) in those proposals, specify a date for each particular measure by which it will be carried out, and(b) as far as is reasonably practicable, carry out those measures by those dates.(4) An action plan prepared by a local authority in the area of a combined county authority must set out any proposals provided to it under subsection (2) (including the dates specified by virtue of subsection (3)(a)).(5) In this section “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53)
13G In section 3(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (ineligible applicants), after paragraph (jc) insert—“(jd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
13H In section 17(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (duty to consider crime and disorder implications), after “a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”, and on a new line, insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

142: Schedule 4, page 269, line 5, at end insert—
“Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
14A In section 211(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (public sector operators)—(a) after paragraph (ca) insert—“(cb) any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(b) in paragraph (d), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
14B In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), after paragraph 19B insert—“19C A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Transport Act 2000 (c. 38)
14C The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.14D In section 108(4) (local transport plans), after paragraph (ca) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(cb) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”14E (1) Section 109 (further provision about local transport plans in England) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2A), in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (2B)—(a) in the opening words, for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”; (b) in paragraph (a), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”;(c) in paragraph (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14F (1) Section 113 (role of metropolitan district councils) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.(3) in subsection (2A), in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14G In section 123A(4) (franchising schemes)—(a) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA;”;(b) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (e);(c) at the end of paragraph (f) insert “, or(g) a combined county authority which is not a mayoral CCA.”;(d) in the words after paragraph (g), for “(f)” substitute “(g)”.14H In section 123C(2) (consent of the Secretary of State and notice)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “,(c) the area of a mayoral CCA, or(d) the combined area of two or more mayoral CCAs.”14I In section 123G (response to consultation), after subsection (4) insert—“(5) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed franchising scheme is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to make a scheme jointly with one or more other franchising authorities).”14J In section 123M (variation of scheme), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed variation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to vary a scheme).”14K In section 123N (revocation of scheme), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) If a franchising authority are a mayoral CCA, the function of deciding whether to make a proposed revocation is a function of the combined county authority exercisable only by the mayor acting on behalf of the combined county authority (including in a case where the decision is to act jointly to revoke a scheme).”14L (1) Section 157 (grants to Integrated Transport Authorities and combined authorities) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(3) After subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants to a combined county authority for the purpose of enabling the authority to carry out any of their functions.”14M (1) Section 162 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““mayoral CCA” has the meaning given by section 25(8) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14N (1) Section 163 (road user charging schemes: preliminary) is amended as follows.(2) In each of subsections (3)(bb), (3)(cc) and (4A), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) After subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) In this Part “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”14P (1) Section 164 (local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14Q (1) Section 165 (joint local charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14R In section 165A(1)(b) (joint local-ITA charging schemes), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14S (1) Section 166 (joint local-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) in the opening words, for “or the area of a combined authority” substitute “, the area of a combined authority or the area of a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.14T (1) Section 166A (joint ITA-London charging schemes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)(b), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (3)(b), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14U In section 167(2)(b) (trunk road charging schemes), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.14V In section 168(2) (charging schemes to be made by order)— (a) after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) for “or the combined authority” substitute “, the combined authority or the combined county authority”.14W (1) Section 170 (charging schemes: consultation and inquiries) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1A)(b), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.(3) In subsection (7)(a), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14X In section 177A(1) (power to require information), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14Y In section 193(1) (guidance), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.14YA In section 194 (information), in each of subsections (1), (2) and (6), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.14YB In section 198(1) (interpretation of Part 3), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” has the meaning given by section 163 (5B);”.14YC (1) Schedule 12 (road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions) is amended as follows.(2) In each of paragraphs 2(4), 3(2) and 7(5)(c), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(3) In paragraph 8(3)(aa), for “and combined authorities” substitute “, combined authorities and combined county authorities”.(4) In paragraph 8(4)(aa), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 11A—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for “or combined authority’s” substitute “, combined authority’s or combined county authority’s”;(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after “combined authority” insert “or combined county authority”.(6) In each of paragraphs 11B(1) and 11C(1) and (3), for “or a combined authority” substitute “, a combined authority or a combined county authority”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

143: Schedule 4, page 270, line 8, at end insert—
“Courts Act 2003 (c. 39)
18A In section 41(6) of the Courts Act 2003 (disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities), after paragraph (eb) insert—“(ec) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5)
18B The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is amended as follows.18C In section 27A (default powers), in the heading and in the section, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.18D (1) Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London, combined authority or county council) is amended as follows. (2) In the heading, after “combined authority” insert “, combined county authority”.(3) After paragraph 7 insert—“Default powers exercisable by combined county authority
7ZA In this Schedule—“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“constituent planning authority” in relation to a combined county authority, means—(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined county authority, or(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined county authority.7ZB If the Secretary of State—(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and(b) invites the combined county authority to prepare or revise the document,the combined county authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.7ZC (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined county authority under paragraph 7ZB.(2) The combined county authority must hold an independent examination.(3) The combined county authority—(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.(4) The combined county authority may—(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.7ZD (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 7ZC(2)—(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined county authority, and(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).(2) The combined county authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 7ZB or 7ZC(4).(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined county authority—(a) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;(b) for any expenditure that the combined county authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 7ZC(2). (4) In the case of a joint local development document or a joint development plan document, the combined county authority may apportion liability for the expenditure on such basis as the authority considers just between the authorities for whom the document has been prepared.”(4) In paragraph 8—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (b) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(ba) under paragraph 7ZB by a combined county authority,”;(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a)—(i) after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”;(d) in sub-paragraph (5), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(e) in sub-paragraph (7)—(i) in paragraph (b), after “6(4)(a)” insert “, 7ZC(4)(a)”;(ii) in the words after paragraph (b), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(5) In paragraph 9(3), after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(6) In paragraph 12, after “the combined authority” insert “, the combined county authority”.(7) In paragraph 13(1), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”.Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)
18E In section 1 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire and rescue authorities), for subsection (5) substitute—“(5) This section is also subject to—(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act;(b) an order under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 which transfers the functions of a fire and rescue authority to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of that Act.”Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
18F In section 50(7) of the Children Act 2004 (intervention - England), after “combined authority”, in each place where it occurs, insert “or combined county authority”.Railways Act 2005 (c. 14)
18G In section 33(2) of the Railways Act 2005 (closure requirements), after paragraph (da) insert—“(db) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Childcare Act 2006 (c. 21)
18H In section 15 of the Childcare Act 2006 (powers of Secretary of State to secure proper performance), after subsection (6A) insert—“(6B) If any functions of an English local authority under this Part are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—(a) a reference in any of subsections (3) to (6) to an English local authority includes a reference to the combined county authority, and (b) a reference in those subsections to functions under this Part is, in relation to the combined county authority, to be read as a reference to those functions so far as exercisable by the combined county authority.”Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40)
18I (1) Section 123 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (education and training to which Chapter 3 of Part 8 applies) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (ea) insert—“(eb) further education for persons aged 19 or over which is wholly or partly funded by a combined county authority;”.(3) For subsection (5), substitute—“(5) In this section—“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

144: Schedule 4, page 270, line 11, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—
“20 In section 7A(2) (exercise of Secretary of State's public health functions), after paragraph (d) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(da) a combined county authority,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the consequential amendment to section 7A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the substitution of that section by the Health and Care Act 2022.

145: Schedule 4, page 270, line 16, at end insert—
“20A In section 12ZB(7) (procurement regulations), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.20B In section 13UA(2) (guidance about joint appointments)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, or(d) one or more relevant NHS body and one or more combined county authority.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

146: Schedule 4, page 270, line 17, leave out paragraphs 21 and 22
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential amendments to sections 13ZA and 14Z3A of the National Health Service Act 2006 as a result of the repeals of those sections by the Health and Care Act 2022.

147: Schedule 4, page 270, line 31, at end insert—
“22A In section 65Z5(1) (joint working and delegation arrangements), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.”22B In section 65Z6(1) (joint committees and pooled funds), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

148: Schedule 4, page 271, line 33, at end insert—
“Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (c. 13)
25A In section 9(6)(b) of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (variation of reimbursement etc), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”.Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c. 28)
25B The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended as follows.25C In section 23(1) (definitions for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1), in the definition of “public body”, after paragraph (g) insert—“(h) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”25D In section 104(2) (application of Chapter 1 of Part 5: partner authorities), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts consequential amendments to the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

149: Schedule 4, page 273, line 25, at end insert—
“30A “(1) Section 102E (power to establish STBs) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (6), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) the area of a combined county authority,”.30B In section 102F(7) (requirements in connection with regulations under section 102E), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30C In section 102G(10) (constitution of STBs), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in the case of a combined county authority, are the mayor for the area of the combined county authority (if there is one) and those members of the authority who are appointed from among the elected members of the authority's constituent councils (see section 8(4)(b) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023);”30D In section 102I(7) (transport strategy of an STB), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority;”.30E In section 102J(7) (exercise of local transport functions), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a combined county authority;”.30F In section 102U, at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a body established as a combined county authority under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Local Transport Act 2008 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

150: Schedule 4, page 273, line 28, at end insert—
“31A In section 35(2) (mutual insurance: supplementary), after paragraph (r) insert—“(s) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a further consequential amendment to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

151: Schedule 4, page 274, line 24, at end insert—
“Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (c. 22)
37A The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.37B (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1AA) insert—“(1AB) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1)) to any of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in respect of functions under this Part that are exercisable by a combined county authority by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(3) In subsection (5), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37C (1) Section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (fb) insert—“(fc) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;(fd) a person providing services to a combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (5)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “, or(e) any function of a combined authority under Part 4 that is exercisable by it by virtue of regulations made under section 17(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (c. 2)
37D The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.37E In section 40(6) (access to local government meetings and documents), after paragraph (ja) insert—“(jb) a combined county authority,”.37F In section 44(1) (interpretation of Act), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”37G In Schedule 2, after paragraph 28 insert—“28ZA A combined county authority.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

152: Schedule 4, page 274, line 25, at end insert—
“37H The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 is amended as follows.37I (1) Section 1 (devolution: annual report) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “this Act” insert “or Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.(3) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (c), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (e), after “combined authorities” insert “, combined county authorities”.(4) In subsection (4), after the definition of “combined authority” insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts further consequential amendments to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

153: Schedule 4, page 274, line 26, leave out “of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook at page 274, line 25.

154: Schedule 4, page 275, line 13, at end insert—
Policing and Crime Act 2017 (c. 3)
39 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.40 In section 3 (collaboration agreements: specific restrictions), after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 may only enter into a collaboration agreement where the functions of the authority to which the agreement relates are functions of a fire and rescue authority that the combined county authority is entitled to exercise.”41 In section 5(5) (collaboration agreements: definitions)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) a combined county authority that exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 16 or 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or(e) an elected mayor who exercises the functions of a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 28 of that Act.”Technical and Further Education Act 2017 (c. 19)
42 The Technical and Further Education Act 2017 is amended as follows.43 In Schedule 3 (conduct of education administration: statutory corporations)—(a) in paragraph 13(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 38(c)— (i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.44 In Schedule 4 (conduct of education administration: companies)—(a) in paragraph 12(b), in the inserted paragraph (ab), for “or combined authority” substitute “, combined authority or combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph 36(c)—(i) after the definition of “combined authority”, insert—“““combined county authority” means an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”,”(ii) in the definition of “director of children’s services”, in paragraph (b), after “a combined authority” insert “or a combined county authority”.Bus Services Act 2017 (c. 21)
45 In section 22(3) of the Bus Services Act 2017 (bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England), in the definition of “relevant authority”, after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Digital Economy Act 2017 (c. 30)
46 The Digital Economy Act 2017 is amended as follows.47 In Schedule 4 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of section 35), after paragraph 14 insert—“14A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”48 In Schedule 5 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 8 insert—“8A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”49 In Schedule 6 (public service delivery: specified persons for the purposes of sections 36 and 37), after paragraph 7 insert—“7A A combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”Data Protection Act 2018 (c.12)
50 In Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (special categories of personal data and criminal convictions etc data), in paragraph 23(3), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (c. 18)
51 (1) Section 12 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (duty to consider making regulations under section 11(1)(a) on request from mayor) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (7)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “a combined authority” insert “, a combined county authority”;(b) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (i) insert— “(ia) in the case of the area of a combined county authority, the mayor for the area elected in accordance with section 25(2) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (8), in the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 (c. 21)
52 The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.53 In section 1(7) (views of relevant authority in relation to local skills improvement plan), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or” at the end of that paragraph) insert—“(aa) a mayoral CCA within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (combined county authorities) (see section 25(8) of that Act),”54 (1) Section 4 (interpretation of sections 1 to 4) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) a combined county authority”.55 In section 19(2) (meaning of “relevant provider”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) a combined county authority;”.56 In section 20(7) (meaning of “funding authority”), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) a combined county authority;”.57 In section 21(2) (interpretation of sections 19 to 21), at the appropriate place insert—““combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Health and Care Act 2022 (c. 31)
58 In section 180(2) of the Health and Care Act 2022 (licensing of cosmetic procedures), in the definition of “local authority”, after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Elections Act 2022 (c. 37)
59 The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.60 In section 37(1) (interpretation of Part 5), in the definition of “relevant elective office”, after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”61 In section 45(9) (meaning of “relevant election”), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”62 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 (illegal practices) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and(b) after sub-paragraph (v) (but before the “and” at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert “or (vi) an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority,”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (b), and(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert “, and“(d) as it applies in relation to an election for the return of a mayor for the area of a combined county authority by virtue of regulations under paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”(4) After sub-paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this paragraph “combined county authority” means a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”63 In paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 8 (voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens: transitional provision), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) mayor for the area of a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

Amendments 131 to 154 agreed.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 55 to 60 agreed.

Clause 61: Membership of combined authority

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Clause 61 agreed.

Clauses 62 to 70 agreed.

Amendment 157

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

157: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities to be allowed to choose their own voting system(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide that local authorities may choose the voting system used for local elections in their areas.(2) When determining whether to seek to introduce a new voting system a local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.(3) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors—(a) by thirds, or(b) on an all-out basis.(4) Regulations under this section must provide that local authorities may choose to elect councillors using—(a) first-past-the-post;(b) alternative vote;(c) supplementary vote;(d) single transferable vote;(e) the additional member system;(f) any other system that may be prescribed in the regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about— (a) how a local authority may go about seeking to change its voting system,(b) the decision-making process for such a change,(c) consultation, and(d) requirements relating to approval by the local electorate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable local authorities to choose what voting system they use for local elections.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is by pure chance that this debate follows so neatly after the one we have just had about fiscal devolution and fiscal powers for devolved authorities. Unless we turbocharge our local democracy—and there is much in the Bill that takes powers away from local democracy—we will still be in the realm of “Westminster knows best” and “Westminster holds all the strings”, and we will simply become a subset of Westminster decision-making. Amendment 157 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris is all about improving the local democracy available to local councils and elected mayors.

I start by referring back to the long debates this House had on voter ID. To those of us who were suggesting that it might not be the best idea, the Government’s argument all along—in some cases, their only argument—was that it had worked in Northern Ireland for many years, and if it worked there it will work here. I want to apply that principle to this amendment.

The voting systems for local government in Northern Ireland are not first past the post but single transferable vote. If it works in Northern Ireland, as it has for many years, it can work here. But single transferable vote is not the only method of improving our local democracy and making sure that more voices are elected from more parts of our communities to take part in local decision-making. I will briefly go through some of the other systems and show the Committee how these are already in use in different parts of the country.

We will start with the additional member system. It is used for elections of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the London Assembly. This is a mixed system—some are elected by first past the post and others from a list system—but the outcome is more proportional to the votes as expressed by the electorate. So we already have an additional member system, not first past the post, in big elections in this country, and it works.

The second method is single transferable vote, as I have already described. It is a simple preferential voting system, just using a ranked system of one, two, three. It is used in Northern Ireland local government and the Assembly, and in Scottish local government elections. It works there; why can we not use it in English local council elections?

The third option is the alternative vote, which again ranks candidates, and this more proportional system is used in this very House to elect hereditaries if there is a vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy for hereditary Peers, the single transferable vote system is used. If it is good enough here, surely it can be good enough for local council elections in England. Let us be more like Northern Ireland.

The next system that could be adopted is the supplementary vote. Prior to its recent abolition, it was used to elect Mayors of London, the directly elected mayors in combined authorities, and police and crime commissioners. Very simply, it gives you two votes and two columns, and you can just stick your cross in one of each.

Those are all the systems that we can use in multiple ways. Mature democracies across the world seek to elect representatives in proportion to the expressed views of their electors. I do not like using this comparison, but I remind the Committee that the only other country that uses first past the post is Belarus, with which I am not sure we want to be aligned too much.

Democracy, and especially local democracy, works best when a range of views are heard. That is why all but a minority of democracies use some form of proportional voting system—except England, the home of democracy. The result could be the end of one-party councils or those with very large majorities; I include Liberal Democrat large-majority councils in this too. It is not healthy not to have different voices being heard when local councils make decisions.

18:30

Finally, the amendment proposes that local authorities are able to choose a different voting system. Let us see them as local pilots, and see if they work—a chance to understand the impact of such a change. I return to my starting point. Northern Ireland is promoted as the standard for voter ID. The amendment proposes that Northern Ireland be seen as a standard for local government elections, along with Wales and Scotland. If levelling up is to be a reality, and in order to narrow growing inequalities, then one of the best ways we can do that is to get more voices around the table, bring forth ideas and innovation, and drive change for everybody’s sake. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has just said. I put my name to her amendment because in my rapidly disappearing district council of Richmondshire a motion was almost unanimously agreed to support a system of voting proportionately. It was proposed and seconded by two of my colleagues on that council, Councillors Richard Good and Clive World. It is almost unheard of to have a council in Richmondshire vote together on an issue as contentious as this, so I was delighted when they agreed to forward a letter to the Government requesting a move away from the first past the post system to a fairer and more representative way of voting.

As it was, only two Conservative councillors voted against the motion. The motion they presented was as follows:

“First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men … In Europe”,


as we have heard,

“only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Meanwhile, internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect parliaments in more than 80 countries. Those countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener … PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and those seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of local communities and the nation. MPs better reflecting their communities leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken … PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. PR also prevents ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974 … PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster? … Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws to enable Proportional Representation to be used for general, local and mayoral elections.”

I could not have put it any better myself. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that the Government will consider it seriously before Report.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris of Richmond. I will really restrain myself and not make general comments about PR but speak only about a specific element of democracy.

I am tempted to make a one-sentence contribution, which is, “Democracy: it would be a good idea, wouldn’t it, if we had it?” We are talking about a local area deciding how to elect its own representatives. The amendment does not say, “You have to have proportional representation —the system that we know means that the number of councillors matches the number of votes and that the council or the Parliament reflects the views of the people, and that we know produces a better quality of governance.” It does not say any of those things. It merely says that each local area should be able to decide the system under which it governs itself.

Of course, I have to make some reference to the better quality of governance which is demonstrably the result of proportional electoral systems, and indeed to look at the other side of this, which is what has just been happening in Plymouth City Council, where a Tory council has gone out in the middle of the night to cut down more than 100 mature trees in the city centre, despite significant local resistance. That, of course, is a replay; they seem not to have learned at all from what happened a few years ago in Sheffield, where a Labour council, again in a one party state-type set-up, did the same thing, sneaking around the streets in the early hours of the morning to try to ensure that it could cut down trees against the will of residents. So we have there a case study, which is not even slanted in any particular political direction, of our current system not working.

Again, I stress that the amendment does not say that it will force the change on anyone; it simply says that people should be able to decide for themselves. In the previous group of amendments, we focused on the lack of power in local government because of its lack of resources. Well, take back control: that was crucial and remains a very strong, passionate feeling among the British people. This amendment gives a chance to take back control at the local level, which is clearly urgently needed.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution because tonight, in East Suffolk Council, where I now have the great privilege of living, there is to be a debate on the very subject of democracy at local government level. I have just received a copy of the speech that will be given by David Beavan, the councillor for Southwold ward. He will say—he has not yet said it—the following:

“The Conservative party won the last election with 38% of the vote, but this gave them an overwhelming majority with 71% of the councillors. We are not allowed to debate the unfair first past the post system but we can debate ways to mitigate it so that the silent majority of non-Conservative voters are represented … This administration used its majority as a sledge hammer to close down debate in this council and to pack every committee and outside body with their own … We believe there is a better way to run this council … Where all members of every party have an opportunity to work for East Suffolk … Where debate is open and considered not predetermined by a party political whip … Where opposition members are given a fair chance to make their point in meetings … Where officers are not dragged into petty party politics … Above all we need a Scrutiny committee that is not directed by the administration. An opposition chair would ensure this independence … East Suffolk today faces big challenges. We need to work together as a community and a council. We should set aside party politics after the election and knuckle down to govern fairly for all of East Suffolk.”


I entirely agree with him, and I note that in an earlier discussion on Monday the noble Earl the Minister said clearly that this Bill is all about getting rid of “central diktat” and giving local people an opportunity to have a say. This amendment from my noble friend gives an opportunity to do that. I hope it will be supported by the Government.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a short debate and it will be very interesting to see how the Government respond to it. I wait in hope that something can be done, as my noble friend said in moving this amendment, to turbocharge local democracy. There is no doubt that it needs turbocharging: we see elements of its alienation every day of the week. We are moving closer and closer not to better local democracy, but to perhaps better but certainly more intense local administration. I have spoken on that already today. My noble friend made the extremely powerful point, and certainly a very good debating point, that if ID cards are good enough for Northern Ireland, surely a proportional voting system is good enough for England. I hope the Government have a really plausible reason for not accepting that argument.

My noble friend Lady Harris has accurately reported, I am sure, the views of Richmondshire District Council—incidentally, it is in North Yorkshire, which we were of course discussing earlier today—and the value of every vote being equal and the opportunities for regeneration that flow from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew our attention to some examples of bad practice and pointed out the damaging impacts of single-party rule. Since we certainly think it is inappropriate, to say the least, in North Korea, it ought to be inappropriate in our town halls in England as well. Restoring that element of local choice and broader representation ought surely to be one of the objectives of this levelling-up Bill.

My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath drew attention to the not untypical situation with East Suffolk Council whereby a party with less than 40% of the vote finishes up with over 70% of the representation and therefore of the decision-making. We had debates earlier about the Government’s intention, set out clearly in the Bill, to suspend the operation of proportionality in local authorities in the formation of CCAs. I hope the Government Front Bench will take note of some of the malign consequences that can arise when proportionality is not adhered to. Of course, in terms of representation, a sense of alienation can grow in voters, and in non-voters but electors, who repeatedly say, “It’s not worth voting because they always get in”. That happens time and again, particularly in local government. Surely, we have to make sure that the voices of the silent ones—the voices being suppressed by that system—are in fact heard.

I want to hear the Government say, “There are things about this we do not like; we do not really want anything other than first past the post; but we do recognise that local communities, local councils, should have the right to choose for themselves the voting system they use”. My noble friend has set out in considerable detail a very compelling case: we are not suggesting throwing the whole system up in the air, but simply using systems already in operation in various parts of the United Kingdom, including in England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Stunell. It has been a very interesting discussion. The arguments I have heard articulated many times over the years on voting methods have been rehearsed with great conviction this afternoon.

18:45

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris, for tabling their amendment, which gets to the heart of the level of autonomy and devolution the Government wish to achieve through the Bill. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) in their amendment set out the intention that local authorities be able to choose for themselves the voting system that will reinvigorate local democracy in their area. I am sure that no one would disagree with that aim, or even say that the methods suggested may not achieve it; but I am also sure that noble Lords would agree that changing the voting system by itself would likely only partially achieve that aim, if at all. If it is accompanied by greater financial freedoms and flexibilities, as we have already discussed, and wider powers for councillors to act in the interest of their communities—and if that, in turn, built confidence and engagement—that would create the kind of holistic change we all want to see. I am sure that that is the intention, as I am very conscious of the other contributions the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Harris, have made during the debates so far. No doubt they will make more such contributions.

Regarding proposed new subsection (3), having only recently been through the local government boundary commission process, I know that it is for local authorities to determine whether they wish to carry out elections by thirds or on an all-out basis. I hope that option will also exist for authorities which gather together in CCAs, and that, as the CCA is set up, it is able to determine for itself the sequence of elections.

Proposed new subsection (4) refers to the voting method used. I have listened with great interest to the debate and the very good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the voting systems of the devolved Administrations. I am interested to know whether and how a CCA would determine the voting method across, say, 10 or 12 constituent member authorities. I have a slight concern that, if the CCA is required to do that as part of the process of formation, it might just slow things down a bit while the CCA and the constituent local authorities debate the relative merits of alternative voting systems, many of which I have heard about over the years. I dare say that there may be some political preferences for one system over another. Proposed new subsection (5), as we see it, contains enabling provisions for the proposed new clause.

So while we could argue the relative merits of part of this amendment, it is again disappointing that, in setting out the Bill, we could not be more ambitious in addressing issues that are critical to overall devolution. It is rather a shame and a missed opportunity that the Bill did not include those vital issues.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to enable each local authority to choose its own voting system. In doing so, the

“local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.”

We agree that a vigorous local democracy is vital; however, we take a different view as to how this will be best provided for.

First, we are clear on the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong, clear local accountability. It ensures a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not. For those reasons, we have provided that, from this May’s elections, first past the post will also apply in voting for local authority and combined authority elected mayors, and for police and crime commissioners.

Secondly, we do not believe it would be right for the voting system to be a matter of local choice for particular councils. It is important that the voting system be clearly understood by electors and that they have confidence in it. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusing electors, and any such confusion risks weakening public confidence in the electoral process.

A council being able to choose its voting system would also risk political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on a council could seek to choose a system that it believes would favour it. While I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.

Elections are the foundations of local democracy, which is central to our values and our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I recognise that all noble Lords in this Committee share that view, but I am afraid that what this amendment envisages would in practice be the kind of tinkering with the foundations of local democracy that I am clear we should avoid.

Finally, there are already relevant provisions in place under the local government and public health Act 2007 which enable district councils to change their scheme of elections. Those councils electing by thirds, where a third of council seats are up for re-election in each of three out of every four years, can move to whole-council elections, where all council seats are re-elected at once, every four years, and some councils currently holding whole-council elections, which formerly elected by thirds, can resolve to revert to electing by thirds.

Perhaps more importantly, experience has shown the merits of whole-council elections: facilitating stable, strategic local leadership, and delivering a clear programme for which the council can be held to account by the electorate. We encourage those councils still not holding whole-council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. We would not wish to see councils which have not previously done so moving to elections by thirds.

Before I finish, I will just remind noble Lords that we had a referendum on changing first past the post in 2011, and 67.9% of the population voted against any change.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Would the Minister acknowledge that that was not giving the public the choice of a proportional representation voting system, where the seats would match votes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.

Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.

My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.

I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.

My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 157 withdrawn.

Amendment 158

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

158: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities to be allowed to meet virtually(1) A reference in any enactment to a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.(2) For the purposes of any such enactment, a member of a local authority (a “member in remote attendance”) attends the meeting at any time if all of the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied.(3) Those conditions are that the member in remote attendance is able at that time—(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by the other members in attendance,(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be heard and, where practicable, seen by any members of the public entitled to attend the meeting in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting, and(c) to be heard and, where practicable, seen by any other members of the public attending the meeting.(4) In this section any reference to a member, or a member of the public, attending a meeting includes that person attending by remote access.(5) The provision made in this section applies notwithstanding any prohibition or other restriction contained in the standing orders or any other rules of the authority governing the meeting and any such prohibition or restriction has no effect.(6) A local authority may make other standing orders and any other rules of the authority governing the meeting about remote attendance at meetings of that authority, which may include provision for—(a) voting,(b) member and public access to documents, and(c) remote access of public and press to a local authority meeting to enable them to attend or participate in that meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would enable local authorities to meet virtually. It is based on regulation 5 of the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, made under section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Masham, recognising what a great champion she has been for North Yorkshire, and saying how much missed she will be.

In moving my Amendment 158 I will speak to Amendment 310 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to Amendment 312D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. On Amendment 158, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for lending their support.

The genesis of this amendment is to try and establish what the current status of virtual meetings is. I believe there is a certain lack of clarity and I personally do not understand whether it is possible for local councils to meet virtually since we have moved away from the arrangements in place during the height of the Covid virus.

I would like to make a plea to my noble friend the Minister. I do not know whether it is my noble friend Lord Howe, who is most welcome to his place this evening. I make a plea to him to consider the case, particularly given the inclement weather we have enjoyed—perhaps suffered—in the last fortnight in North Yorkshire, that it should not be obligatory to insist that a local councillor perform their democratic duty of turning up to attend all council meetings of every committee, not just a planning committee, although I have drafted the amendment against that background. It would apply to full council meetings and all committee meetings. In the event of an injury and someone being incapacitated—for example, if they cannot drive to attend a meeting—if it was a hybrid situation or if the weather was so bad that the meeting would not be quorate, the amendment would enable the meeting to take place in certain circumstances.

We know that local authorities met virtually to great effect under the regulations passed in 2020. I would like to remind my noble friend and the department that that worked to great effect. Is that still the position? Have those regulations now been lifted? Is it for the Government to come forward with new regulations— that is the purpose of my Amendment 158—to allow councils to meet in plenary, either as a full council or in committee, or can they currently agree to meet in remote circumstances?

If it is not permitted at the moment, I urge my noble friend to look extremely favourably on this amendment and make the case that, in certain circumstances— I would argue particularly in deeply rural areas such as North Yorkshire, which suffers occasional adverse weather conditions—it should be open to all councils at every level, if they wish to, to meet remotely to exercise their democratic duty and to represent their residents.

19:00

I think that the proposals are all self-explanatory. This was the amendment lifted from the Commons, where it applied to planning committees only, but I would like it to apply to all committees, and plenary sessions of the council as well. I have set out the conditions in which that would be satisfied, for how the voting would be recorded and how, with a physical meeting, others could attend remotely as well. For those reasons, I prefer my Amendment 158 to Amendments 310 and 312D. I can see absolutely no reason why it should be the case that it would be only planning committees that would meet. I would like to see licensing committees and planning committees—all committees—as well as plenary committees being permitted to do so in that regard. I turn with a plea to my noble friend to look favourably on this amendment. With those few remarks, I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I shall presume to follow my noble friend and speak to Amendment 310 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I support my noble friend’s amendment, which is very helpful in setting out in full the potential structure of a power to enable local authorities to hold meetings remotely. Of course it does not require them to do so—it simply permits them to do so.

The story of this, essentially, is that during the pandemic the Coronavirus Act 2020 permitted local authorities to hold meetings remotely, and many did. That expired on 7 May 2021, and the Local Government Association and others sought a declaratory judgment from the High Court as to whether they could continue to meet remotely, in the absence of specific legislative provision. The High Court said that they could not—that it was clear that meetings required persons to be in the place required under the 1972 Act. Since 7 May 2021, they cannot proceed with remote meetings, which is a serious impediment, not least since the LGA’s chair at the time said that:

“The pandemic proved that using virtual meeting options can help councils work more effectively and efficiently and can in fact increase engagement from both councillors and residents”.


The first is fairly obvious; the second is particularly helpful. A survey conducted by the LGA back in November 2021 demonstrated that costs were lower for virtual meetings but also, and more significantly, public attendance could be higher at virtual meetings. It is very important to give local authorities those options.

The point that I come to is that the Government at the time, back in 2021, issued a call for evidence on remote meetings. We are now the best part of two years on and they have not proceeded on the basis of that call for evidence. I would hope or expect that the call for evidence demonstrated that this is an opportunity to assist local authorities to structure their meetings in a way that can maximise engagement and participation, and I am at a loss to know why they have not proceeded. At the time, of course, they said that there was a lack of a suitable legislative opportunity—well, here we are, and here it is. The Government have not put it in the Bill, but we have the option to do so. I may press my noble friend the Minister a little more than my noble friend Lady McIntosh might do: the time has come for the Government to get off the fence on this one. On Report, the best possible solution would be for them to bring forward their own amendment for this purpose.

There is a difference between the two amendments. Mine relates only to planning meetings and its structure is to create a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State. I suspect that, for that reason, it is preferable to the Government since, in Amendment 158, we have a regulation under the Coronavirus Act 2020 that is being turned into primary legislation. That is not always the most helpful way to structure things. I think the right way forward would be for the Government to introduce their own amendment on Report.

I was interested in this from the point of view of planning meetings, as part of the general process of trying to encourage efficient and effective decision-making in planning. I understand that there is an argument for this to be applied more generally, although it was obvious, from some of the references to evidence given before the High Court, that there is some hesitation on the part of experts about holding, for example, councils’ full or annual meetings virtually. The problem is the lack of personal interaction between councillors at such meetings and the difficulty of managing business under those circumstances. It is fair to say that simply giving local authorities this power would be a straight- forward way to do it, but I completely understand if some restrictions, particularly on full or annual council meetings, limited the exercise of that power. Either way, I hope that my noble friend indicates, whether definitely or otherwise, that the Government will think urgently about whether to bring forward measures to give local government this power in the Bill, through amendment on Report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 158 and 310. Obviously Amendment 310 is more limited so I see it as a fallback, but I honestly cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept Amendment 158.

Covid obviously provided us with a lot of challenges, one of which was how to keep things going and how society and, for example, your Lordships’ House could still function. At the time, I thought that your Lordships’ House managed better than the other place. We were quicker to put in remote systems for voting and participating, which I thought was a huge advance in the methods that we used for debates and to create legislation.

I actually did not know that councils cannot meet virtually any more and think it is a terrible shame. I have been a councillor and it is really hard work. Going to council meetings on a cold wet night in November, December, January or February can be an extra challenge. Quite honestly, why on earth would we not do this? Virtual council meetings—and virtual meetings of your Lordships’ House—worked extremely well. We all found that we could work the mute button, although some have gone backwards on that. We still allow noble Lords to engage virtually, so it is logical for councillors.

Work has changed because of Covid. More people are working remotely and not going into the office as much. One of my daughters, although she has a full-time job, goes into the office only two days a week now. My partner goes into his office one day a month and my other daughter goes into her office once every two months. Even so, they all work extremely well and efficiently. I do not understand this regressive move.

There have been other regressive moves here. I loathe how we still start in the afternoons, even though we started earlier during Covid. It is easy to slip back into bad, old habits instead of taking new ideas forward and engaging in the best way possible. I hope that the Government see sense on this and, as is suggested, bring their own amendment forward. We would all support it.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the National Association of Local Councils. I added my name to this because NALC is very firmly of the view that there were huge benefits, which I will talk about in a moment, to virtual meetings during the pandemic. Councils were very sorry to lose them when the regulations expired in May 2021. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, there is evidence of more participation by council members in virtual meetings but, for me and members of NALC, the really telling thing was the increased participation of members of the public. At the end of the day, that must be the most important thing; there was more engagement and transparency because people could more easily engage.

There were other benefits as well. One that I feel particularly strongly about—I have heard some powerful testimony from parish and town council members on this—was to those who have now had to give up because they cannot find childcare or because their partners need care and they simply cannot get out. It cannot be right that this whole group of people are being excluded from an activity that they love to do and at which they are probably very good. Virtual meetings could really help them.

I will make two other brief points. First, when I was a county councillor, I tried to get around my parishes but I had 12 of them—I had colleagues who had 23 or 26. It is not just county councillors; there are the district councils and people from the police and from health. They want to get around and meet town and parish councils, but it is very difficult. Virtual meetings provide a great way for people like that to engage with their local councils. It really makes it more straightforward.

Secondly, I return to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about this call for evidence. It took place between March and June 2021, when the regulations expired. In February, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers submitted a freedom of information request to ask exactly what had happened to the consultation responses. I will read the reply:

“We believe that releasing this information at this stage serves no particular public interest and is outweighed by the level of burden imposed on the Department in processing your request. The Government does intend to respond to the call for evidence, and when we do, that response will include a summary of the responses received. We are therefore not obliged to consider your request any further.”


Can the noble Baroness say—oh, it is the noble Earl; bad luck—why, after two years, this has still not been done? Does the Minister believe that this is a fair way to treat the 4,370 people and organisations that submitted evidence in good faith only to find that it has in effect been shelved?

Given that legislation is required to make this change—what lunacy that we live in a country where you need legislation to allow councils to choose how they should meet—this Bill would have been perfect for it, yet the consultation responses are still gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. Can the Minister say when he believes these will be dealt with? Can we have this in time for Report, given that we will have Easter in the middle, and some movement on it when we come to Report?

19:15

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils; I am also the co-president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils.

I remember clearly that we had a difficult meeting of the county association, in that the matters were contentious. It was dealt with online. I and my co-president went through the whole thing; all I can say is that it was entirely satisfactory. It was well organised from the word go and was well marshalled by the clerk of the association. The matter was carried off to everybody’s reasonable satisfaction; given that there were contentious matters, nobody complained.

I would just like to say that the world has changed. The world was changing beforehand; I was doing virtual meetings long before Covid came along. The fact that the technology was there and was sped up says a great deal about those who were responsible for getting things organised, particularly those in this House who organised things so that we could hold our proceedings virtually. It was enormously to the credit of those who seized the opportunity to do it.

However, if we are going to speed up Britain, one of the first things we will want to do is make sure that we make cost-efficient use of people’s time. The first bit of cost-efficiency is reducing road miles; we can start by decarbonising meetings. I am not very far from my local authority offices but I know that, by the time I have travelled five miles, found a parking space, probably paid for parking, crossed the road and gone into the council chamber—I am not a serving councillor; I just use that as an example—it will have taken me a good half an hour, with another half an hour on the way back, thank you very much. If you want busy people to devote their time and energy, you really have to make efficient use of their time; otherwise, they disconnect.

The other important thing here is inclusivity; other noble Lords and noble Baronesses have mentioned this. We are dealing with people who may be infirm or have mobility difficulties. This may involve young people in households with schedules that do not match; they may work away so it is hard for them to get back in time with normal commuting. Of course, you also have parents who are looking after young people and cannot get away. They cannot detach themselves from their household, never mind the infirm or those with other issues.

On the grounds of cost-efficiency and inclusivity, these amendments are very powerful. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for introducing this group and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for taking us through the history of where this issue was. I say again: things have moved on. We need to look at a modern, efficient way of working. This amendment does not say that you would have to have virtual meetings; it gives local choice on the matter. How come a parliamentary Select Committee can operate virtually if it decides that that is convenient, as I think is still the case, but a parish council—or a planning committee, for that matter—somehow cannot? This is inconsistent and makes no sense, so I very much support these amendments. I hope that the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will consider them carefully and reflect on them; I know that he is an enormously fair-minded man when it comes to these things.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This issue is part of a threesome that we have debated this evening: local democracy; fiscal and electoral decisions; and, now, how we hold meetings. How is it that Westminster can dictate how local councils should conduct themselves? That is the question I want to ask. I know that they deal with potholes; actually, I have a plan for potholes. Can we have migration of potholes? Do noble Lords think that would help? It seems to me that these amendments have a lot of merit; I will say why.

The first issue is travel. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised this but only in relation to going a short distance. In their wisdom, the Government have created two new unitary authorities, which start their life in April. North Yorkshire is one. If you live in Selby or are elected to represent Selby, in one part of North Yorkshire, you now have to travel 56 miles to get to a council meeting in Northallerton. That is a 112-mile round trip to get to a meeting. You have to ask yourself: is that an efficient use of anybody’s time, and does it contribute to our net-zero ambitions?

Then there is Somerset, which Members of the Committee may believe is a smaller county, but if you live at one end, in Frome, and the county hall is in Taunton, at the other end of the county, that too is 56 miles and a 112-mile round trip. That is not cost effective or efficient in anybody’s life. If you live in Yorkshire, especially North Yorkshire, and you have to go across the dales or the moors in winter to attend a meeting, you know that sometimes it is simply not possible. That is one reason.

I hope the Government will take up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of bringing forward a government amendment, either shortly or at the next stage, to deal with this. As the noble Lord said, it is about efficiency. Virtual meetings lower costs and enable more people to get involved. If we are interested in local democracy, as I am, the more people who can get involved and engaged in decision-making, the better.

My final point, well made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, is about the engagement and involvement of people who are otherwise excluded from being councillors because of either caring responsibilities or lack of transport. If you do not have a car in North Yorkshire, I do not know how you get to Northallerton. Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, can tell us, but I think it might take a couple of days.

For all those reasons, it is really important that if we want to reinvigorate our local democracy—which is essential if we are to narrow inequalities, which is at the heart of the levelling-up process—we need more people to be engaged. If we want more people to be engaged and involved, we have to enable it by letting councils decide for themselves whether they want virtual meetings. I fully support the principle behind all these amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a really important debate. This is such an important issue, yet it could be so simply resolved. We have heard about the Government’s call for evidence, but so far we have not heard anything from them, so it will be extremely interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that, particularly following the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the freedom of information request, which were a bit disappointing to hear.

The Local Government Association was, unsurprisingly, one of the organisations that made a fairly detailed submission to the Government. It noted an enormous number of benefits gained by local councils from being able to meet virtually. It said strongly that it hoped this ability would be retained, particularly when it is locally appropriate. We have heard a lot about how appropriate it is in Yorkshire, and it is the same with me in Cumbria.

We need to remember, as has been said, the huge benefits to the democratic process that were brought by enabling councils to meet virtually. It reduced reliance on delegating decisions to officers if there was a crisis, for example, because everyone could get together very quickly. There was much more flexibility, better councillor attendance and better engagement with local residents at council meetings. We have also heard of the difficulties that disabled people often have, or those of people in rural areas who do not have a car. This managed to completely change their ability to attend meetings and take part in local democracy. As was said earlier, if we can have people attending this House virtually, why on earth can we not have the same for people at local government level?

It is also really important that the Government are not so ridiculously prescriptive about how and when councils can meet. I genuinely do not understand why there has not been any movement following the call for evidence. I can see no reason why this is not a good thing to continue with. The LGA added in its response that councils would need considerable flexibility for local determination as to how and when to utilise virtual and hybrid meetings to ensure that they realise the benefits of all the different meeting options that suit the local context. Again, that flexibility is hugely important for democracy. As I said, I find it completely baffling that this was not just automatically extended once the benefits could be seen.

We know that councils provide many different services to their communities. Their decisions obviously affect the lives of residents, so to have a system where you actively enable high levels of civic representation and where citizens’ voices are heard and taken into account in policy-making, local decision-making and planning—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, particularly referred to—is surely of benefit to the whole of our society. We need to address issues of underrepresentation, which we talked about during the passage of the Elections Bill. Encouraging participation in local democracy at every single level is more likely to encourage people to take part in elections when they come forward.

We have an amendment on this, because we think it is important. We strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as hers is a really important amendment; I hope the Government will eventually come behind her. We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but if you allow virtual meetings only for planning meetings, I am not sure how much that helps parish councils, for example. I will wind up, because I know we want to break.

In our parish, virtual meetings and being able to meet remotely were an absolute godsend. I know that when we were told that was no longer possible, the parish council was not just deeply disappointed but pretty cross about it. It had enabled far more people to attend meetings, not just the councillors but the general public. Like Yorkshire, Cumbria is a very rural area. We have heard about the local authorities referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh, but even just our parish covers a pretty wide area. For people to find out what was going on in their parish was of huge benefit. People logged into the meetings who had never attended before. Again, it is such a shame to have lost that.

Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I am honestly of the opinion that this is such a no-brainer for this Bill. I really hope that, following this debate and taking away the thoughts that have come from it, the Government will consider coming back with a similar amendment on Report so that we can just get on with this.

19:30

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I remind the Committee that the Coronavirus Act 2020 contained numerous measures which were intentionally —and, in the Government’s view, rightly—time-limited as they were introduced in an emergency at great speed. The local authority remote meetings regulations arising from that Act gave local authorities the flexibility to meet remotely or in hybrid form. Since their expiry, all councils have reverted to in-person meetings and local government is back to how it operated pre-Covid and working effectively.

All three amendments in this group propose in different ways a relaxation of the rules relating to meetings held by local councils. Amendment 158, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, leans directly into the regulations that expired on 7 May 2021, using powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. In a related vein, Amendment 310, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, aims to allow planning committee meetings of local authorities to take place virtually, as well as making related provisions for public access to meetings and remote access to meeting documents. Amendment 312D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is a probing amendment on a similar theme.

I have noted the powerful contributions made in this debate but I fear that I must give my noble friends and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, a disappointing answer at this stage. The Government are of the view that physical attendance is important for delivering good governance and democratic accountability. As we in this House may recognise, there are clear benefits to democratic representatives debating and voting on matters in person rather than at the end of a video call. The nature of debate is different, and the nature of interaction is different, in a positive sense. There are benefits to the—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

These amendments do not preclude that, but give an option. Does the noble Earl not think that having that option would be a benefit?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I completely appreciate that, but I ask the noble Baroness to hear me out. There are benefits, which we would all recognise, to the side-discussions that are facilitated by being physically next to colleagues, and these are not the only considerations. It is worth my reminding the Committee that there is no restriction on in-person council meetings being filmed or webcast to allow the public to view proceedings remotely. Indeed, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 extended full rights for the press and public to record and broadcast council meetings.

I have listened carefully to my noble friends and to noble Lords opposite, who have argued, often from first-hand perspectives, for the current legislation to be changed. I am afraid that the most that I can do at this stage is to say that we will keep the matter under review, and I undertake that we will do so.

My noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me about the current position on the call for evidence and the government response. Conversations are continuing across government and as soon as possible after those conversations are concluded, we will publish a government response to the call for evidence, which will set out our intentions. However, for the time being, I must resist all three of these amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Can the Minister explain why your Lordships’ House allows virtual contributions but does not give councils the opportunity to do the same thing?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is one of the considerations we are looking at. The noble Baroness is quite right—she knows that there are certain of our number whom the House in its wisdom has decided should be allowed to contribute virtually. These things should be considered in the mix, but I am afraid I cannot give the Committee a definitive answer for the reasons I have explained.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to what has been an excellent debate; there was unanimity across the Committee. If the Government are not prepared to table an amendment encapsulating the points that were raised, it may be helpful to point out that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, this is not an obligation on councils. We are simply extending the choice they enjoyed under the very strict Covid regulations to permit democracy to continue and allow councils to meet. A number of examples have been given. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to caring responsibilities being added to the others. Councils at every level—and I think it important to include them all: parish councils, right up to the highest level, where appropriate—should have the right to choose.

To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, Filey to Northallerton is 57 miles. There are trains that take two hours 13 minutes one way, but they do not run at the time the council starts or ends the meeting. We have had a discussion about the weather and other reasons, such as incapacity, why individual councillors may not be able to attend a particular meeting. I find the arguments for the amendment very compelling; there is no downside that we have heard about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, we do not know whether there is a downside, but if there were I think the Government would have been prepared to publish the evidence, because that would have strengthened their argument.

There are very compelling reasons for doing this: representation of both councillors and the public went up. However, I do not think we should make it obligatory. This House is allowed to meet virtually if you are incapacitated, or in committee; that is the committee’s choice. I would like to extend that same choice to councils at every level. I therefore propose to table—with cross-party support, I hope—an appropriate amendment on Report, unless my noble friend and the Government can table an even better one. The time to act is now. We are losing good councillors and members of the public who may not be able to attend for those reasons. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.25 pm.