Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. These regulations were laid before the House on 3 June 2025, and they make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of supply in Great Britain. We know that to achieve clean power by 2030, reform of the electricity market is critical. To paraphrase the clean power action plan, we must:
“Reform the capacity market to provide clear and viable routes to decarbonisation for unabated gas, enable low-carbon flexible capacity…and incentivise investment into existing capacity.”
Before I outline the provisions in these regulations, I will briefly provide some context. The capacity market was introduced in 2014, and it is designed to ensure that sufficient electricity capacity is available to meet future predicted demand, to maintain the security of our electricity supply. The capacity market is a well-established and technology-neutral scheme in which existing and new build electricity capacity receives revenue based on the capacity provided. Participants secure agreements through auctions, which require them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is our main tool to ensure security of supply, and it provides the right incentives for all forms of capacity to be available when needed most. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity.
Through capacity market auctions, which are held annually—one year and four years ahead of delivery—we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the National Energy System Operator. Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to just under 20 GW of new flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to net zero.
To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and it continues to be required to maintain our security of supply and to provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation based on our day-to-day experiences.
The draft instrument makes technical improvements and changes to nine regulations to support the functioning of the capacity market, and they have been identified and explored through consultation. The changes will ensure that the capacity market regulations remain clear for market participants and that the legislation remains up to date, to enable us to better deliver the security of supply mechanism.
The draft instrument does that by revoking several expired provisions of secondary legislation relating to the scheme, including references to: transitional auctions, which are no longer applicable; the temporary standstill period, which occurred in 2019; and the time-limited relief given to scheme participants in relation to coronavirus. It will also introduce a new process to establish a decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas plants currently in long-term capacity market agreements. That will allow gas plants to exit their agreements without penalty in order to transfer to a dispatchable power agreement, facilitating conversion to gas-fired power with carbon capture and storage once the technology is available. That will better align the capacity market with our clean power objectives, and it will provide gas plant operators with a future route to decarbonise their assets.
The Government carried out two public consultations on this instrument. The first considered reforms to the capacity market to strengthen security of supply and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. The second considered reforms to modernise the capacity market and improve the participation and delivery assurance of consumer-led flexibility. Both consultations were published towards the end of 2024. Respondents were broadly supportive of the instrument’s proposals. We have also made a number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules that support the regulations, which were laid before the House on 3 June.
This draft instrument introduces a number of technical provisions and changes to enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market so that it can continue to deliver on its objectives. These reforms will be critical if we are to achieve clean power by 2030. They will improve security of supply by ensuring the modernisation of the capacity market and making legislation as clear as possible for all scheme participants. We need clear routes for the decarbonisation of unabated gas and for the rapid acceleration of low-carbon, flexible capacity. And today, with these regulations, we take another step towards that.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to be in the august company of the double award-winning Minister—the Scottish MP of the year, as of yesterday evening. The competition was very stiff.
The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of the electricity market reforms to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of dispatchable generation or, in some cases, demand reduction. As we saw in January, a renewables-dominated system increases the need for capacity market generation. The system, which is designed to insure the market during periods of electricity system shortage and stress, is increasingly significant and increasingly costly as intermittency increases.
These regulations will allow unabated gas generators to exit their capacity market obligations without penalty for the purpose of retrofitting carbon capture, usage and storage and transferring to a dispatchable power agreement outside of the capacity market. The rationale for this is to allow generators to convert unabated gas to power with CCUS in order to decarbonise the UK’s electricity generation. So far, so good. We support that ambition in principle, as we believe in a cleaner energy system.
However, we also believe in delivering an energy system that is secure and affordable, on which we have some concerns. Namely, how will this impact energy bills? The regulations intend to allow unabated gas generators to transfer from existing capacity market agreements to a contract for difference mechanism to power CCUS, thereby entering a dispatchable power agreement.
If dispatchable power agreement contracts are more expensive than the average cost of electricity, higher prices will be locked in, and the cost of this mechanism will necessarily filter through to billpayers. Energy bills are composed of wholesale costs, network charges, contracts for difference subsidies, balancing costs such as curtailment payments, and capacity market payments. Under the Government’s clean power 2030 plan, those costs are all set to rise. Bills will go up.
This week, Ofgem announced a £24 billion investment in the electricity and gas grid, including a 2,700-mile pylon expansion, necessitated by, in Ofgem’s words, the need to
“handle the flow of electricity from new renewable sources.”
Onshore wind and solar panels need an expensive expansion of our infrastructure due to their dispersed locations, costing billpayers money. This is not cheap, and it will not bring bills down.
Contracts for difference payments are set to rise, while developers still await news of the administrative strike price for the next allocation round. We know that a high reserve price will drive up consumer bills. With increasing onshore and offshore wind bringing higher levels of intermittency into our systems, curtailment payments are set to increase, at least in the medium term. Last year, billpayers spent £1 billion balancing the grid by turning wind turbines off at times of over-generation, and now we have these capacity market changes.
The increase in intermittent renewables on stream in the UK must be shored up by increasing capacity market payments. Unfortunately, this Government continually prioritise climate targets over secure and affordable energy, and billpayers are paying the price. Can the Minister please tell us what impact the Government’s clean power 2030 payments will have on capacity market payments? Are the Government still committed to reducing energy bills by £300, and will the Minister reiterate that commitment?
There is no costing associated with these regulations or with clean power 2030 overall, as that would prove that the Secretary of State’s commitment to the unachievable targets he has set himself is pushing bills up.
I do not wish to stand in the way of these regulations. However, I must put on record our deep concerns about the impact of clean power 2030 and all these changes on consumer bills and the UK’s overall energy resilience.
Michael Shanks
I will not detain the Committee for long, but I should put on record that the shadow Minister was on the judging panel for the aforesaid awards. I am not quite sure what that says for either of us, frankly, but I thank him for whatever role he played in trying to prevent me from getting the award. It clearly did not work.
I welcome the shadow Minister’s broad support for the regulations, and I welcome his support for building a cleaner energy system, which I have not heard from the Conservative party for some months—I am glad he found his old script from a year ago and is repeating it in this place again, at least up to the word “however.”
Of course, the shadow Minister is right that security of supply is critical, as it is for any Government of any political party. These regulations are part of ensuring that security of supply into the future, and they are part of a series of measures we are taking to build infrastructure for the future, so that we remain resilient long into the future. That investment is important.
The shadow Minister talked about pricing, and I will pick out two points. First, the clean power mission is about reducing the current volatility in the price of gas. The Conservatives supported that move, and I credit them for constructing quite a lot of the renewables we have in the country, but they have since changed tack. At some point, they need to recognise that volatile gas prices are what is causing bills to increase so substantially, and that things like contracts for difference give long-term certainty on consumer bills and bring down the system cost, but the Conservatives oppose those things.
Secondly, capacity market costs have increased over time, not just in the past year but more generally. They have been impacted by a number of factors outwith anyone’s control when they were introduced. But overall, this change will bring about an overall benefit. It is important that we plan the power we might need one year or four years in the future and, of course, the cost of not having a capacity market would be a significant risk to the robustness of our electricity system.
Finally, and more broadly than these regulations, curtailment payments are deeply disappointing to everyone, but the answer is to plan the system strategically so that we build things in a way that makes sense. Secondly, of course, we need to build grid infrastructure to bring the cheaper power to consumers, and to reduce that curtailment payment cost. I hope we will see support from across the House on those questions of building new network infrastructure, although I suspect we will not from the Conservatives.
I warmly welcome, as I always do, the shadow Minister’s wholehearted support for the work we are doing in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and long may that continue. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The UK’s airspace is a vital piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to economic growth, connectivity and national resilience. Last year, there were more than 2.4 million flights using UK airspace, but despite a significant rise in air traffic demand, the structure of our airspace has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s, when there were around 200,000 flights. Today’s flight paths remain largely based on a system that relies on a network of outdated ground-based navigational beacons. As a result, aircraft today fly less efficient routes and are unable to take advantage of modern aircraft technology and performance. If a pilot from the 1950s travelled through time, they would still know the exact routes used today. That has to change. It leads to increased fuel consumption, greater risk of delays and, as a result, higher carbon emissions. Without modernisation, National Air Traffic Services estimates that, by 2040, one in five flights could face delays of more than 45 minutes.
There is a plan to fix this: the airspace modernisation strategy, set out by the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, and committed to by the Labour party in its manifesto at the general election. I am grateful to Government and Opposition Members who I know will support the regulations that we are considering today, which are one of the most important ways of enabling the plan for decarbonisation and improved routes to be realised. Modernised airspace will enable greater capacity, improve resilience to disruption, and help UK aviation to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The regulations are made under powers conferred by the Transport Act 2000, for which I thank John Prescott. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may modify and prescribe terms in an air traffic services licence. This instrument designates as “prescribed” any terms specifying air traffic services authorised under a licence, and any terms specifying the area in which those services may be provided. In practice, this will allow the Secretary of State to modify the terms in the air traffic services licence granted to NATS (En Route) Ltd—a public limited company known as NERL—to create and fund a new UK airspace design service, UKADS.
If the regulations are approved and come into force, they will enable a series of important steps to happen. The Secretary of State will consult on modifications to the terms of NERL’s licence, in accordance with the procedures set out in section 11A of the 2000 Act. The CAA will undertake its own separate consultation on the changes to the conditions of the NERL licence, following the statutory requirements laid out in the same section of the Act. The combined results of the changes, if adopted following consultation, will be to authorise and require NERL to provide the UKADS and enable it to charge for doing so.
Airspace modernisation is not just a technical upgrade; it is a national strategic necessity to ensure that our skies remain safe, sustainable and capable of supporting the UK’s future prosperity and innovation. The draft regulations will enable the UKADS to deliver the benefits of airspace modernisation and to ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader in aviation for decades to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
A glance at the draft regulations might give the impression of a proposal that is short and easily resolved but, as the Minister’s speech demonstrates, this is not an issue with simple answers. In fact, the regulations are part of a wider topic of airspace modernisation, which is a matter of considerable complexity. I have no doubt the Minister is aware, from what I suspect are hundreds of pages of reports and strategies placed on his desk by officials since he he arrived in office, of the significant work that was conducted by the previous Government, the CAA and a wide range of other stakeholders on airspace modernisation. Recognising the importance of airspace modernisation, the previous Government provided £9.2 million to maintain progress and enable sponsors to co-ordinate their programmes during an existential period for the industry during the pandemic. That work has, without doubt, gained fresh impetus following the Chancellor’s announcement of airport expansion earlier this year.
While that announcement appeared to have been made by the Treasury without a full appreciation of the scale of the task involved, this draft statutory instrument is an important part of delivering on that intention. At the time, I said to the Transport Secretary that the Opposition support aviation expansion in principle, because it delivers economic growth. I reiterate that stance today, and we will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I do, however, have some questions for the Minister, which I will come to at the close of my remarks.
The arguments in favour of airspace modernisation and the actions taken to facilitate it are obvious, and the Minister has outlined many of them. Anyone who has returned home from holiday and found themselves circling the airport endlessly will welcome the measures to improve the efficiency of our air corridors. In September last year, easyJet published its work illustrating the potential for emissions reductions through greater efficiency. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the current proposal will result in substantial fuel savings over a 15-year appraisal period. At a time when the Government are increasing costs for travellers, it is all the more important that the draft regulations allow operators to fly more efficiently and, I hope, pass those savings on to passengers.
The aviation sector is one of the UK’s most successful industries, and our focus should be on how we support and improve it, not hold it back. In that light, not to embrace this opportunity to increase efficiency, to reduce fuel use and emissions, and potentially to reduce delays and noise would be a significant mistake. However, it is not that simple, because airspace modernisation will inevitably create winners and losers. While it will deliver greater fuel efficiency, reduced flying times and associated cost savings to airlines and, I hope, to passengers, changing flight paths will of course be a double-edged sword. Some people who live under a flight path will be removed from it and no doubt grateful for that, but others who do not live under flight paths now may may do so in the future; they can be expected, naturally, to be far from happy.
As with airport expansion, the creation of the UKADS to simplify that process may also face challenges. While a majority of the stakeholders supported the principle during the consultation, 33% of those who did not oppose the proposal did in fact answer “maybe” in their response. That included one third of the respondents from the commercial aviation sector, whose buy-in the Government will need for the proposal to succeed. NATS, the only organisation the Government say is capable of handling those responsibilities—we do not dissent from that—responded to the consultation by stating that therefore
“the accountabilities and responsibilities of UKADS must be more clearly defined.”
That is not to say that the proposal will not work, but I believe that further clarity is needed on some broad questions. For example, can the Government confirm that the necessary skillset is available to lead the changes? Will the Minister provide assurances to smaller airports that the structure of the new arrangements will recognise and reflect the unique challenges that those locations face? Does he believe that there will be sufficient expertise within the UKADS to support airspace modernisation outside London in a timely manner, so that progress elsewhere is not held back simply because the initial focus is on London’s vastly more complicated airspace?
Finally, I will address communication and transparency. During the consultation and following the policy announcement, it seems that some local organisations responded negatively and suggested that the concerns of local communities were being overlooked or ignored. I therefore ask the Government to give serious consideration to how they can provide maximum transparency around the process. In that light, my final question is: will the Minister commit to ensuring that the new body communicates its proposals with full transparency?
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for stating the Opposition’s support. UK aviation enjoyed its most successful month in history in April. Over the next 20 years, we are looking at the doubling of numbers in aviation, and freight as well, so modernising our airspace is critical to making sure that there is resilience in the system.
Work was done under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Witney, Robert Courts, for what he did, but Governments become sclerotic and the last Government did not get this measure over the line. I was glad that we committed to do it in our manifesto. What we are doing today by implementing that manifesto commitment and putting it into law will be a huge confidence boost for the aviation industry. When I have spoken to industry representatives, as I do all the time, including this morning, they tell me they have been looking forward to today, because the measure is a statement of commitment and intent.
The hon. Member for Orpington is absolutely right: who knew that flying in a straight line would cut carbon emissions? EasyJet gives the example of the journey from Jersey to Luton airport wherein the aircraft burns a third more fuel because of the path it has to take. Flying in a straight line is better for customers and for the environment, and it will produce fuel savings. He talks about winners and losers, but this measure also allows us to analyse take-offs and landings and varying routes, so we can mitigate impacts on communities. That is key.
The skillset is an essential element of that. Until now, the skills have been dissipated throughout the country. This measure puts the skillset into one place in the UKADS. That means we can concentrate on the most congested skies in the south-east, but it does not stop us doing what we need to do in the Scottish, northern and south-west airspaces. There will be funding to make sure that those other regions benefit, including smaller airports, which the hon. Member asked about. I will also commit to full transparency as we go through the process and get it over the wire to modernise airspace, so that the British aviation set-up has a confident future.
The Chair
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to contribute? He did not indicate that he did when I looked at him meaningfully earlier, but he is just in time if so. I call Paul Kohler.
Mr Kohler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate the fractured and complex system of managing airspace. It is important to bring it into the 21st century by delivering flight paths that cut emissions and ensure that journeys can be quicker, quieter and cleaner. The creation of a single guiding mind to co-ordinate and sponsor future airspace changes is a positive step and something that my party warmly welcomes.
We recognise that without modernisation, not only will there be unnecessary capacity constraints, but outdated flight paths will constrict innovation and stand in the way of future advances, including essential low and zero-carbon developments in the sector. It is vital, however, that the new organisation works closely with the communities affected by noise and air pollution—as has been said, there will be losers as well as winners—and that local communities feel that their voice is being heard when changes take place.
We understand that London will be the first area that the UKADS considers. Can the Minister clarify the timeline for the creation of the new service and when we can expect the work on the modernisation of London’s airspace to commence? Can he give any indication of how long the Department envisages it will take for the UKADS to publish and consult on its draft proposals? Finally, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that UKADS works closely with the public, so that the communities affected by the changes are and feel properly consulted?
The Chair
The Minister is under no obligation to speak again, but I know he is a generous man.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his support; we have the whole House behind the measure. I commit to laying out the details of the steps for setting up the service, how much it will cost and what the consultation will be as we go forward over the next few years.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 June 2025. This Government have emphasised our commitment to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, and this instrument provides for the implementation of the devolution agreement that was confirmed on 6 March 2024 between the previous Government and the three councils concerned. I am pleased to say that in May 2025 all three councils consented to the making of this instrument.
The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The regulations will come into force the day after they are made and confer housing and regeneration functions on the respective local authorities, as agreed in the devolution agreements. Accompanying the regulations, we have laid a report, under section 17(6) of the 2016 Act, providing details about the public authority functions, including regeneration functions held concurrently with Homes England being devolved to the authorities.
Additional funding will be available for the areas through the adult skills fund, devolved to the councils from the 2026-27 academic year, as well as the education skills functions. The Department for Education will work with the councils to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria. We will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that they are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each of these areas.
In December 2024, the three councils submitted supporting information on their potential use of proposed functions, including feedback gathered through their engagement with local stakeholders. The outcome of that engagement demonstrated local support for the conferral of the new functions upon each of the councils, and in laying this instrument before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2016 Act are met, namely that making the regulations is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant local authority areas.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Can the Minister outline for the Committee, where these powers will sit, once councils have gone through devolution talks and appointed metro mayors? Will they still sit with the unitary councils, or will they go to the metro mayor? Can the Minister explain where the powers will sit when they get a new devolution agreement?
Jim McMahon
In a sense, these are legacy agreements made under the previous Government that we are keen to honour. We know that councils worked in good faith when preparing their devolution agreements with the previous Government, and we want to ensure that—notwithstanding the transition period following the English devolution and community empowerment Bill—we can honour those arrangements as much as possible. It is accepted that we are in a period of significant transition for local government in England, both in reorganisation and the creation of new combined authorities in these areas, but we do not think that is a reason in itself to hold back powers.
If the point comes when these areas receive a mayoral strategic authority, as it will be known under the new Bill—the Houses of Parliament need to go through the process of confirming that position—the powers will be conferred, alongside a range of other powers, which would be quite normal. I should say that nothing will be presented to Parliament in the English devolution Bill that cuts across what we now consider to be the foundational agreements that are in place. We would encourage willing local authorities to collaborate and come together, even if that is without a mayor being in place, so that further powers can be devolved to current local authorities.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?
Jim McMahon
I can check that particular point about the role of district councils in authorising. It may be that we follow up with officials on that point. I would also add that areas in Surrey are part of the accelerated timetable for local reorganisation, and we are now out to consult on the final proposals that have met the statutory test that we set out. We are in that statutory process and that will move to shadow elections for the new unitary authorities as early as May next year. At that point, there will be a transfer of power and responsibilities across to the new unitary councils, and at that point we will consider new SIs that transfer the powers from the existing council structures to the new unitary councils as they come into force. It may well be that, later, there is a devolution agreement set across that bigger geography that we then return to as part of a second SI. We are in a period of transition, and it will take time. We did not believe that it would be right not to fulfil the agreement of the previous Government with the councils that have acted in good faith, notwithstanding those transitional arrangements.
That brings me back to the statutory tests. It is our belief that the economic, the social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant areas will be met. I thank local leaders and their councils for their hard work in the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution in their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister set out, each of these agreements was negotiated between the then Conservative leaders of each of these councils and the previous Conservative Government. Having engaged with those individuals, I know that they are positive about the fact that this statutory instrument has been introduced for agreement.
I have a couple of questions, some of which stemmed from the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne and for Spelthorne. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there have been elections in some of the areas since the initial agreements were negotiated. We know that is not the case for Surrey, but there have been changes in Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire, although Buckinghamshire continue to have a Conservative leader.
The Minister set out that consent from the authorities was granted in May 2025, which is also when those elections took place, and it would be helpful, particularly in respect of Warwickshire, where there has been a change of leadership, if he provided an assurance that the revised leadership of the council is still supportive of the devolution deal that we are due to agree.
Some other questions have emerged. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to how things would pan out in relation to the powers of mayoral strategic authorities. In the context of devolution, authorities are seeking an assurance that the exercise of those powers will remain subject to an appropriate level of local democratic oversight after reorganisation. I am conscious that ministerial directions could be used to instruct the local authority to conduct itself in a certain way, when that may not be what was envisaged when the original agreement was drawn up.
Finally, to the point about the consent of districts and boroughs, regulation 4 says that the consent of those districts and boroughs will be required for the exercise of any of these functions. The Minister can be very clear about that, and it would be helpful if he could set out in what circumstances the Minister may provide a direction to a district or borough to agree to, or to provide consent to, one of those functions. That potentially would circumvent the local democratic control that was envisaged. I am grateful to the Minister for honouring the commitments that have been made. For the most part, these provisions are politically non-controversial and are seen very much as beneficial regardless of who is in control of the local authorities, but I know that colleagues would appreciate it if he provided clarification on those points.
Jim McMahon
I thank the shadow Minister for his usual approach, which is to be supportive of devolution, and for his recognition that when we make a commitment to a local area, it is important that we act in good faith, notwithstanding the changes we have seen. In a sense, that is how we have tried to approach the most recent elections, with some quite significant change in some parts of England, in the make-up of councils and in the priorities of the leadership of those councils. I can confirm, however, that in the cases we are discussing, consent was sought from the councils before the elections, but we received notification afterwards that they were content to proceed. On that basis, we confirmed the position.
On the district councils, it is important to say that the district councils in the areas under consideration are the planning authority. Their role as the planning authority does not change, notwithstanding the powers being granted for things like compulsory purchase. I confirm for the record, however, that those powers can only be used with the consent of the district council; they cannot be used if the district council does not agree. We expect—it is not an unreasonable expectation—that local authorities will work together with the new powers to ensure that local people feel the benefits. I hope that is helpful.
On the point about the transfer of existing powers, it is easiest for us to refer to them as a foundation agreement—the start of an agreement of devolution and the first rung of the ladder. We of course encourage all areas to come forward that expressed an interest in further devolution. We are in a period of transition and are about to table the English devolution and community empowerment Bill in Parliament. We will need to allow Parliament to run its course and to consider the Bill in the usual way, but notwithstanding that, we want to see a standardisation of devolution across England.
I will be careful not to be too critical about what we have had before, because I do not think that devolution would have grown the way it has were it not for the flexibility in reaching agreements. That was part of a necessary process to develop, to get people to support it, but it is also fair to say that as we build out devolution, there needs to be consistency in the type of powers, the duties and responsibilities, and the funding arrangements, and there needs to be transparency about how much is given to each area.
That will give clarity to areas that are trying to assess whether they believe that mayoral devolution is the right move for them. Some might well decide that it is not the right time and that they want to stay longer with a foundation agreement. From a Government point of view, we will support that, if it is the right thing for that area. Likewise, however, they might well see the powers in the new Bill and say that those are worth accepting a mayor for, even if at the moment there is not yet such agreement.
This is very much a Government who are open to listening and working with local areas. If there are any places that want to have conversations about further and deeper devolution, our door, here and everywhere, remains open for that. We will say more about the expansion of devolution in England over the coming days on that basis.
With your permission, Sir Edward, I think I have covered the points that have been made. I can confirm to hon. Members that this instrument delivers a commitment made in the devolution agreements with Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire to confer housing and regeneration functions on each local authority.
Question put and agreed to.