English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind Members to switch off electronic devices. I have lots of people here who can help me do that, but you do not. The usual courtesies prevail. If you want to speak, make sure that you have caught my eye. My job is to make sure that the Minister gets ample time to take her legislation through the House and that other Members have ample time to scrutinise her during that process. We will proceed on that basis.
Any Member can contribute during the line-by-line consideration. I will typically ask the Member who has tabled an amendment to introduce it and the Minister will sum up. As a matter of courtesy, it is better if the Minister does not have to rise several times. The Minister needs ample opportunity to sum up the debate. I do not want a perpetual exchange. I know that is sometimes unavoidable, but I want to be as courteous as possible to our Minister of the Crown.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Schedule 12 expands on existing powers in relation to the mayoral development orders in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to all mayors of strategic authorities. MDOs grant planning permission for development as an alternative to granting permission through a planning application. They are similar to local development orders, which Members will be familiar with and are used across the country.
Development orders are designed to enable up-front planning certainty for developers and communities. For example, the Gravity LDO in Somerset granted permission for advanced manufacturing facilities and a giga-battery factory is now under construction. We want to give mayors and strategic authorities the same opportunities so that they can support development, which will make a difference to growth and economic opportunities in their areas.
At the moment, only the Mayor of London can make an MDO; schedule 12 would expand that to all mayors. It also streamlines the MDO process. Currently, an MDO needs to be requested by each relevant local planning authority, and their consent is needed before the mayor can consult on the draft order. Schedule 12 removes those limitations. That does not mean that local planning authorities are cut out of the process; they will still be consulted and their approval will be sought for making the order.
In practice, we expect to see local planning authorities and mayors working closely in partnership. However, we recognise that there may be instances where a mayor and a local planning authority cannot agree. Proposed new section 61DCA of the Town and Country Planning Act allows a mayor to request that the Secretary of State consider an order where local planning authority approval is not given. These provisions set the framework; the detailed process for making an order will be set out in secondary legislation, which we will consult on.
Schedule 13 contains consequential amendments to other legislation, which are necessary for the provisions under clauses 31 and 32. I hope that Members will agree that this measure will be an important tool for mayors in delivering the housing and the economic growth and development that we want to see across the country. I commend schedules 12 and 13 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I will do my best not to disappoint you, Sir John, or the Minister or Government Back Benchers. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she feels refreshed after last night’s late sitting; we will try to make this as easy as possible.
In relation to schedules 12 and 13, this is a standard procedure used by the Mayor of London. We see this as a perfectly sensible proposal that unifies the regulations with those existing in London. I will just say this to the Minister, if I can without disappointing her. On proposed new section 61DCA, the Minister outlined that the Secretary of State could direct or issue an order, should local authorities not agree to a mayoral development order. I understand that details will come out in secondary legislation, which is perfectly acceptable, but could she outline to the Committee the balance of power? As I think the Minister respectfully acknowledges, we have been consistently worried that, if this is supposed to be a true devolution Bill, giving power to the Secretary of State to order or issue kind of breaks the spirit of that devolution.
Could the Minister give the Committee some reassurance that the views and objections of local authorities would be taken into proper consideration? What would that balance of power be, should the Secretary of State have to use that order? We do, however, see this as a perfectly reasonable schedule, and will not seek to divide the Committee on it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for supporting the measure. In the event that there is not consensus between a constituent authority and the mayoral strategic authority, it would go up to the Secretary of State in the way that planning applications do currently. The Planning Inspectorate will review it based on its planning merits, in the light of issues and objections that have been raised locally, and the full suite of evidence. It is consistent with the current process for planning applications that are called in. We think this will essentially standardise what we do for individual local authorities currently.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 12 accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 33
Power to charge community infrastructure levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Schedule 14.
New clause 1—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—
(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and
(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;
(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and
(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.
(3) In this section—
“charging authority” has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;
“technical error” means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”
New clause 28—Application of CIL to householders—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 205 (The Levy) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.
(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).””
This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 33 and schedule 14 will give mayors of strategic authorities the ability to raise a mayoral community infrastructure levy, or MCIL. I am sure Members will be aware that the Mayor of London’s ability to charge MCIL in London was critical to funding delivery of the fantastic Elizabeth Line. We want to extend the same power to other regional mayors so that they too can fund vital infrastructure that will drive growth and create opportunities in their areas.
The power will not be unconstrained. Mayors will need to have a spatial development strategy in place, meaning that they will have to have a clear plan for meeting overall housing and development targets in their area. Mayors will also need to develop and introduce a CIL charging schedule, which will undergo public consultation, examination and approval. That means that the levy rates that apply to MCIL will strike an appropriate balance between supporting development through infrastructure provision and the potential effect on viability of development. We will provide further detail on what MCIL can be spent on through regulations.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair today, Sir John. I support the clause and schedule 14. It is really important that we have devolved fundraising powers, and this is one of the ways in which that can be done.
I have a question for the Minister about the rules for what mayoral CIL in different areas can be levied to fund. In London, the current regulations restrict spending by the mayor to funding roads or other transport facilities. Is the Minister making changes in the Bill, or will she do so through regulations?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir John. I welcome the introduction of MCIL. We have spoken before about how these authorities will be funded, and this is another tool in the toolbox. I am slightly concerned about how it will sit alongside strategic CIL and neighbourhood CIL. I would be really concerned if this took away the portion of money that is available for local neighbourhoods through neighbourhood forums or town and county councils to spend on hyper-local infrastructure, which can otherwise never be funded. I am also interested in the pieces of infrastructure that currently are funded through strategic CIL by an upper-tier authority. Will those responsibilities pass in full across to the mayor, so that we do not end up with a situation where the mayor gets the CIL, but the council gets the responsibility?
That is one of the reasons why we have tabled new clause 1, although the Minister may say we do not need part of it. The first part of the new clause states that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of the Act, prepare and publish guidance on the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges—tt may be that that is going to happen anyway. More importantly, there is the issue of error and incorrect charging. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who has been involved with the CIL Injustice Group, where there have been miscalculated charges, with councils charging up to £100,000 for the community infrastructure levy completely incorrectly. We know that CIL is supposed to be charged on additional dwellings for commercial use, not on self-builds or extensions, but that has happened in a number of councils around the country. There are a couple of councils in Surrey—Waverley in particular has a huge problem. The new Liberal Democrat council in West Berkshire had to pay back £300,000 in total to 18 different constituents who had all been incorrectly charged. In my own county of Dorset, there are cases where people have been incorrectly charged.
In some instances, people have been building their own home and suddenly had a notice put on the path outside. Some have been chased down for huge amounts of money, and some for tiny amounts of money, and have had court charges applied to them. It is a problem that needs solving. Last Monday in the Chamber—I believe you were present, Sir John—two Conservative Members raised cases from their own constituencies. A previous Minister said that a series of households had been badly hit. It is clear that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate in this way. We do not believe our new clause would create a significant new burden on the Secretary of State; it is there to assist, and we would be grateful for a commitment that its provisions will be rolled into the legislation.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 289, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on behalf of the official Opposition. I will also briefly speak to new clause 1. The hon. Lady has just very expertly outlined why the Government should accept it, and the official Opposition agree with her. She is absolutely correct that CIL, although a very good thing, is—not always intentionally, but sometimes negligently—being used in inappropriate ways. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned a case in his constituency with his local authority, where somebody was being charged £70,000. That is clearly unacceptable.
Any measure that could improve the regulation and guidance to local authorities, not necessarily to restrict them but to give them clarity—it would also slightly pull on the tail of their coat, so they do not act irresponsibly to people who are responsibly improving their homes—is a good thing. We will therefore be supporting new clause 1 if the hon. Lady chooses to press that to a vote. It clearly does not place an undue burden on the Secretary of State, and it would mean that the system would become more streamlined and transparent. It would give protection to people who are doing the right thing and ensuring that they are following the rules, but the rules are clearly being interpreted in different ways.
Amendment 289, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would ensure that the mayors charging CIL report on the effect that this has on housing development. Similarly to new clause 1, we do not think that that would place an undue burden on the legislation or on the necessary parties because, where the community infrastructure levy is being used at the moment, there clearly is a lack of transparency on what it is delivering for local people. The amendment will improve the transparency that mayors and local authorities would be bringing to the table.
CIL is meant to improve infrastructure and make sure that housing is delivered. We have seen across the country places where existing mayors are not necessarily delivering on their housing commitment, particularly in London. We argue that this amendment would bring transparency because a mayor has to account for how they are using CIL and the effect that that would have on housing development in a city region that they control. We think that is a perfectly reasonable amendment.
For that reason, we will press amendment 289 to a vote, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole chooses to press new clause 1 to a vote, we will certainly support that today.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will start by addressing some of the questions that were raised, and then move to amendment 289 and new clause 1. There is a key question of how to ensure that the mayoral strategic CIL does not undercut local CILs. The mayor will have to have regard to local CILs that are already being issued, to ensure that there is a balance. The CIL proposal will need to be done in the context of viability assessments, so the mayor will need to think about what is happening at the parish, town and local authority levels in terms of CIL before a strategic CIL is put in place. It is also worth noting that the charging schedule will be subject to statutory consultation. Again, that is another provision to ensure that the right balance is being struck.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked what the CIL will be used for. That will be set out in regulations, but we are clear, up front, that it will be for vital infrastructure that can unlock growth and economic development. Therefore, there will be broader permissiveness within that, but we will set that out in further regulations.
On amendment 289, while I fully support the need for transparency in the use of developer contributions to ensure accountability, the amendment is unnecessary because it duplicates existing regulatory requirements. All contribution-receiving authorities are already required to publish an infrastructure funding statement each year. This annual statement must include details on the amount of CIL collected and spent, and information on infrastructure projects funded, or intended to be funded, by CIL.
The CIL regulations are already very prescriptive about what must be included within an infrastructure funding statement. Introducing further reporting obligations is not necessary and potentially risks confusing things and increasing the administrative burdens on strategic authorities.
Finally, we have an additional safeguarding provision: the Planning Act 2008 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing reporting requirements, or create new requirements, if it is determined that existing arrangements are not necessary. We think that we already have sufficient provisions within existing legislation, which means that amendment 289 is not required.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We are talking about a mayoral CIL reset, but some local authorities will not introduce a CIL because they get far more out of section 106 negotiations. Will mayors be able to take part in 106 negotiations if they do not bring in their own CIL? If not, why not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Ultimately section 106 will remain with local authorities. I hope that the process of developing a strategic spatial plan means that the mayor and constituent authorities have already had the conversation about housing development and critical infrastructure that needs to sit alongside it, and how that will be well funded. The CIL is a complementary tool that will sit alongside section 106 and other tools that sit with the local authority but, critically, all should be working toward a collective plan for the area that they have all fed into and engaged with. If that plan is done well, there will be consensus across the piece.
Although I completely appreciate the intentions behind new clause 1—to promote consistency and best practice in how the CIL is administered—they are already achieved under existing legislation and statutory guidance. Regulation already includes provisions for correcting errors in CIL charges, including by issuing revised liability notices and demand notices. There are also clear routes of review and appeal, initially to the local authority itself, but also to the Valuation Office Agency in certain cases, and to the Planning Inspectorate. Those are well established, effective safeguards that are used where developers believe that an error has been made. In addition, the Planning Act 2008 allows a Secretary of State to give guidance to charging authorities or other public authorities about any matter connected with CIL, and the authority must have regard to that guidance. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for what I hope the Minister does not think is a discourtesy—it is due to my rustiness on Bill Committee procedure; I last served on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—but I wish to speak briefly to new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.
New clause 28 is designed to do exactly what I argue the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, wishes to achieve. In her response to new clause 1, the Minister outlined that the Planning Act 2008 gives guidance on the two charging and reporting mechanisms, and if there is a problem with the amount of CIL that has been charged, it gives applicants the right to try to rectify that through an appeal. That is clearly not working; otherwise we would not be talking about the situations that many constituents have faced over the past years, including the cases that the hon. Lady mentioned and the one that I mentioned in which £70,000 is being charged to someone and they are now, I think, a couple of years down the road and cannot get rectification.
New clause 28 is very simply worded and makes it absolutely clear that
“the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.”
I believe that last week in oral questions, the Secretary of State outlined clearly that he thinks there is a problem here, and that the system is currently not working, particularly for people who are doing property extensions for their own use. The new clause clearly aims to mitigate that problem.
Vikki Slade
Will the hon. Member comment on the fact that, according to the CIL Injustice Group, £1.65 million has been incorrectly charged. The Minister for Housing and Planning said:
“It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.”
Will the hon. Member join me in asking why the Minister would not take the opportunity to put that provision in the Bill, when it has a clause specifically about community infrastructure levy?
Paul Holmes
I cannot comment on the motivations of the Minister, who I believe is an hon. Lady of utmost integrity, but I suspect that the Government want to amend the Bill on their own terms. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I both speak for Opposition parties, but we would not make hay if the Minister chose to accept these new clauses. The Government have a position, stated on the Floor of the House of Commons, that CIL is not working for people who tried to follow the rules but are being persecuted and in many cases prosecuted by local authorities, through the wrong charging mechanisms being applied. The Minister outlined the mitigation and the appeal infrastructure that people can currently use, but they are not working either. New clause 1—an admirable new clause—and new clause 28 would make it very clear that people in that situation cannot be charged the CIL.
The Minister is in charge. She has the power to accept the new clauses and improve the legislation to change the lives of people who face injustice every day in the current system. I absolutely accept that the last Government did not do it, but she has a simple choice today: accept these new clauses, change the situation, and make sure that people do not have to go through what these people have been going through. I encourage her to accept these new clauses in the spirit of co-operation and tripartisanship—[Interruption.] Quadripartisanship! We would genuinely support her in doing that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, I thank hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for raising the issue. I assure the Committee that we know there is a problem here. We are alive to the cases that have arisen, which demonstrate that the CIL, as it should apply, is not working in practice. Although exemptions exist, they are not being applied in the way that they ought to be.
We are giving careful consideration to this matter as part of our commitment to develop a far clearer and more effective contribution system. As I said, I completely appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to protect a segment of the market that we want to protect; it ought to exempted. I can clearly confirm that we are looking seriously at this matter and we will revert to it at a later stage, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to allow the Government time to consider it properly.
The Chair
I sense that the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole and for Hamble Valley will want to press their new clauses, but that will come later in our consideration of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 289, in schedule 14, page 170, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) must, as far as it relates to the exercise of the mayor’s functions as a charging authority, publish details of—
(i) each instance in which CIL has been charged,
(ii) how much has been raised by the charging of CIL, and
(iii) the impact on delivery of housing infrastructure development.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This amendment would ensure that mayors charging CIL reported on the effect that this has on housing development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 34 introduces schedule 15, which contains provisions to enable strategic authorities outside London to undertake their housing and strategic planning competences. These standardise the extension of powers relating to the acquisition and use of land currently held by Homes England and local authorities to strategic authorities outside London.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has outlined the clause and set out the responsibilities and changes she wants to make in a very reasonable manner. This seems a perfectly sensible solution; it encourages more transparency and accountability in some of the actions that Homes England undertakes. People in my constituency feel that some of the money allocated to development through the current channels of scrutiny and planning is not necessarily in lockstep with what they want for their local areas. As I have said throughout, a devolution Bill should mean true devolution, so I think these responsibilities coming under the remit of the new authorities is a good thing. I welcome this addition to the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15
Acquisition and development of land
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 15, page 173, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;
(aa) in subsection (2), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;”
This would alter the amendment of section 9(2) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 110, 111, 127 and 128.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Bill gives the Greater London Authority, as well as other strategic authorities, the powers of Homes England to acquire land both by agreement and by compulsory purchase. Government amendments 109 to 111 change that, ensuring that the power is conferred only on strategic authorities outside London. This is because the Greater London Authority already has similar powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and so does not need the additional powers, and duplicating powers could create legal uncertainty and confusion. We are providing greater certainty by clarifying these provisions.
Similarly, the Bill provides that part 1 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 applies to all strategic authorities, as well as Homes England. Government amendment 127 clarifies that this should be applied only to strategic authorities outside London, as functions of Homes England are to be conferred only on those authorities. Again, The Greater London Authority already has similar powers to acquire land by agreement through the Greater London Authority Act.
Government amendment 128 would place conditions on how strategic authorities outside London use land that is not consecrated or a burial ground and that at the time it was acquired had a building being used or previously used for religious worship. The use of this type of land is subject to prescribed requirements about the disposal of monuments. This is in addition to the requirement extended in relation to land that contains burial grounds or consecrated land, which is already extended by schedule 15(10).
At present, this provision applies only to land acquired by Homes England, and the amendment would extend it to strategic authorities. This change ensures consistency in how land powers are applied across different public bodies. This is a small change, but it is necessary to ensure that the legislation works properly and longstanding protections are not lost.
Amendment 109 agreed to.
Amendments made: 110, in schedule 15, page 173, lineusb 11, leave out from “on” to end of line 12 and insert “strategic authorities outside London.”
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Amendment 111, in schedule 15, page 173, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 109.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 112, in schedule 15, page 173, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 131, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166 and 167.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a series of technical corrections to ensure that the Bill uses the correct terminology. They replace the word “authority” or “authorities” with “council” or “councils” in several places in schedules 15 and 16. The change is important because the term “constituent council” or “councils” is the defined and accurate term used elsewhere in the legislation for the local authorities that form part of the combined authority or the combined county authority.
Using consistent language helps to ensure that the Bill is clear, legally precise and easy to interpret, and avoids confusion about which bodies are being referred to. The amendments do not change the substance of, or intent behind, any of the provisions; they simply improve their clarity and consistency, and hopefully result in a lack of confusion—although I am not clear that they do—in the drafting. I encourage the Committee to support the amendments, to help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the Bill.
Amendment 112 agreed to.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 113, in schedule 15, page 173, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 116, 118, 121, 123, 125, 132, 135, 137, 140, 160, 163, 165, 168 and 169.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments add the Broads Authority to the list of bodies that must be consulted by mayoral strategic authorities or provide their consent to non-mayoral strategic authorities before land in its area is compulsorily acquired using powers devolved by the Bill. The broads are a nationally important landscape with equivalent status to a national park, and the Broads Authority is best placed to advise on the potential impact of land acquisition in its area. This is about ensuring proper engagement with the right bodies when decisions affecting sensitive and protected areas are made. That reflects the approach already used by existing authorities and ensures that all constituent councils have a clear and accountable role in the decision-making process.
Amendment 113 agreed to.
The Chair
We are moving ahead with alacrity, are we not?
Amendments made: 114, in schedule 15, page 173, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 115, in schedule 15, page 173, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 116, in schedule 15, page 173, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 117, in schedule 15, page 174, line 5, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 118, in schedule 15, page 174, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 119, in schedule 15, page 174, line 11, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 120, in schedule 15, page 174, line 13, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 121, in schedule 15, page 174, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 122, in schedule 15, page 174, line 15, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (8) applies to a county council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments are, again, about making the legislation clearer and more consistent. They confirm that only councils that are strategic authorities are subject to the additional consent requirements when using the compulsory purchase powers in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. This matches what was already set out in subsection (1) of proposed new section 9A of that Act.
Without those changes, there would be confusion about whether all county and district councils are included. That is not the intention: these provisions are meant to apply only where councils are designated as strategic authorities. The amendment is helpful to avoid misinterpretation and ensure that the Bill is applied as intended.
Amendment 122 agreed to.
Amendments made: 123, in schedule 15, page 174, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 124, in schedule 15, page 174, line 21, after “council” insert
“that is a strategic authority”.
This would clarify that subsection (9) applies to a district council only if it is a strategic authority (in line with the application provision in subsection (1) of the new section 9A).
Amendment 125, in schedule 15, page 174, line 22, leave out from “any” to end of line 24 and insert
“of the following bodies whose area contains any part of the land subject to the proposed compulsory acquisition—
(a) any National Park authority;
(b) the Broads Authority.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 15, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“Main powers in relation to acquired land
6A In section 11, omit ‘by the HCA’.”
This would reflect the effect of the Bill on Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
This technical amendment again ensures consistency in how the Bill amends existing legislation. It removes the words “by the HCA” from a reference in section 11 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to schedule 3 to that Act. In paragraph 10 of schedule 15 to the Bill, “by the HCA” is already being removed from the heading of schedule 3 to the 2008 Act. This change aligns with that. The original wording refers specifically to Homes England, and no longer reflects the full range of bodies that may exercise those powers under the Bill.
This amendment ensures the legislation is clear and accurate, and I encourage the Committee to support it to ensure that we have clarity and consistency across our legislation.
Amendment 126 agreed to.
Amendments made: 127, in schedule 15, page 177, line 2, after “authority” insert “outside London”.
This would alter the amendment of paragraph 17(1) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).
Amendment 128, in schedule 15, page 177, line 22, at end insert—
“(8) In paragraph 21 (other land connected to religious worship), in sub-paragraph (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would provide for paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to apply in relation to land acquired by a strategic authority outside London. It allows for restrictions on the use of land that was connected to religious worship but was neither consecrated nor a burial ground.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 129, in schedule 15, page 179, line 34, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 4 on page 180 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (bb), omit ‘and’;
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) if the land is in the area of a strategic authority to whom this section applies, consult with that strategic authority (in addition to any other consultation required by this subsection).’”
This would require the Secretary of State to consult a strategic authority (as well as the local authority) before authorising a compulsory acquisition
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 130, 143 and 152 to 154.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Amendment 129 revises the consultation process when the Secretary of State is authorising the compulsory acquisition of land. It removes a provision that would have required consultation with a strategic authority instead of the relevant local councils, and adds instead a requirement to consult the strategic authority as well as the councils where the land is located. This ensures that both local and strategic authorities are involved in decisions affecting land in their area. It is a practical and balanced amendment.
Amendment 130 removes the provision that makes the mayor the person responsible for exercising the compulsory acquisition of land function in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Instead, the powers will be exercised by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority. This is consistent with how the function is currently exercised in most existing mayoral strategic authorities, where decisions about how to use the function are taken collectively. The amendment does not affect the ability of authorities to make timely and effective decisions on land acquisition; it simply ensures that there is collective buy-in behind the decision.
Amendments 143, 153 and 154 ensure that all local authorities, non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities have access to the same powers and restrictions in relation to acquiring and using land under the Town and Country Planning Act. At present, only mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are covered by these provisions, because they are included in the Act’s definition of local authorities. This creates an unnecessary gap in the legislation, which the amendments seek to close. These are technical but important changes that support fairness, consistency and effective delivery across all areas with devolved powers.
Finally, amendment 152 is again technical, but is an important clarification to ensure that the Bill works as intended. It updates the wording to confirm that the proposed new subsection (4) contained in paragraph 21 of schedule 15 applies to both section 238 and section 239 of the Town and Country Planning Act. These sections deal with the use and development of consecrated land and burial grounds. This is a technical amendment that ensures consistency and accuracy across all our legislation.
Amendment 129 agreed to.
Amendments made: 130, in schedule 15, page 180, leave out lines 10 to 13.
This would remove the provision under which the compulsory acquisition function of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is exercisable by the mayor (so that it would be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA itself).
Amendment 131, in schedule 15, page 180, line 18, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 132, in schedule 15, page 180, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 133, in schedule 15, page 180, line 24, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 134, in schedule 15, page 180, line 26, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 135, in schedule 15, page 180, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 136, in schedule 15, page 180, line 32, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 137, in schedule 15, page 180, line 33, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 138, in schedule 15, page 180, line 38, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 139, in schedule 15, page 180, line 40, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 140, in schedule 15, page 181, line 1, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the CCA.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 141, in schedule 15, page 181, line 10, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 142 and 144 to 151.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These amendments make a small but important clarification to part 2 of schedule 15. They ensure that the provisions explicitly insert only references to non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. This is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities already have these powers conferred upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Specifically, they fall within the definition of “local authorities”, so including them is unnecessary. These amendments do not remove any powers from mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities; instead, they are small, technical amendments that simplify and clarify, and they are important for the consistency and coherence of the Bill.
Amendment 141 agreed to.
Amendments made: 142, in schedule 15, page 181, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 143, in schedule 15, page 181, line 20, at end insert—
‘Power of Secretary of State to require acquisition or development of land
17A (1) Section 231 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “borough” insert “, or a combined authority or CCA,”;
(b) after the second “council” insert “or combined authority or CCA”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “local authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of section 231 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within its scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within subsection (2) as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 144, in schedule 15, page 181, line 23, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 145, in schedule 15, page 181, line 27, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 146, in schedule 15, page 182, line 3, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 147, in schedule 15, page 182, line 5, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 148, in schedule 15, page 182, line 11, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 149, in schedule 15, page 182, line 13, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 150, in schedule 15, page 182, line 16, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 151, in schedule 15, page 182, line 18, leave out “combined authority or” and insert
“non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral”.
Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs do not need to be added to this section as they are already within the definition of “local authority” in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as precepting authorities).
Amendment 152, in schedule 15, page 182, line 24, leave out from “In” to “compulsorily” in line 27 and insert
“sections 238 and 239 ‘relevant acquisition or appropriation’ also includes an acquisition made by a combined authority or CCA under this Part or”.
This would provide for the new subsection (4) to apply to section 238 (as well as section 239); and would remove the reference to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as this does not apply to combined authorities or CCAs.
Amendment 153, in schedule 15, page 182, line 35, at end insert—
‘Overriding of rights of possession
22A In section 242, in paragraph (a), after “authority” insert “or a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.
Constitution of joint body to hold land for planning purposes
22B In section 243, in subsection (1)—
(a) for “local authorities concerned” substitute “authorities concerned”;
(b) for “local authority for planning purposes” substitute “local authority, or non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA, for planning purposes;
(c) for “any other local authority” substitute “any other local authority, non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA”.’
This would extend the application of sections 242 and 243 so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Amendment 154, in schedule 15, page 183, line 3, at end insert—
‘Extinguishment of rights of statutory undertakers: preliminary notices
23A (1) Section 271 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Extinguishment of rights of electronic communications code network operators: preliminary notices
23B (1) Section 272 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1) (in both places);
(b) subsection (5) (in the words before paragraph (a)).
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Orders under sections 271 and 272
23C In section 274, in subsection (3), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Extension or modification of functions of statutory undertakers
23D (1) Section 275 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) subsection (1)(a);
(b) subsection (3) (in all three places);
(c) subsection (5)(c).
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”
Procedure in relation to orders under section 275
23E In section 276, in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Objections to orders under sections 275 and 277
23F In section 278, in subsection (7), for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”.
Contributions by local authorities and statutory undertakers
23G (1) Section 306 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In the following provisions, for “local authority” substitute “relevant authority”—
(a) the heading;
(b) subsection (1) (in the words before paragraph (a) and in paragraph (c));
(c) subsection (2) (in the words before paragraph (a));
(d) subsection (3) (in both places);
(e) subsection (4).
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In this section ‘relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority, or
(b) a non-mayoral combined authority or non-mayoral CCA.”’—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would extend the application of these sections so that all combined authorities and CCAs are within their scope. (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs are already within their scope as “local authorities” as defined in section 336 of the TCPA 1990.)
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35
Housing accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 155 to 158 and 170.
Schedule 16.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Housing is a national priority for this Government, and these provisions play an important role in enabling strategic authorities to contribute meaningfully to this core mission. This is particularly true where regional leadership is needed to unlock delivery. These provisions enable strategic authorities to assess housing demand, provide amenities and acquire land. Land may be acquired compulsorily, subject to consultation in the case of mayoral strategic authorities, and via consent, in the case of non-mayoral strategic authorities. I believe this drives cohesive regional solutions.
Some may argue that local councils have sufficient powers, but the clause grants strategic authorities the scope for the transformational, region-wide impact that I know Members across the House want to see. Clause 35 and schedule 16 harness proven powers to meet regional housing goals, and I commend them to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We know that these powers are used by existing authorities, so we are not going to rock the boat on this one, but I will briefly respond to the Minister. She stated that housing is, quite rightly, the Government’s top priority, and that these provisions enables that priority to be delivered, but where these powers already exist we see mayors not delivering on housing commitments. I think of London, where the mayor who has these powers is not delivering houses; in fact, building in London is at an all-time low, and houses are not being delivered for the people who genuinely need them in our capital city.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
A big reason we have a problem with housing numbers is the Building Safety Regulator. There will be a Back-Bench debate on it on Thursday, which I am sure the Minister will attend in order to give the Opposition’s views. It is critical that we get that sorted to get house building going.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Minister; I cannot wait for that to happen one day. I suspect that I will have more grey hair, and less hair. He is correct, and I am on the record as having spoken about this: the Building Safety Regulator is a barrier to building. I know that this is slightly out of scope, but I have offered to work with Ministers on a genuine cross-party basis to try to remove some of the burdens on the Building Safety Regulator, which I think has purview over too much that is not material to the delivery of housing.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of the current powers, the mayor is not delivering, and the Government are not delivering on their promise of 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State yesterday said that his job would be on the line if he did not deliver the 1.5 million homes. I suspect that we will see a sacking in the not-too-distant future, because everybody in this country who is an expert in housing—there was a documentary on it just this week—says that the Government will not achieve their stated aim of building that number of homes.
The clause in itself is not a panacea that will unlock huge housing growth in our cities. The Minister should be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, as her mayors consistently do across the country. However, we know that this is a unification and simplification of the system. We will not divide the Committee on the clause. This is a perfectly sensible solution, but let us not pretend that it is a sledgehammer that will crack a nut, and cause the Government to achieve their aims across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would be remiss of me not to address some of the issues in London. We recognise that we have a housing challenge in London and across the country. I suggest that the hon. Member show a little more humility, because the consequences are the legacy of the Conservative party. He did not mention that the Conservatives in government slashed housing targets across the country, which throttled development; or that they crashed the economy and caused mortgages to rise, which had an impact on demand. He did not mention their record on inflation, which increased construction costs.
Anyone who knows housing knows that there is a lag, so the impacts of the Conservative party’s failure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member solicited this by attacking our brilliant mayor. The Conservatives’ failures are feeding through, and we are now trying to accelerate progress. That is why record investment of £39 billion is going into social housing, and it is why we are seeing housing targets across the country. We are doing our part to get the country building again. Ultimately, we will be the ones to solve the housing crisis.
Paul Holmes
We really should not accept this party political broadcast. One million homes were built over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why housing delivery is at an all-time low? Why is it that experts in the housing sector, including the Home Builders Federation, say that the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised simply cannot be delivered, and the Chancellor’s own figures show that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered? That is a failure on the promise that she made, is it not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
If we look at a graph, we see that housing starts plummeted in 2023. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to remind the Committee who was in power at that time—it was the Conservative party. We are trying to accelerate housing development, and we have a 1.5 million target that we are committed to delivering. That is not to underestimate the incredible difficulty, but we believe that homes are a requirement and a necessity. We have a homelessness crisis and a temporary accommodation crisis, so we have to get to grips with this. That is why we are doing the job of accelerating housing development. The amendments, and giving strategic authorities the powers that will enable them to play a role, are critical to that endeavour.
The Chair
I have been generous in allowing that debate to range rather more widely than might generally be thought acceptable. After all those technical amendments, we needed a bit of debate, did we not?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16
Housing accommodation
Amendments made: 155, in schedule 16, page 184, line 17, at end insert—
“(1B) But if a local housing authority has complied with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to a part of the area of a combined authority, CCA or two-tier county council, that strategic authority—
(a) does not need to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1A) in relation to that part of its area; and
(b) may rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of the matters referred to in subsection (1) as if it were the strategic authority’s own consideration of those matters.”
This would remove the duty imposed by the new subsection (1A) where a local housing authority has already carried out the required consideration of housing conditions and enable the strategic authority to rely on the local housing authority’s consideration of housing matters.
Amendment 156, in schedule 16, page 184, line 24, at end insert—
‘Provision of housing accommodation
2A (1) Section 9 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), after “local housing authority” insert “, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority”.
(3) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.
(4) In subsection (5), for “a local housing authority” substitute “an authority”.’
This would expand the application of section 9 so that combined authorities, CCAs and two-tier county councils that are strategic authorities are within its scope.
Amendment 157, in schedule 16, page 184, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 185 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may provide in connection with the provision of housing accommodation under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”
(1B) In subsection (4), for “A local housing authority” substitute “An authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide board and laundry facilities in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 158, in schedule 16, page 185, leave out lines 8 to 22 and insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute—
“(1) A local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, provide and maintain in connection with housing accommodation provided under this Part (whether it is provided by that authority or another authority)—”.
(1B) In subsection (3), for “the local housing authority” substitute “the authority”.’
This would enable a local housing authority, combined authority or CCA, or two-tier county council that is a strategic authority to provide shops etc in connection with accommodation, whether the accommodation is provided by that or another authority.
Amendment 159, in schedule 16, page 186, line 16, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 160, in schedule 16, page 186, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 161, in schedule 16, page 186, line 22, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 162, in schedule 16, page 186, line 24, leave out “authority” and insert “council”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 163, in schedule 16, page 186, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority.”
This would make the Broads Authority a consultee if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 164, in schedule 16, page 186, line 30, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 165, in schedule 16, page 186, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the combined authority.”
This would (i) require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area; and (ii) require consent of a constituent council to be given at a meeting of the combined authority.
Amendment 166, in schedule 16, page 186, line 36, leave out “authorities” and insert “councils”.
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 167, in schedule 16, page 186, line 38, leave out “authority” and insert “council”
This would change the provision to use the correct term “constituent council”.
Amendment 168, in schedule 16, page 186, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) the Broads Authority;
and consent of a constituent council must be given at a meeting of the CCA.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 169, in schedule 16, page 187, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) the Broads Authority.”
This would require the consent of the Broads Authority if any of the land proposed for compulsory acquisition is in its area.
Amendment 170, in schedule 16, page 187, line 12, leave out “(1)” and insert “(2)”. —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This corrects the reference to the Housing Act 1985.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36
Mayoral development corporations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause grants mayors of strategic authorities outside London the power to create mayoral development corporations. They are another tool for mayors to enable regional regeneration and economic development. Stripping away these provisions would limit regional ambition. The clause gives effect to schedule 17, allowing mayoral development corporations to spearhead land acquisition, planning and infrastructure projects. This will help to foster jobs, unlock growth, drive infrastructure development and attract investment into our regions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Mayoral development corporations
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 290, in schedule 17, page 193, line 2, at end insert—
“7A After section 202, insert—
‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land
Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”
I rise to speak to the amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although we welcome mayoral development corporations, since this Government came to office an environment has been created, if Members will forgive the pun, where it is easier to build in rural areas but harder to develop our urban centres. As we mentioned in a debate last week, the Government’s planning and building conditions are making it harder to densify urban centres. We have discussed the housing targets in rural and urban areas, and now mayoral development corporations are being created. That is perfectly acceptable, but we do not think it protects the green belt across this great green and pleasant land, and it will essentially allow mayors to build on greenfield land without the necessary checks and balances.
The amendment is simple. We tabled it because we want to make it much easier to build in areas of existing development where there is scope for densification, and we want to protect green belt and greenfield land by restricting building on it where many people to whom the mayor is accountable simply do not want that to happen. The amendment would not rule out such development completely, but it would make the MDC more streamlined and disciplined about unlocking areas where infrastructure exists and it is easier to build, rather than using green fields, where we believe development is more difficult and takes longer.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework.
We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and I am inclined not to press the amendment to a Division but to treat it as probing. She is aware that I have long advocated for, and pushed her and the Government on, the incentivisation of densification. In our debate on amendment 304 last week, I think she reasonably accepted that a densification strategy was needed. She has come back to the NPPF today, but that is simply not working. We tabled amendment 304 and this amendment to solidify the position. We think that that is a perfectly reasonable approach to the guidance and regulations.
I hope for some reassurance from the Minister that she and the Government will look at further action regarding that incentivisation. If I get that reassurance, I will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 17, page 195, line 23, leave out from “that” to end of line 24 and insert
“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.
This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.
We welcome the introduction of the mayoral development corporations across the country. Some good successes have been achieved in London; not many miles from here, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to grow and expand, and it has some incredible facilities, including a new arts hub.
The one small thing that we would like the Minister to consider is the make-up of the corporations. It is important that people trust the organisations that are doing such large-scale development, which can potentially make enormous changes to the landscapes around them, whether on credible brownfield sites or, as others have said, through new towns or greenfield development, about which people are far more sensitive.
The Bill states that a mayoral development corporation must have at least one member from each constituent authority and that there must be no fewer than six members, but it does not give a maximum number. There is a real risk that if there is simply one member from each authority—some of these authorities are fairly large to start with—the majority of a corporation may be made up of people who are not connected to the community. It is absolutely right that there should be expertise, strategic people, and perhaps people from other sectors with skills, talents and experience from other places or sectors, but the organisation needs to be locally led. That is why my amendment 60 simply states that a majority of members of an MDC should be
“elected members of relevant councils”.
We think that that is a minor amendment that would benefit and broaden trust, and lock it in to local decision making.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the hon. Member’s intention to strengthen the voice of local councillors in the decision making of mayoral development corporations in their areas, and I support that intent. The Bill will introduce a requirement on mayors outside London to appoint at least one elected member from each council in which the development corporation operates. That mirrors the existing requirement on the Mayor of London, which has been in place since 2011, and how this function has been conferred on mayors outside London so far. That is working; the evidence from on the ground and from practice is that this approach is the right one and strikes the right balance.
I agree with the hon. Member that membership of a mayoral development corporation should absolutely include local expertise from the relevant councils, but it is important that it should be led by people with experience and capacity in the matters that the corporation is taking forward and delivering. When they work well, the corporations bring together local and technical expertise from both the public and private sectors to address complex, long-term projects that in most cases will take longer than an election cycle to deliver.
I worry that the amendment would weaken the mayor’s ability to choose the right mix of expertise that he or she and the strategic authority need in the mayoral development corporation, and limit the corporation’s capacity to drive delivery. Although we agree that there must be council representation, we think that the amendment as drafted provides that, without binding the hands of the mayor, in a way that allows them to bring in any key technical experience that they might need from outside their area in order to deliver impact on the ground.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 17 equips mayors with the tools they need to drive the critical function that we are asking them to. Mandatory consultation with councils where development corporations are proposed ensures transparency and collaboration. Preserving these provisions strengthens our devolution framework, enabling regions to take targeted, strategic action to boost growth, drive development and create jobs. They add no new duties, but only extend proven mechanisms.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 17 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 37
Assessment of economic conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities, as we have said consistently in discussing the Bill, are a key driving force for local growth. To lead growth for its area, the authority must understand its local economy. That is why this clause will provide combined or combined county authorities with a duty to assess the economic conditions of their areas.
Local councils will continue to play a critical role in formulating the strategic authority’s understanding of the local economy. Combined and combined county authorities will be required to consult and work with the councils in their area when building their assessment of economic conditions. This requirement will ensure that the economic strategy for an area combines a strategic, regional assessment of opportunities with a ground-up understanding of local economies. The duty has been long held by strategic authorities without issue and empowers them to develop a holistic understanding of their local economies.
Paul Holmes
Briefly, could the Minister elaborate on some of the consultation mechanisms that the strategic authority would use with the authorities that currently have the power? We completely understand why she has introduced this, but throughout proceedings in Committee, we and the other Opposition parties have expressed concern about the erosion of existing authorities’ responsibilities with the centralisation that is going on. Will the Minister elaborate on how much weight the new authority will give local authorities’ considerations?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that although we want a strategic assessment of the economic opportunities and risk in an area, and a local growth plan that crosses that area, it must be informed by constituent authorities. The way it is working in practice—we hope the legislation enables this—is that constituent authorities bring into the conversation their understanding, insights, analysis and key priorities for the area, and a collective decision is made. Ultimately, I come back to the point I have made consistently: the mayor’s capacity to be effective and deliver is only as strong as their relations and collaboration with constituent authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 38
Local growth plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 29—Inclusive economy plans—
“Schedule [inclusive economy plans] confers on mayoral strategic authorities functions in relation to inclusive economy plans”.
This clause renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
New schedule 1—Inclusive Economy Plans—
“1 (1) After section 107K of LDEDCA 2009 insert—
“Mayoral combined authorities: inclusive economy plans
107L Inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral combined authority must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral combined authority must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the combined authority, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral combined authority may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The authority must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
107M Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral combined authorities in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 107L.
(2) A mayoral combined authority must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the authority might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 107L(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the authority may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(2) After section 107M of the LDEDCA 2009 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (1)) insert—
“107N Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral combined authority when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the authority, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(3) After section 32 of the LURA 2023 insert—
“Mayoral CCAs: local inclusive economy plans
32A Local inclusive economy plans
(1) A mayoral CCA must prepare and publish an inclusive economy plan for its area.
(2) An inclusive economy plan must—
(a) include an overview of the economic conditions of the area (including the main economic characteristics which are likely to influence current and future economic inclusivity),
(b) identify priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area that are agreed with the Secretary of State (‘shared inclusive economy priorities’), and
(c) identify key projects for achieving economic inclusivity in the area through private or public investment.
(3) A mayoral CCA must, in preparing an inclusive economy plan, develop a set of local indicators to measure inclusive economic outcomes in its area.
(4) The indicators should—
(a) be developed in collaboration with residents of the area, including by means of public participatory process convened by the mayor of the CCA, and
(b) include the proposed effect of the plan on—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) health, including inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) happiness and social connection;
(iv) access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) increased power and control of the economy to people living in the strategic authority area.
(5) A mayoral CCA may revise or replace an inclusive economy plan published under this section.
(6) The CCA must arrange for any inclusive economy plan that is revised or replaced to be published.
(7) The requirement under subsection (1) may be met by the publication of an inclusive economy plan before this section comes into force.
32B Secretary of State guidance on inclusive economy plans
(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral CCAs in relation to inclusive economy plans under section 32A.
(2) A mayoral CCA must have regard to any such guidance in exercising their functions.
(3) The guidance may include (but is not limited to) guidance about—
(a) who the CCA might consult when preparing or revising the plan;
(b) information to be included in the plan under section 32A(2) or the plan as revised;
(c) the process for agreeing priorities for the economic inclusivity of the area with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 107L(2)(b);
(d) the circumstances in which the CCA may revise or replace the plan;
(e) the ways in which the CCA may have regard to the plan when exercising its other functions.”
(4) After section 32B of LURA 2023 (as inserted by sub-paragraph (3)), insert—
“32C Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared inclusive economy priorities
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared inclusive economy priority of a mayoral CCA when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the CCA, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to that priority.
(2) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of 30 section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘shared inclusive economy priorities’ has the meaning given by section 107L(2)(b);
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a non-departmental public body is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(4) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.”
(5) After section 333F of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 insert—
“333G Public bodies: duty to have regard to shared economic inclusivity priorities for London
(1) A relevant non-departmental public body must have regard to a shared economic inclusivity priority for Greater London when—
(a) exercising, at the request of the Mayor, a function which could reasonably be expected to have an effect on that priority;
(b) preparing a bid for public funding for an activity the objectives of which align with that priority;
(c) preparing a statutory plan or strategy which relates to the priority.
(2) A ‘shared local economic inclusivity priority for Greater London’ is an economic priority for Greater London that—
(a) is developed in collaboration with residents of Greater London, including by means of public participatory process convened by the Mayor of the London;
(b) has regard to—
(i) inequalities between persons with and without protected characteristics as defined by the Equalities Act 2010;
(ii) improving health and narrowing inequalities in health, nutrition and housing in the strategic authority area;
(iii) improving happiness and social connection;
(iv) improving access to nature and opportunities to play;
(v) promoting increased power and control of the economy to people living in Greater London;
(c) is agreed between the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State;
(d) is published by the Mayor of London.
(3) A ‘relevant non-departmental public body’ means a non-departmental public body specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In this section—
‘enactment’ includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘non-departmental public body’ means any public authority 20 other than—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or government department;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) a devolved Welsh authority within the meaning of section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
‘public funding’ means funding from a Minister of the Crown or government department;
‘statutory plan or strategy’ means a plan or strategy that a person is required by an enactment to issue or publish.
(5) References in this section to an enactment or to provision made 30 under an enactment are to an enactment whenever passed or (as the case may be) to provision whenever the instrument containing it is made.
(6) In section 420 (regulations and orders), in subsection (7), in the appropriate place, insert ‘section 333G;’.””
This new schedule renames Local Growth Plans as Inclusive Economy Plans and introduces NS1.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 19, which requires mayoral combined authorities and county authorities to produce and publish a local growth plan—a critical tool and document for driving the developments, jobs and prosperity that we want to see in areas. We will discuss schedule 19 in more detail later in the debate.
Siân Berry
I rise to speak to my new clause 29 and new schedule 1, which seek to replace clause 38 and schedule 19. They would replace local growth plans with inclusive economy plans, which, following an enhanced process of consultation and approval, would have the same prominence in terms of policy priorities as the proposed growth plans. While we have adopted much of the same drafting and general process, wherever the goal of growth appears, my new version says instead that our goal would be an inclusive economy or economic inclusivity.
It is important to confront the harmful concept of growth for the sake of growth. Prioritising economic growth, wherever it may come from, above everything else is wrong. Growth may be the Government’s No. 1 mission, but what is the point if it does not serve the people? Growth alone is insufficient to address inequality and the environmental crisis. For example, gross domestic product has roughly doubled since 1980, yet the richest five households in the UK own more wealth than 13.2 million people. When it comes to jobs, growth has not delivered, with low pay and stagnant real wages the reality for most.
A test of the Bill, and indeed the Government, will be whether it succeeds in moving beyond growth alone to creating an economy where everyone can thrive. That has to begin with clear intentions for the type of economy we want to build, not growth at any cost. In the case of local government and the new strategic authorities, how this is codified in the prescribed strategies for each area is important. That is the core reason why, working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, I have proposed this change to the core goals in the central economic strategy that each local authority will produce.
Those comparing our new schedule with the original will see that, in paragraph (3), proposed new sections 107L of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and 32A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 add further steps to the process of developing a plan so that it can be tailored to each local area through appropriate local indicators of progress. Paragraph (4) of the new schedule would require mayors to bring the public into both setting local indicators and setting out how the plan will help to achieve the inclusive economic outcomes that cover the necessary ingredients for a good life in that area. That is because, if they are going to shape a local economy, they need to listen and deliver for the people who live and work in it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I am troubled by this concept. In my constituency, which is one of the most deprived in the United Kingdom, we have an opportunity to invest in a vast range of renewable energy to mine again critical minerals that will accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel use in order to transition to an economy based on green energy. I would like the hon. Lady to clarify this, but I think she is suggesting that that kind of growth is not acceptable in some way, and that we cannot have good-quality green growth that supports jobs in areas of extreme poverty and deprivation and deals with the challenges of international imports from areas of the world that do not share our values.
Siân Berry
That is a good question. Where there are opportunities to develop new industries and new jobs and create new economic activity, my new schedule enables local communities such as those in Cornwall to set inclusive economy indicators. In the examples given, that might mean that those new industries are owned and managed by the local people and the local community, rather than through outside investment from extractive industries that will take the profits elsewhere. Those are things for the local community to decide under the new schedule.
I will just finish the quote from the report by the New Economics Foundation and its allies:
“At a time of eroding trust in politics, this is a major problem for combined authorities elected to make the economy work better for people .”
My new clause and new schedule will help authorities to become more purposeful about developing their own unique economies and economic opportunities in a way that truly builds a better economy that serves local people, and not just more production and profits that can be extracted away from them without improving everyday lives. It will bring more people more inclusively into the local economies that we want to develop.
I will not press my proposals to a vote today, but I hope that the Minister has listened and will recognise that the current Government proposals could create the wrong incentives and the wrong measures of progress, and might risk producing the wrong outcomes for the people who live in the areas that will be governed by these economic plans. I also hope that she will make improvements similar to my proposals before the next stage of this Bill.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly not only to clause 38 but to new clause 9 and new schedule 1. Although the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has indicated that she does not wish to push these measures to a vote, it is important that we address her well-intentioned amendments. I absolutely agree with her about the economic situation that this country currently faces, caused by the Labour Government. However, we have a fundamental disagreement about the solution that she outlines.
That is because the Government are doing the right thing here in making sure that local growth plans are adequate and can do what they say on the tin: deliver economic growth for the people the mayor serves and the people we serve. I would argue that, if the economic situations are right, as set down in the powers that the Government are outlining, inclusivity is absolutely enshrined within those powers. If we have growth, twinned with the protections currently within legislation in this country, such as environmental protection, corporate social responsibility and some of the equality legislation that we have, inclusivity will be delivered by the new businesses created by the people being empowered to set them up, and those businesses will be able to grow because of some of the measures that the Government are introducing.
The hon. Lady mentioned consultation and inclusivity in terms of people being able to shape their futures. I believe that that is a debate that we had last week when we were considering her amendment on citizens’ assemblies—she knows my oft-stated view on those. I will not tell the Committee that view again, because my blood pressure might rise slightly if I did. Once again, however, I will argue that the point at which there is inclusivity and advocacy from people is at an election, and that the mayor will be judged at an election on whether they have been able to deliver economic growth and whether they have fundamentally made life better for their constituents over the time that they have been in office.
Siân Berry
Is the hon. Member really saying that that he is against asking the people of a local area what would constitute a good economy for them and making that the focus of the mayor’s economic indicators? Also, if all of these proposals are going to be put into manifestos at election time, how long does he envision the manifestos for these mayoral elections being?
Paul Holmes
The way that people want their economy to go is to have growth, and for them to be able to pay their bills, feed their families and have good jobs. I say to the hon. Lady that any mayor who does not put those things in their manifesto is not worth electing. An election is the point at which the mayor should be held accountable. Any mayor who says that they would not want to make their local economic situation better and improve the lives of their citizens should not be elected. The current legislation that we have enables people perfectly reasonable input into the journey that a mayor might take over their mayoral term.
I believe that over the course of the last few Governments, the House of Commons has made great strides in protecting the environment and in making sure that mayors and public authorities, as well as private businesses, are responsible in how they treat their people, but also grow with the environmental and other protections that are necessary. While I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for her, the unintended consequences of the new clause and the new schedule will be to restrict growth, and to restrict the power of the mayor to have a responsible attitude to enabling growth on an even basis within the system that we currently have.
The hon. Lady’s proposals would be restrictive, but they would also take us back. A mayor should be unrestricted in their ability to deliver the growth and prosperity for the people they serve. I do not believe that the new clause and new schedule would do that. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not pushing those to a vote, but if she did, we would not be able to support it, and we would vote against it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clause and new schedule. Let me put on record that I completely agree with the goals of an inclusive economy; they are right, and we have a lot of sympathy for that. This Government are clear that we have to get the economy to work better for people, and I am obliged to remind everyone that over the last 14 years that was not the case.
Ultimately, mayors must have a democratic mandate, and the mark of success will be not just economic growth, but the economy impacting on people’s living standards, jobs and wages—bread and butter, tangible things. We think that the aims that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve are already locked into the Bill. If we achieve growth only on a graph and people do not feel it, our residents, voters and electorate will ensure that we pay the price. Therefore, that democratic lock is already baked into the Bill.
It is also worth saying that local growth plans, as set out in the Bill and as conceived, are a manifesto commitment for this Government, and the existing, established regional mayors have already developed their plans, with many starting to publish them already. By focusing on challenges around housing, transport, skills, employment and innovation, those plans will set the framework for unlocking the growth potential of those areas. As I said, growth only matters if it has a tangible impact on people. The strategic authorities that we are working with absolutely understand that and are trying to drive through measures that will deliver it.
We have already agreed growth priorities with 12 mayors. Those priorities are underpinned by a robust evidence base and a shared understanding of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for economic development in those areas. Inclusivity, people and the impact on communities are absolutely central to that. The Government want to see more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, higher wages and investment that touches each and every one of our communities. One of the things we think mayors can do, when we devolve, is to ensure that they rewire their local economics in a way that gives people a greater stake.
Through co-operative ways of organising things, as in Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester, we are seeing new models that put people and communities front and centre to ensure that the growth and development that happens fundamentally benefits people. I believe that we have already baked in the intent behind the hon. Lady’s new clause and new schedule within the very design of this policy, but, more importantly, the power of democracy will drive and unlock it: if mayors and this Government do not deliver for people in our communities, we have the ballot box by which people can show their discontent. I think the hon. Lady has already said that she is not pressing the new clause and new schedule to a vote.
The Chair
If Ms Berry wanted to test on the Committee’s view on the new clause and new schedule it would come at a later stage anyway. Members will remember that we are debating clause 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 54, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 55, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Vikki Slade
The amendments would ensure that the local growth plans schedule makes reference to, and considers in some reasonable depth, the needs of nature. I have gone back through the schedule, and I cannot see any reference to nature, nature recovery, or anything that suggests that the Government understand the rural economy. It feels very much like a schedule that is written with towns in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing and planning, spoke in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—I am sure some colleagues in here were also on that Committee—about the importance of bolting in the land use framework to the planning system. I think he described it as otherwise being
“an expensive waste of time”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 94.]
Fundamentally, there is a real risk of a failure to think about the needs of rural economies such as Cornwall’s, which are reliant on the way that we use our land. Those may not be traditional uses of the land—they may be ancient industrial ones—but those need to be considered.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady and I are veterans of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to outline some of the comments made in that Committee, because that Bill has fundamental consequences for this legislation. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that not only is nature not included within local growth plans, but the consequences of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will mean that nature will not feature at all in some of the planning decisions made in the development of those local growth plans?
Vikki Slade
The shadow Minister is exactly right; that is why so many people are so worried about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. My inbox has been filled with people asking how they can block it, because of the damage it will do to so much of our nature.
The piece missing from this measure is that economic growth in rural areas is fundamentally entwined with nature recovery. In my area in Dorset, Purbeck Heaths is a new national nature park, and nature tourism is actually one of our growth industries. We have incredible charitable businesses, such as Birds of Poole Harbour, that have brought back species to Dorset—species that have been missing for generations and are now thriving—and we now have a whole industry growing around that. The National Trust is also buying land that is no longer commercially viable and restoring it for rewilding, ensuring that it is there for generations to come. Failing to think about that as part of the local economic strategy is a missed opportunity, and it risks subverting development that is already there.
Economic development is not independent of our lives. People move to places because they have nature around them. Those places may have great shops, town centres and theatres, but people will also move there because of the great quality of life. A lot of people will say that being in nature is a part of making their lives better and happier. If times are tough and people do not have a lot of money in their pocket, being close to nature is something that they can still enjoy and that restores their mental health. We underestimate the power of that at our peril.
We have huge areas of countryside where farming is becoming a marginal activity. Rather than being the driver, it is almost becoming something that people are doing because they love it—but they are losing money hand over fist. If we do not bake in that land use framework, which already pre-exists the local growth plan, it will be much easier for farmers to “get rich quick” by moving land out of its existing use and into what the economic development plan sees as the latest, greatest new thing—losing that land forever—rather than complying with a land use framework that explains why it is so important to keep that land in use, and helps to retain the value of that land for farming, or ancient industry, into the future.
I recognise that the Minister has not yet accepted any of our amendments, so I recognise that getting this one through may be a real struggle, but it is so important, particularly given how, as the shadow Minister has already explained, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has really squeezed out nature. I say to the Minister, “Please put nature back in and recognise that the land use frameworks and nature recovery strategies matter.” In many places they already exist and already have local buy-in, and we would not want to see mayoral authorities ride roughshod over what is already there.
The Chair
I feared we might stray into other considerations on planning, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for speaking specifically about land use and nature recovery, which is the subject of the amendment. I call the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I will say three things. First, local growth plans are locally-led documents with the flexibility to consider the challenges and opportunities that matter to particular areas. Places are already taking into account whether there are green growth opportunities in their area. In rural areas they will take into account the rural economy, the farming economy, and how that has a bearing on economic development opportunities. We need a framework that allows the flexibility for plans to be locally specific. In areas where it makes sense, places are already doing that in practice and we expect them to do that going forward.
Vikki Slade
Local nature recovery strategies matter not only in rural areas. If someone lives in the most urban part of the country, the local nature strategy is critical to those tiny pockets, so I would argue that it is as relevant in cities as it is in rural areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She pre-empted the second point that I was about to make, which is that local nature recovery strategies are critical for every part of the country. Decisions that impact on land use and nature recovery will still need to consider the relevant policy framework, including the local nature recovery strategies that exist across the country. Any strategic planning decision will have to have regard to those local strategies. Thirdly and finally, we recognise that economic development sits alongside nature recovery. The two should not be and do not need to be in conflict.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, I recognise that the Minister has set out that the local nature recovery strategies will have to be regarded, and also that local growth plans will be very important. Which does the Minister see as having greater weight in local planning and strategic planning decisions?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
They are doing different things. The local plan is a strategic document. It is not the spatial development plan that will be the key driver for planning decisions. As is the case now, it is absolutely right that the relevant authority making the decision on planning has regard to local nature recovery strategies.
Lewis Cocking
What happens if one plan says one thing and another plan says another? The Minister just said that the strategic spatial framework would take precedence, but what happens if the local plan from the local planning authority has policies that contradict or do not align with the strategic plan?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is why we have the planning process. We will come on to talk about the strategic spatial plan. That is a document that will have to be done in consultation with constituent authorities. It will focus on strategic infrastructure and development that is needed in the area. Ultimately, we hope that that process will be done through consensus. When it is not, and when there is a dispute between the constituent local authority and the strategic authority in the round, we have said that that will go to the Secretary of State to make a determination through the independent Planning Inspectorate. The planning process already has provisions for us to mitigate that instance.
We have discussed the land use framework in Committee before. We have consulted on it and will publish the response to the consultation in due course. Although the principle of ensuring alignment across the piece is the right one, we think that before we have a tangible framework that is live and has been tested, it is premature to put a requirement in legislation that we would need to have regard to the land use framework.
Vikki Slade
I recall a similar argument being made last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and a reference to “nascent” organisations. My hon. Friend pointed out that by the time the Bill comes into play some of the land use frameworks will be up and running, so they predate the legislation that will form the local growth plans. It feels completely pointless and a waste of money for local authorities to spend all that time putting in place the land use frameworks only for this legislation to come along and say, “Well, they haven’t really been tested.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are developing the process of providing a land use framework, and we are taking onboard the responses that have come through the consultation. Whether that framework ends up being high level and strategic or quite granular will come out through that process, so it feels incredibly prescriptive and constraining to put that requirement on local plans at this stage.
Whether it is the local plan that is thinking about how we drive economic opportunities in the area, or it is the spatial development plan that mayors will be required to have in place, it will obviously have to take into account land use, the composition of the area, nature and all the key considerations in order to be an effective plan that works and that is supported by all the constituent members and parts that need to get onboard. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
Although it may come back at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
Manuela Perteghella
Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity.
Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council. Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach.
In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
We are about to embark on a devolution deal for Cheshire and Warrington. The county of Cheshire alone has more than 330 civil parishes. Is the hon. Lady not concerned about the burden that would be placed on a mayor? Her amendment would require the views of all those parishes to be set out, so requiring the mayor in statute to report on that seems like a big ask.
Manuela Perteghella
I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I do not think it was suggested that the mayor could or should not engage; the question is about putting mandatory engagement in the Bill. Does she accept that is very different from what she has just stated?
Manuela Perteghella
No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.
Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady has made an excellent case, as she has done throughout the Bill Committee, for our excellent town and parish councils, which serve my constituency well. Does she agree that many district councils, in anticipation of being abolished, are already transferring assets—some of which are crucial to local growth and local planning—to parish councils, which are adequately taking them on? If the Bill goes through, however, those parish councils will have no consultation even though they have already taken on some assets that are crucial to the local growth that we are talking about.
Manuela Perteghella
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term.
Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors. I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.
Paul Holmes
In the brief time that I have, I want to back the hon. Lady’s excellent points. Throughout the Bill Committee so far, town and parish councils, which deliver so much for our constituents and are being asked to do more in the future, have been wilfully neglected. They are vital to the economic growth that the Minister rightly says needs to be delivered in our local areas, but the structures currently being proposed do not include them, as the hon. Lady has outlined and as I outlined in my intervention.
Assets are already being transferred in my constituency. Our country parks are currently looking at being transferred from our district council, Eastleigh borough council—I have many disagreements with it, but it is doing the right thing in this case—to our town and parish councils. In country parks specifically, there are business opportunities for raising revenue, development opportunities, and nature protection opportunities that town and parish councils simply will not be able to intervene on or to consult on with the new mayors.
Manuela Perteghella
On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.
Paul Holmes
Is there a clearer example than that of how this issue could contribute to the local growth plans that we are discussing?
The legislation is being drafted at a time when the operational environment is changing. The Minister needs to accept that, as the hon. Lady outlined, because of the proposals, there has been a major asset transfer to our town and parish councils that means they have become quite fundamental and large-scale landowners. Some of that development opportunity—that opportunity to look strategically at where growth needs to come into our local communities—is, crucially, allocated to some of our town and parish councils, but the legislation completely and wilfully removes them from any consultation exercise with a mayor.
I think that this is a pragmatic Government, and that the legislation was drafted before they realised that the consequences of some of the proposed measures were that district councils, because of the funding situation, had started to move some of those assets. The Minister needs to realise that the operational environment has fundamentally changed because, as I have said, it is crucial that town and parish councils are included in relation to land holdings as well as some of the operational responsibilities that they now have. Otherwise, the proposed local growth plans will not deliver on the key aspiration that has been outlined.
Siân Berry
Apart from seeking views, there is a requirement in the amendment to share draft proposals and the evidence base. Does the hon. Member consider that to be an important part of correcting errors in the evidence base and in the assumptions of the draft proposals, which only those councils might have information about?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree, because local parish councillors are experts in the areas that they represent—sometimes more so than district councillors or county councillors, because it is a smaller area. I think that the amendments from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon are perfectly acceptable—I hope that the Minister agrees—and that she is trying to rectify an unintended consequence of the legislation. In many areas, it tries to streamline some of those aspirations, but in this area it is cutting its nose off to spite its face. We will support the amendments, and I hope the Minister will also support them and come back to us on how she imagines that she will strengthen her ability to consult town and parish councils.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
First, let me thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who has been a consistent champion and advocate of town and parish councils throughout the Bill Committee. Let me put it on record again that town and parish councils play an important role in their communities. That is a role that we understand, that we appreciate and that we want to support. We have been clear that the—
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 21st October 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but I reassure the Committee that, as we may be sitting later this evening, we will have a 20-minute break at 4 pm.
Schedule 19
Local growth plans
Amendment proposed (this day): 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 353, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral combined authority must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing evidence gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined authorities to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 354, in schedule 19, page 201, line 4, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 107L(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral combined authorities’ local growth plans.
Amendment 355, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils about the plan.”
This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils about a mayoral CCA’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.
Amendment 356, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) A mayoral CCA must engage town and parish councils within its area in creating a local growth plan.
(2B) Engagement under subsection (2A) must include—
(a) sharing draft proposals,
(b) sharing information gathered to prepare the proposal, and
(c) opportunities to provide feedback on draft proposals.”
This amendment would require mayoral CCAs to engage with town and parish councils in creating local growth plans.
Amendment 357, in schedule 19, page 202, line 37, at end insert—
“(f) minimum engagement requirements under section 32A(2B).”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about the minimum levels of engagement with town and parish councils that is required in the development of mayoral CCAs’ local growth plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated.
We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan.
We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary.
I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I would not usually speak at this stage, but as the Minister did not outline why she does not believe that the Government should prescribe who mayors and mayoral development corporations should be talking to, will she say why, in earlier clauses, she prescribed that organisations such as trade unions should sit around the table? Town and parish councils that are delivering services on the ground are now being asked to deliver more services because of some of the provisions she has included in the Bill. Why does she not think it is necessary to issue guidance forcing mayors or MDCs to talk to them when they are delivering?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman moved an amendment specifically to rule out trade unions. The Bill does not rule them in, in any way. I am slightly concerned that he might be misleading us—inadvertently.
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to say that I am attempting to mislead the Committee. He corrected himself, so I will not take offence.
Paul Holmes
I know I am, Dame Siobhain. I cut my teeth against you in Mitcham and Morden in 2015, and I was required to be of strong stuff to try to beat you.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is correct. What I am saying is that the Minister and the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. On various things, they are prescribing who mayors should talk to, who should be included in a strategy and who should sit around the table. But when it comes to organisations that are delivering services on the ground, and district councils that are to be abolished are transferring assets down to town and parish councils, the Minister says there is no need to prescribe that mayors need to talk to them. In many cases—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who so eloquently spoke to this amendment—these town and parish councils are increasing the number of services they provide, and they are taking on sections of land and businesses that are integral to the development of local growth plans. I say very gently, if the Minister wanted to completely devolve power to mayors, that would be absolutely fine with us, but let us not have a patchwork quilt approach by which she is absolutely prescribing who and to which stakeholders mayors should talk in other areas of the legislation, but she does not feel it necessary to include town and parish councils in this part. That is a shame.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To clarify, the Bill does not specify any particular organisation that should be consulted. It says that we will set that out in guidance. That guidance will be driven by a whole host of consultation with strategic authorities and their partners around the range of organisations and bodies we think is necessary. The Conservative amendment specifically picked on trade unions and specifically said we should exclude them. That is what we were pushing back against, so we are completely consistent in this.
In this case, again, there will be guidance that will talk about a range of local stakeholders, but we think it is wrong to prescribe on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum requirement in order to engage with town and parish councils. That is too onerous and is disproportionate. We should allow the mayor and the strategic authority to know their stakeholders and the people with whom they need to have a conversation, to make sure that they have consensus and the support to drive forward their local growth plan.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 364, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 365, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14 at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require mayoral combined county authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
I am a little confused, Dame Siobhan, because amendments 352 and 353 are in the same grouping. I am assuming that you will return to 353.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion who has also signed amendment 364, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Amendments 364 and 365 are a simple pair of amendments; they are identical in wording, but one applies to a county combined authority and one to a combined authority. It really is quite straightforward: economic growth should not be off the back of public health and environmental damage. If a local authority is going to drive economic growth by, for example, creating a large industrial estate that will damage air quality or create incredible congestion, it is not paying attention to the environmental factors.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that all those things form part of a decision on a planning application. However, if this Government are genuinely committed to their international and national obligations on climate change, and if they are committed to reducing health inequalities, in which we know air quality is a major factor, it seems a small thing to make these amendments, which would assure that mayors—who may not have the same commitment as the Government to protecting air quality and our environment—must identify the contributions.
Interestingly, schedule 19 provides that the local plan must include all the economic factors and list their impact. Adding environmental factors would be a minor change. We will press the two amendments to a vote.
The Chair
I remind Members, and myself, that regardless of how amendments have been grouped for debate, we will take decisions on them in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. We will therefore come to a decision on amendment 353 once amendment 364 has been dealt with. I am sure that that is now clear to everybody.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I share the hon. Lady’s concern and her view of the importance of environmental and climate change targets. The economic plans of any strategic authority must be compatible with our legal targets for those core considerations.
National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us. I refer the hon. Lady to the local growth plans that are already in place and the actions of mayors who are already in place, which show that a regard for climate change and air quality obligations is a driving force.
Vikki Slade
There is a big difference between what has been done by mayors who have gone before and creating mayors across the whole country. The new mayors will have very different backgrounds and landscapes, both geographical and political, to deal with. The word “hope” has done a lot of heavy lifting today, and although I also hope that all these mayors are as great as some of the mayors who have gone before, the Minister has more confidence in them than I do. Legislation is there to ensure that we are not reliant on the good will of hard-working people in political posts, and to protect us from people who may achieve political office and then seek to create something that we will have to undo, at great cost to our economy and health.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point. Mayoral strategic authorities are already subject to the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets. We have seen that mayors have complied with the duties on local authorities around air quality and producing air quality action plans. Those have shown to be effective in London. The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy. We will reflect on the guidance that comes alongside local growth plans to ensure that, across the piece, those national obligations are reflected in every tier of Government. The hon. Member has my assurance that we will reflect on it, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Vikki Slade
I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, so that our commitment to this is on record. I hope that the Minister will take onboard that this is done in good faith.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 360, in schedule 19, page 202, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral CCA must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 359.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy.
Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area. Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs.
The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Is there evidence that existing mayors—such as the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the Mayor of North Tyneside—are not considering rural communities in their work, which would suggest that we need the amendments?
Manuela Perteghella
That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities.
Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area. We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole.
In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.
We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.
Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
It is great to see the coalition back in action. To use the hon. Member’s phrase, does he not agree that any mayor worth their salt would naturally have consideration for remote coastal and rural areas in those growth plans, considering that those are the people they are meant to represent? If they do not, they will find out at the ballot box what people in those areas think about it.
Paul Holmes
I have the scars on my back from fighting Liberal Democrats in my political career, but pragmatic policies are being proposed to improve the legislation that—let us face it—could very much be improved. That is the point of the Bill Committee. I in particular have many disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, but the amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could absolutely improve the legislation.
The hon. Member for Banbury said that a mayor worth their salt should be able to do that anyway, but he just spoke against an amendment that would have enabled a mayor to speak to town and parish councils and do their job better. He cannot have it both ways.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Where in the legislation does it says that mayors will be prohibited from talking to town and parish councils? The way that the hon. Member phrased that implies that something in the Bill stops them from doing so, but I am not clear where that is.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, I apologise to the Committee if I misspoke. I meant that the hon. Member for Banbury spoke against an amendment that would have guaranteed that mayors would have to speak to town and parish councils.
To return to amendment 359, the way that mayoral authorities are formulated means that mayors will represent diverse areas. As I said to the Minister, we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that their growth plans actually work. In an earlier debate, I tried to adequately back up the Minister’s aim for mayors to deliver that and to make people in their area more prosperous. Businesses being created and economic growth should absolutely be the top priorities of the Government and the mayors that they are creating, and we fully endorse that message. I would argue, however, that mayors cannot do that if there is not guidance—or at least something in the legislation—that requires them to look at our coastal and rural communities and some of the unique challenges that the mayors will be able to face.
I will use the example of Hampshire and the Solent again. I have a friend who will probably end up being the Labour candidate for Hampshire and the Solent. She would make a very good mayor, but she has a history of representing and leading a council in an urban centre in an industrial city like Southampton—that is her expertise. She did it very well; she took over from the Conservative administration that I was part of. What she cannot do, and what she does not have strong experience in, is represent the coastal communities that go down the Solent and the farming communities outside.
The amendment would require rural and coastal communities and areas to be enshrined in the legislation. I do not think that Government Back Benchers, or the Minister, should be scared of that, because it would codify a solid strategic view for the local mayor to follow. I welcome the amendment, and we will support it if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon presses it to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.
Manuela Perteghella
For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities.
There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that.
Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to press amendment 359 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 19, page 201, line 6, at end insert—
“107MA Funding and support relating for Local Growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in schedule 19, page 203, line 1, at end insert—
“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 52 and 53 are about funding strategic authorities for the local growth plans. I apologise to Committee members—they are going to get bored of hearing me say the same thing—but the point I am trying to make with these amendments is that we are pushing huge amounts of responsibility, cost and activity into a space that does not yet have clarity about how that will be paid for.
As we all know, our local authorities are at breaking point, with many of them expecting to make section 114 declarations within the next 12 months. I am deeply concerned that additional responsibilities to help to fund a strategic authority above them—they will have to pay in through a levy but they will have only minimal involvement in the decision making coming back down—will put them under more pressure.
These amendments are designed to make that point, to probe the Minister and to ask for further consideration about how the Secretary of State can assure local communities, who will be paying for these authorities, that there will be sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge the functions involved in the preparation, publication and delivery of the local growth plans. There is no point in having a fantastic plan if it cannot be delivered, or if the organisations beneath the strategic authority have just gone bust.
I have said it before: the money is coming either from levies, from precepts, or potentially from grant funding through central Government. These amendments are really about probing to ask whether these growth plans will be coming with the money attached to them so that local areas, wherever they are in the country, have a fighting chance of producing a really good growth plan that benefits every resident within their area. That is why I have tabled these amendments: to try to draw a bit more out of the Minister.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for these probing amendments. Again, we had a debate about this earlier in Committee. Let me put on record that we are clear that, if we are asking strategic and mayoral strategic authorities to drive this critical function, they must have the capacity to do that job well. It does not serve them, the Government or their constituents if they do not have the capacity and capability to do that well. That is why we are, for example, providing capacity-building funding for mayoral strategic authorities, so that they can not only set up but do some of the core enabling functions, such as producing plans, well and effectively.
As I said, the principle holds that capacity-building support must be there to ensure that strategic authorities can do their functions incredibly well, but I do not think it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill, not least because we already have the spending review process where strategic authorities set out their demands, ambitions and resources, and have a conversation with Government about ensuring that they are adequately resourced.
The principle of capacity building is therefore absolutely clear and firm, and is designed into the way we are trying to drive the legislation forward. Putting it on the face of the Bill would be too prescriptive when there are already processes in place to enable it to happen.
Vikki Slade
For clarity, at the point of the spending review when Departments are given their spending powers, are we to expect the strategic authorities to be separately and directly given a settlement each year, or will that be over a three-year period in the way that local authorities are given that settlement? I just want clarity that it is a separate pot of money from local authority funding, because I would not want to see them have to fight like rats in a sack with the mayoral authorities above them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The process in practice is distinct from the local government funding settlement. Established mayoral combined authorities are all going through the integrated settlement process, which is a negotiated process where the demands and ambitions of the mayor are weighted against the funding in Government Departments that we have provided with an integrated settlement. That is being rolled out among established combined authorities.
For other mayoral combined authorities that are not established, the process in practice has been, “This is what we have tried to do in our area. These are the resources, and this is where we can use, for example, the mayoral precepting power,” and then there is a conversation with Government to enable them to do what they want. We are moving towards multi-year settlements, because we think that is a better way to run the public finances. The principle of multi-year settlements applies to local government and across Departments, and will apply in the context of mayoral combined authorities.
Vikki Slade
On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 172, 173, 175 to 177, 179 to 181, 183 to 185, 187, 189, 190, 192 to 194, and 196.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are quite a few amendments in this grouping, and all are broadly technical, clarifying and consequential amendments. Government amendments 172, 181 and 190 are consequential amendments that expand the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities agreed with mayoral strategic authorities. The change reflects the original intention set out in the White Paper to apply the duty to arms-length bodies.
Government amendments 174, 182, and 191 simply clarify that public authorities that operate GB-wide or UK-wide may be specified in regulations as subject to the duty to have regard, and that the duty will apply only to their activities in England.
Amendment 171 agreed to.
Amendments made: 172, in schedule 19, page 201, line 8, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 173, in schedule 19, page 201, line 11, after “of the” insert “mayoral combined”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 201, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the local growth priorities of mayoral combined authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 175, in schedule 19, page 201, line 18, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 201, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 177, in schedule 19, page 201, line 26, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 178, in schedule 19, page 201, leave out line 28.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government amendments we just discussed enable the Government to specify a broader range of public bodies in secondary legislation, to reflect the original intention of clause 38 and schedule 19. To avoid inadvertently curtailing the effect of those amendments, it is necessary to remove the restrictions on specifying a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department in regulations. Government amendments 178, 186 and 195 will have the effect of allowing the Government to specify in regulations Executive agencies and non-ministerial Departments. This reflects the duty as proposed in the White Paper.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendments made: 179, in schedule 19, page 201, line 37, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
Amendment 180, in schedule 19, page 203, line 2, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 181, in schedule 19, page 203, line 3, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 182, in schedule 19, page 203, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities of mayoral combined county authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 183, in schedule 19, page 203, line 11, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 184, in schedule 19, page 203, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 185, in schedule 19, page 203, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Amendment 186, in schedule 19, page 203, leave out line 21.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 203, line 30, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 19, page 203, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), after ‘subsection’ insert ‘(8)(ab) or’;
(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(ab) under section 32C(2);’.”
This provides that regulations made under new section 32C of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The amendment provides that regulations that specify the relevant public authorities that must have regard to shared local growth priorities agreed between the Government and mayoral combined county authorities are subject to the negative procedure. Use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for these regulations. The amendment will enable us to introduce the duty on relevant public authorities in the most efficient way.
Amendment 188 agreed to.
Amendments made: 189, in schedule 19, page 203, line 37, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 190, in schedule 19, page 203, line 39, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.
Amendment 191, in schedule 19, page 204, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”
This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities for Greater London will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.
Amendment 192, in schedule 19, page 204, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 193, in schedule 19, page 204, line 13, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 194, in schedule 19, page 204, line 20, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Amendment 195, in schedule 19, page 204, leave out line 22.
This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.
Amendment 196, in schedule 19, page 204, line 29, leave out “person” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I know that the Committee agrees on the need to boost economic prosperity—there is broad consensus on that—and to do it in a way that reflects national and, critically, local priorities. Although many places have a plan for growth, there is no consistent requirement for places with a mayor to do so. Currently, only London is required to set out a strategy for its economic development, and we can see how London’s economy has benefited over the decades. Where places have taken the initiative, their plans do not have consistent central Government backing.
Schedule 19 will change that by creating a process for all mayors to agree local growth priorities with the Government. It will provide a common approach for mayors outside London to set out their priorities and investment opportunities in their local growth plan. Mayors up and down the country have given their backing to local growth plans, and we are already seeing this in practice. We have already agreed shared local growth priorities with the 12 longest established mayoral authorities, but agreeing and publishing shared local growth priorities is not enough. Mayors need to know that these priorities will be acted upon, which is why we will require public bodies to have regard to them at key points.
The approach will ensure that everywhere with a mayor has a clear plan for growth and economic prosperity in their area, whether that is a local growth plan or the economic development strategy for London. Crucially, it will ensure that the priorities we agree with mayors have Government backing, with relevant public bodies alert to them, so that all levels of government can pull in the same direction.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 39
Local Government Act 2003: expenditure grant
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Often, funding held by combined and combined county authorities is best used by local councils to deliver their responsibilities. Consistently throughout our proceedings, I have said that the mayor is only as strong as its partnership and relationship with the constituent authorities that have to drive the delivery. That is why the clause will standardise the power already held by most existing combined and combined county authorities to pay grants to their constituent councils.
The ability of combined and combined county authorities to pay their constituent councils is vital to the smooth running of transport, for example. Constituent councils are the highways authority in their area, with the duty to manage their road network and deliver highways maintenance; the authority therefore needs a power to fund them for delivering those key functions. We understand highways authorities’ need for sufficient funding to deliver against their duties, which is why clause 39 requires combined or combined county authorities to have in mind the necessity of ensuring a council has enough to deliver its highways functions when paying grants.
Vikki Slade
I welcome this provision. It is hugely important that money can flow in both directions, but there is one glaring omission, and the Committee will know what it is. The clause gives the strategic authority the power to pay a grant to a constituent council, but not to a town or parish council.
It may be that a town or parish council is fulfilling one of the areas of competence for the strategic authority. For example, under clause 2(g), public safety, a town council might be running CCTV or paying for community safety accreditation team officers. Under clause 2(e), environment and climate change, that parish or town council might be delivering solar insulation or be rewilding. I did not table an amendment on this, but might there be a drafting error in not allowing the strategic authority to pay a grant to an organisation associated with a constituent council? There is an opportunity there to use our town and parish councils in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular.
The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.
Vikki Slade
I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.
(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—
(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and
(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—
(a) form of engagement used;
(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and
(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”
This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 41—Visitor levies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.
(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
Manuela Perteghella
Amendment 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.
Andrew Cooper
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes
“piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”,
may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?
Manuela Perteghella
I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.
Vikki Slade
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.
Manuela Perteghella
In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?
Manuela Perteghella
As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.
Andrew Cooper
My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states:
“Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”—
not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.
Manuela Perteghella
The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing
“tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”.
The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished.
Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning. That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority.
The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided. That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive.
New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities. Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies.
Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.
Vikki Slade
On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—
Manuela Perteghella
I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.
Paul Holmes
I will speak to amendment 358, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and to new clause 41. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, Dame Siobhain—your face indicates that that would not be looked upon advantageously—but I think that the sustained efforts of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to have the rights and responsibilities of town and parish councils recognised is admirable. I believe that it needs to be repeated to the Minister, and it is now coming from two Opposition parties.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member for Cornwall, somewhere—he claims to speak for the whole of Cornwall—keeps saying “coalition”. I have already explained to him my view on pragmatic and sensible amendments to legislation that is flawed in many areas, as indicated by the number of Government amendments. We should not be so proud and tribal that we do not back other parties’ amendments when they make absolute sense.
Paul Holmes
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will reform his ways.
Perran Moon
In Cornwall alone, there are 213 town and parish councils. The amendment suggests that all 213 of them must be consulted. The hon. Gentleman does not strike me as somebody who likes layers of bureaucracy, but the bureaucracy involved in consulting 213 different town and parish councils for Cornwall alone seems to me not very sensible.
Paul Holmes
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the premise of the argument that we can back pragmatic amendments to legislation to improve it. I hope that he might look on that in his career, particularly when it comes to recognising the independence of Cornwall and having the mayoralty just for Cornwall that he is striving for.
Vikki Slade
A couple of amendments have been tabled on that issue. I think they were supported as a coalition by the Opposition, but not by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Paul Holmes
I am not giving way any more, as I would like to make some progress. I am sure Government Back Benchers would like to go home at some point. I am happy to speak all afternoon, but I would like us to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely correct. This comes back to a serious point: many town and parish councils across England are already taking on more assets that form an integral part of the stated aims of clause 40. I will give the Committee a brief example. In my constituency, we have Royal Victoria country park, and a proposal is being looked at to abolish the county council and have it go into a strategic authority. However, proposals are actively being considered to transfer Itchen Valley country park, which is managed by Eastleigh borough council, to the local town and parish council. Those country parks have a large number of businesses, conference centres and other things that would directly help a mayor to sell our great region and attract people into it. The circumstances are the same across the country in many regions, which will be left out of consultation.
Paul Holmes
No, not at the moment. I know that anything about town and parish councils exercises the hon. Members for Mid Cheshire and for Banbury. They may want to speak shortly, but I will first answer the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. I do not think he is an analogue politician in a digital age, but consulting downwards could merely mean that an email is sent to a mailing list. I am sure he has a huge mailing list, given the number of constituents who admire his work. That is one click—it does not mean his constituents have to respond to it, and it would not mean that his councils had to.
Vikki Slade
I wonder whether the hon. Member has a situation in Hampshire similar to ours in Dorset, where we have the DAPTC—the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils. Nothing in the amendment states that the strategic authority would have to engage with each and every town and parish council; it just says,
“with town and parish councils”.
That could be through their associations and through clusters of town and parish councils, such as the DAPTC.
Paul Holmes
It could also be stipulated in secondary legislation, if the Government wanted to go ahead with this. A council could literally advertise to town and parish councils that a consultation was going on. There could also be a mailing list where a strategic authority could send an email to the 300 parish councils. Those town and parish councils do not have to respond. That is devolution to town and parish councils, which the Government seemingly want to achieve.
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He has been very generous, as always, with his time. Does he accept that the danger with inserting the consultations that have been proposed in so many Opposition amendments is that the only growth we will see is in the number of officers in the strategic authorities sending out consultations, and the number of people in parish councils responding to them?
Paul Holmes
I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.
I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.
We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents.
Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate.
However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best.
I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It would. One thing that the Bill does create is a statutory duty for Government to respond to formal requests from mayors for new powers—the right to request. Calls for any new fiscal powers should be made through that process. The Government propose to take account of the impact of visitors on local authority areas through the fair funding review. That point has been made by local authorities and by Committee members, and we are doing so to account for the fact that visitors—
Vikki Slade
I fear I am about to be told off by the Chair, but—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister has just taken an interest. I welcome the Minister’s comment that the impact of visitors will be taken into account in the fair funding review. It is really important to add that that affects the fair funding review for our police authorities, as well as our local authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are already mechanisms to enable places to introduce overnight stay levies through the accommodation business improvement district model, as the hon. Lady mentioned. With that, and allowing that this good Committee is not the Chancellor, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Perran Moon
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. On a point of clarification, it was suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that I am now in favour of a mayoral combined authority for Cornwall. For the record, I would like it to be known that I am not.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not mean to detain the Committee, but I like to think I am a man of integrity. On the point of order by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, it was not actually the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole who said that; it was me, and I apologise.
The Chair
I am sure the Committee would like to thank you for being so candid.
Clause 41
Co-operation with local government pension scheme managers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 41 requires that strategic authorities work with the local government pension scheme to identify and develop suitable investment opportunities. The local government pension scheme already plays a vital role in supporting local growth, with a portion of its £400 billion in assets invested in local projects. Such investments must of course provide a suitable return to pay pensions while also contributing to local prosperity, including through affordable housing, clean energy and local regeneration.
Although some combined authorities already maintain productive relationships with their local government pension scheme funds, clause 41 ensures that that collaborative approach becomes standard practice, embedding local government pension scheme engagement into local investment planning. That will not be a one-way responsibility. The Pension Schemes Bill introduces a corresponding duty on local government pension scheme funds to work collaboratively with their strategic authorities. Those reciprocal requirements are designed to foster key partnerships between the two parties to unlock investment in local growth and deliver benefits to communities across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.
Paul Holmes
To bring some agreement to the Committee, the Opposition absolutely understand, as we did earlier about standardisation, such recommendations to give powers to CAs and CCAs. We are perfectly in agreement with that and we thank the Minister for bringing the issue to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20
Miscellaneous local authority functions
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 197, in schedule 20, page 205, line 6, leave out—
“, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.
This removes the reference to combined authorities and combined county authorities inserted into section 113(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as these bodies are already included in the definition of “local authority” under section 146A(1) of that Act.
This is a minor and technical amendment to prevent duplication in legislation.
Amendment 197 agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43
Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 43, page 44, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 248, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 247 and 248 are similar to those that we tabled on other issues. They seek the assurance that combined authorities will have “sufficient financial resources” and “adequate administrative support” to fulfil their duties on health and health inequalities. I will not repeat myself, because we have a lot to get through this afternoon, but I will add that there is a real risk that more and more responsibility is going to the strategic authorities from other Departments. The Department of Health and Social Care is under huge financial pressure, but it would be remiss if this responsibility were moved across to a strategic authority without sufficient funding. I am assured by the Minister of sufficient capacity-building funding and an integrated settlement for these organisations in future. I trust—I need some assurance—that that will include sufficient funds to take account of the health inequalities in our regions. If that happens, I will be happy not to press the amendments.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I reiterate the assurances that I have given. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, where strategic authorities take on new functions and duties, they have the resource and capacity to do so. That could mean: providing capacity funding to the strategic authorities; ensuring that the budgets necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are committed to are in place through the process of devolution, or, ultimately, when they become established combined authorities, through the integrated settlements. I again put that reassurance on the record.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
The Member who tabled amendment 262 is temporarily not present. I will suspend the sitting for 20 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us carry on.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 43, page 44, line 24, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 263 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 263, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 262 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Siân Berry
I apologise, Dame Siobhain, for my temporary absence at the crucial moment. I would very much like the Committee to listen to my proposals for amendments 262 and 263. [Interruption.] Apologies, Chair—is there an issue?
Paul Holmes
We were going to have a break, but then we did not when you came in, so it is fine.
Siân Berry
I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech.
Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways.
Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for the intention behind the amendments. I completely understand her key points. I think there is consensus that tackling health inequalities and their determinants is a key priority, which is why we included this clause in the Bill. We have deliberately drawn from the well-established approach in the Greater London Authority, which names “prosperity” among the general health determinants. It is deliberately broad so as to encompass a wide range of things. Our intention is not to establish an exhaustive list here, but to ensure that we cast the definition broadly enough to cover the issues of poverty and inequality that the hon. Lady raises.
There is a gradient across society for the determinants of health inequality, and my concern is that if we were to replace “prosperity” with poverty and inequality, we would cast the definition too narrowly. The broader “prosperity” definition captures poverty and social inequality, but it also captures other critical factors. Although we absolutely agree with the intent, we have tried to craft the legislation in a way that is broad and permissive, but that critically draws on the experience and track record of the Greater London Authority. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Siân Berry
I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I hope we see some measures coming through from the Minister, particularly in regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 253, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 258, in clause 43, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 257 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Amendment 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 254, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 260, in clause 43, page 45, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 254 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Siân Berry
I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech.
My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants.
My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments.
The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough.
I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report:
“Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.”
According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas.
It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today.
Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality.
Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments.
The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery.
In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought.
We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable. As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone.
By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones. They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.
Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister clarify how the list in clause 43 as it stands was put together? It is bizarre that the use of tobacco and those kind of lifestyle choices are somehow explicitly listed, when environmental factors as a whole are left out.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas.
We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government.
However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for her comments. I cannot accept that a detail such as tobacco use was put in, and standards of housing as a result of Awaab’s law and the things have gone on there, and yet environmental factors have not yet been included. I am determined that they should be, and I still intend to push this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert—
“107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB.
(2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the authority area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 256, in clause 43, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“24B Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy
(1) A CCA must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 24A.
(2) In preparing the strategy, a CCA must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—
(a) directors of public health within the CCA’s area;
(b) Integrated Care Boards within the CCA’s area;
(c) NHS bodies providing services in the CCA’s area;
(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the CCA’s area;
(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
(3) The strategy must—
(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;
(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—
(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,
(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);
(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy;
(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.
(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—
(a) life expectancy,
(b) healthy life expectancy,
(c) infant mortality rate,
(d) rates of obesity and overweight,
(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and
(f) suicide rates
within the authority area.
(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—
(a) household relative poverty rates,
(b) employment rates,
(c) relative child poverty rates,
(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,
(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and
(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.
(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).
(7) A report under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,
(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and
(c) be made publicly available.”
This amendment requires CCAs to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.
Siân Berry
Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”.
The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I go back to the core principle underlying the duty. We believe that a driving purpose of the strategic authority should be to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities, so we are absolutely aligned with the intent behind the amendment, and nothing in the Bill prevents local partners from agreeing to align on an area-wide approach or strategy. We are very clear that we must allow combined authorities and county authorities local discretion to decide the best way to fulfil the duty and deliver for their communities. We do not want to overprescribe or constrain local thinking and innovation—indeed, many local areas throughout the country are well ahead of the national Government in some of their thinking in this area.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.—(Siân Berry.)
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 44, page 46, line 2, at beginning insert—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require that”.
This amendment would ensure the powers for mayors to exercise Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) functions across 2 or more areas must be approved by Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, at end insert—
“(1B) Regulations under section 107F and 107FA are subject to the affirmative procedure”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 21.
Amendment 23, in clause 45, page 50, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) a statutory instrument containing a draft of any such order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 21 to 23 relate to the integration of police and crime commissioners into the strategic mayoral system. They are quite straightforward, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations and thereby ensure more parliamentary oversight of the inclusion of the police and crime commissioners, given that this is such a fundamental change in so many areas.
I am upset that established authorities in several areas have already taken on those roles, but many of the strategic mayoral authorities are brand-new organisations that will potentially be taking on functions way beyond their scope. They will also potentially be taking on police and crime functions that run across completely different policing and crime areas with different strategies and ways of working in terms of police and crime panels and their scrutiny. We believe that to do that through the proposed process will produce a rushed system. I commend the Minister for her decisiveness, but sometimes it is better to pause and take a slower approach to bringing together those organisations, rather than rush the process.
We are already seeing huge changes to our integrated care boards, with many being abolished. Rather than alignment, we see some coming together for financial reasons or for convenience. There is a real risk that trying to do all of that in harmony ends up not with the right outcomes but ones that suit the creation of a very simplistic jigsaw. Most of the mayors will be taking on roles that they have never performed before. We feel that it is time to pause, slow the pace and ensure that this has more parliamentary oversight.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The purpose of the provision in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State the power to make that transfer in a way and at a time that makes sense. Whether with regard to the electoral timetable or to issues of deliverability and the viability of the transfer, the Secretary of State’s ability to take a view and set a future date is why we have provided that power to mitigate the issues the hon. Lady is concerned about. The default should be that the police and crime commissioner function sits with the mayor where the geographies align. That is an important principle as we build up the mayoral strategic authorities across the country.
Vikki Slade
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Chair
Before we resume, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 44, page 46, line 29, leave out “fire and rescue” and insert “police”.
This would correct the reference in the second sentence of new section 107FA(4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 199, 202, 200, 201, 203 and 204.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This basket of amendments seeks to correct drafting errors, including inconsistencies and inaccurate references, to ensure that the Bill functions as intended. Amendments 202 and 203 are consequential to Government amendments 77 and 80, which the Committee passed when it voted on clause 11 on the mayoral precept. They ensure that mayors’ police and crime commissioner functions are ringfenced as a separate component from other functions.
Paul Holmes
We cannot expect the Government to get it right all the time with minor things, and these seem like sensible changes to smooth the legislation. We therefore have no problem with this group of amendments.
Amendment 198 agreed to.
Amendments made: 199, in clause 44, page 46, line 36, leave out—
“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”
and insert “combined authority”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 202, in clause 44, page 47, line 8, leave out from “there” to the end of line 11 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.
Amendment 200, in clause 44, page 47, line 34, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 201, in clause 44, page 48, line 8, leave out “mayoral”.
This would correct an inconsistency.
Amendment 203, in clause 44, page 48, line 19, leave out from “there” to the end of line 22 and insert—
“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.
Amendment 204, in clause 44, page 48, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/112),
(b) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/1432), and
(c) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1 to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024 (S.I. 2024/414),”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would remove the unnecessary word “after” from paragraphs (a) to (c), insert references to the relevant Schedules to the Orders, and correct the citation of the South Yorkshire Order.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper.
Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.
Paul Holmes
We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution.
We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.
Vikki Slade
The Lib Dems have long wanted to see the end of police and crime commissioners, and we know that that has also been Labour policy for at least 12 years. [Interruption.] Do I hear a “Hear, hear!” from the Government Benches? I believe we are in violent agreement on that, which is great. Where we differ is in the how. I spent a lot of time as a councillor trying to get through the police and crime commissioners, who really take no accountability for what goes on. If I ask the police and crime commissioner about a particular incident, the answer always comes back, “That’s an operational matter. That is not for me.” It is always the local councillors who end up dealing with issues, and they are always the ones held accountable by the residents.
Where we disagree is that we do not believe that a police and crime commissioner should be an appointment of the mayor. We think that they should be held accountable to boards of councillors within councils, as was formerly the policy of the Labour party. Quite straightforwardly, the amendment would remove the provision allowing the mayor to appoint a person to manage policing and crime. We do not actually believe that this should be a mayoral appointment; it should be down to the elected persons of the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
PCCs and police areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 205 and 206.
Amendment 26, in schedule 21, page 209, leave out lines 25 to 31.
This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.
Government amendments 207 and 208.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause sets out the functions of a police and crime commissioner that a mayor will exercise where they have been transferred under the Bill. The clause also amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to alter police force boundaries by order, so that orders can be made at the same time as the transfer of the police and crime commissioner functions to a mayor. These would be used where a local case had been made to change the boundaries to facilitate a transfer of the PCC function.
Paul Holmes
As with the previous clause, we see that clause 45 is a perfectly sensible provision. The Minister has done an admirable job on what I know has been a long day, particularly after the late night yesterday. She is explaining the legislation in an excellent way.
I wish to touch on amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. In order to dispel the myth, for the hon. Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth, that there is a coalition going on, this is where unfortunately the coalition comes to an end. Amendment 26 is not pragmatic or sensible. It would essentially remove the mayor’s power to appoint a deputy mayor to a day-to-day role for policing. The amendment would be bad for the legislation because, as I outlined in relation to the previous clause—and as we on the Conservative Benches agree—the mayoralty is a multifaceted role, and a role that is accountable to the public. In many previous sittings of the Committee, we have outlined that there has to be that democratic accountability. That is given in this legislation by a mayor appointing a deputy mayor for policing who is accountable to the public, but also accountable to the mayor who is accountable to the public.
I understand the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding view that PCCs should not exist. We fundamentally disagree with that. We think PCCs are one of the better solutions of the coalition Government. We believe that policing is a public priority and that the public should have a say in the way in which their police forces are run. I am not sure whether opposition to PCCs is a widely held view within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hamble Valley, who stood against me, also stood for the PCC election for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and put himself forward for election as Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent.
Paul Holmes
In one moment. It seems that that Liberal Democrat candidate perfectly endorses the solutions that the Government are putting forward, and actually wanted three jobs at once.
Vikki Slade
There is a fairly well established position in which those people who wish to see something abolished have to work within the current system. I believe that our dearly beloved Lord Paddy Ashdown desperately wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords and yet was able to take up a seat. It is quite common for people to go into a role knowing that their job is to try to reform or remove that role.
Paul Holmes
I would say, in a respectful tone to the hon. Lady, that the thing that the Liberal Democrats are most known for is saying one thing and in their actions doing another, but we will leave that there. Clause 45 is perfectly sensible. We will oppose amendment 26 if it is pushed to a vote. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has reverted to the Liberal Democrats’ traditional position of holding many positions at once. We support the clause, and oppose amendment 26.
Andrew Cooper
I agree entirely with the principle of mayors holding responsibility for police and crime commissioners where the boundaries of the roles are coterminous, and the idea of appointing a deputy mayor to that role makes absolute sense, as does the power to align boundaries where it makes sense administratively. That all works in principle. My concern is about how this will be applied in Cheshire. Halton local authority is part of the Liverpool city region. That was a decision made when the Liverpool city region was first proposed—at the time the Minister may well have been in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a civil servant—and for Halton, then, it was the only game in town.
The proposed Cheshire and Warrington combined authority will cover the remainder of Cheshire—Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington—and is not coterminous with Cheshire police, which covers all of Cheshire and includes Halton, as does Cheshire fire and rescue. This measure will therefore allow the Home Secretary to change the police boundaries, and there are significant concerns within Cheshire police that, were this to go ahead, their viability would be at risk, as well as practical concerns about the location of the custody suite.
This power already exists regarding fire and rescue services, but, under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the order is in the interests of public safety before it is made. That test is not included in this Bill. In her summing up, could the Minister provide some reassurance that this power will not be exercised in Cheshire’s case without due consideration of that public safety factor, as well as significant consultation with local stakeholders to make sure that any future alignment is right for Cheshire?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to the specific amendments, then come to my hon. Friend’s important intervention about Cheshire and some of the specific challenges that we face there.
It is worth noting on amendment 26 that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the deputy mayors for policing and crime are supportive of this measure. Deputy mayors for policing and crime are already making a difference in areas such as West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. They are driving through improvements in their local police forces, fostering collaboration and doing the role that we absolutely need them to do.
On my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire’s important point, because we are not working from a blank piece of paper, and because there are complexities around the boundaries, we are trying to be sympathetic, sensitive and mindful. Obviously, the strategic intent of Government is to ensure that, when there is a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions, that is not to the detriment of the functions on the ground, because we absolutely need those to hold out. We are therefore having specific conversations with Cheshire and Warrington, and the local leaders in that area have raised the specifics of the PCC function. We will work with them to come to the best solution and resolution—one that has no detriment to the constituent authorities involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 21
Functions of police and crime commissioners
Amendments made: 205, in schedule 21, page 206, line 9, after second “the” insert “police”.
This clarifies that “the Area” means a police area. This amendment is connected with amendment 206, which deals with the case where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas.
Amendment 206, in schedule 21, page 206, line 11, after “commissioner” insert—
“; and, in a case where a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), this Schedule applies separately in relation to each of those police areas and ‘the Area’ is to be read accordingly”.
This clarifies that where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, “the Area” here means each of the police areas (rather than the area of the combined authority or CCA).
Amendment 207, in schedule 21, page 209, line 41, at end insert—
“(j) a person who is the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.”
This would prevent a deputy mayor for policing and crime for one police area from being appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.
Amendment 208, in schedule 21, page 213, line 4, after “if” insert “—
‘(a) after subsection (1) there were inserted—
“(1ZA) If a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—
(a) subsection (1)(b) does not apply; but
(b) a person is disqualified from being elected to the office of police and crime commissioner for any of those police areas at any election unless, on each relevant day, the person is a local government elector in at least one of those police areas;
and for that purpose a person is ‘a local government elector in’ a police area if the person is registered in the register of local government electors for an electoral area in respect of an address in that police area.”;
(b)’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This provides that, where a mayor is to exercise PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, a candidate is disqualified only if the person is not on the electoral register in any of those areas.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Twenty First schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The schedule sets out the content of the new schedule 10A that will be inserted into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. It provides that once the functions of a police and crime commissioner have been transferred so that they are exercised by a mayor, there will no longer be a PCC for that police force area, which I know the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will be delighted about. It also explains how mayors are to exercise PCC functions where functions have been transferred.
I beg to move that this schedule stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 46
Functions of fire and rescue authorities
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 46, page 51, line 10, leave out from “for” to end of line 14 and insert—
“the whole of its area if the Secretary of State designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that area in accordance with section 1A(1);
(g) a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA is the fire and rescue authority for a part of its area if the Secretary of State—
(i) specifies that part of its area, and
(ii) designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that part of its area,
in accordance with section 1A(2) and (3).”
This would enable the Secretary of State to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority for its area or part of its area. Amendment 212 makes further provision about these powers.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This cluster of amendments to clause 46 allow a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral county combined authority to take on the role of a fire and rescue authority, where appropriate.
These amendments strengthen the fire and rescue provision in clause 46. They give the Secretary of State the power to designate strategic authorities as fire and rescue authorities. They also ensure that where strategic authorities cover more than one fire and rescue area, they take on responsibility for all fire and rescue authorities in their area.
Collectively, these amendments provide consistency and prevent fragmentation of governance, by requiring mayors to cover all fire and rescue authority areas within their boundaries, creating stronger accountability across local areas.
Amendment 209 agreed to.
Amendments made: 210, in clause 46, page 51, line 17, leave out from “for” to second “a” and insert—
“an area by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or (g),”.
This is consequential on Amendment 209.
Amendment 211, in clause 46, page 51, line 23, after “the” insert “combined authority or”.
This corrects an omission.
Amendment 212, in clause 46, page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 52 and insert—
““1A Designation of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs
(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the whole of its area.
(2) The Secretary of State may—
(a) by order specify a part of the area of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, and
(b) by order designate the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the specified part of its area.
(3) But, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred by subsection (2) in relation to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA (the “relevant mayoral authority”), the Secretary of State must ensure that those powers are exercised so as to secure that—
(a) two or more parts are specified under subsection (2)(a) which, when taken together, consist of the whole of the area of the relevant mayoral authority;
(b) the relevant mayoral authority is designated as the fire and rescue authority for each specified part;
(c) all of those designations come into effect at the same time.
(4) Accordingly, where the powers conferred by subsection (2) are exercised in relation to the relevant mayoral authority—
(a) there are separate fire and rescue authorities for each area specified under subsection (2)(a);
(b) the fire and rescue authority for each of those areas is the relevant mayoral authority.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the name by which an area specified under subsection (2)(a) is to be known.
(6) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make consequential alterations to any other—
(a) section 1A(2) area,
(b) section 2 combined area, or
(c) section 4 combined area.
(7) The alterations that may be made by virtue of subsection (6) include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of such areas.
(8) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make provision for the abolition of—
(a) a metropolitan county fire and rescue authority,
(b) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2, or
(c) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies.
(9) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 52 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (incidental etc provision) for the purposes of, or in consequence of, an order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) relating to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA and particular area includes—
(a) provision for functions of a fire rescue authority to be exercisable in relation to the area by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA during a shadow period (and not by any fire and rescue authority by which those functions would otherwise be exercisable),
(b) provision for those functions to be exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA;
(c) provision about who is to scrutinise the exercise of those functions;
(d) any other incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision.
(10) In this section—
“section 1A(2) area” means an area specified in an order under subsection (2)(a) (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 2 combined area” means an area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, or used to be, constituted by a scheme under section 2 (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“section 4 combined area” means the area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, used to be, constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies (including such an area as varied from time to time);
“shadow period” , in relation to provision made in accordance with subsection (9)(a) in relation to a particular area, means a period which—
(a) ends when the designation of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the area takes effect, and
(b) is no longer than one year.””
This would make further provision about the Secretary of State’s power to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority (see Amendment 209). In particular, subsection (3) would ensure that, where the area of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is to consist of several fire and rescue areas, it must be the fire and rescue authority for all of those areas.
Amendment 213, in clause 46, page 52, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 53.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would be consequential on Amendment 209.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 46, page 53, line 15, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Vikki Slade
I should probably declare a personal interest—my father spent his life as a London firefighter throughout his career; I was a member of the local fire authority, and I have spent a lot of time talking to and engaging with the fire and rescue services. That was not because I managed to set my bedroom on fire as a child—although I did—but because fire safety has always been a lifelong passion of mine.
I am troubled that the Bill rolls fire and rescue services into the role of a mayor. That may be a great idea; in some cases, I know that fire and rescue services have come together with police and crime. However, the amount of attention that this Bill gives to fire and rescue, and indeed the comment made last week when I asked questions about the precepting and the funding of fire, which suggested that it was outwith the scope of this Bill, makes it feel as though fire and rescue are an afterthought. It feels as though the work of the fire and rescue services is not being given enough attention and that there has not been real thought about how they can best be delivered.
Fire and rescue authorities around the country are doing a really good job in supporting our services, often on tiny precepts, and in dealing with big, and changing issues. Wildfires around my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency have been horrific this year, and we have just put in for Bellwin funding. The proportion of energy that is used in dealing with fires that are usually human-caused and flooding, which is also related to climate resilience, has gone through the roof.
To add fire and rescue services in as a couple of pages in a large Bill feels inadequate, which is why we are looking to ensure that regulations made under clause 46 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and why we are seeking more parliamentary scrutiny and energy around bringing in the fire and rescue services, particularly where they do not align.
My area is likely to be Wessex, if we get into the next round, and it will probably cover three different fire authorities. As well as having to get two or three different police authorities together, we will now have to get two or three different fire authorities from the police authorities. Adding the clause in at this stage is complicated, and sticking it in as two and a half pages of a Bill feels inadequate. Therefore, we ask that regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure and receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I want to put on record that the Government absolutely recognise the vital role the fire and rescue authorities are playing across the piece; there is a huge amount of work going on in my Department to ensure that they are fit for purpose, that they are resourced and that they can continue to evolve. The Government believe that the negative procedure is the right and proportionate route for these regulations. The powers here in the Bill are simply technical powers, enabling powers that are already conferred in legislation for the fire and rescue authority functions to be transferred. That is why they take up such a small proportion of the Bill—it is a technical change rather than a substantive one, which exists already in legislation.
It is important that there is a timely transfer of these functions so that mayors can deliver joined-up services without lengthy procedural hurdles. Subject to clause 46 standing part of the Bill, Parliament would have already approved the principle of mayors exercising fire and rescue functions. This part of the Bill makes that transfer live and real. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole appreciates the care that we certainly have around the fire and rescue service and that there is much wider work going on outside the scope of the Bill about how we ensure those services are fit for purpose, and will therefore withdraw her amendment.
Vikki Slade
I would have loved to do that, but I feel that this transfer needs to be a deliberate and active thing. I spoke to my chief fire officer, who seemed completely oblivious to what is going on. If our chief fire officers are not really aware of what is going on, then more needs to be done, and therefore I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 220, in schedule 22, page 234, line 12, at end insert—
“LDEDCA 2009
1 (1) LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 107D (delegation of functions by the mayor), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 107DZA.’
(3) After section 107D insert—
‘107DZA Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the combined authority.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 5BA.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the combined authority” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’
LURA 2023
2 (1) LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 30 (functions of mayors: general), after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 30A.’
(3) After section 30 insert—
‘30A Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions
(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 30(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the CCA.
(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 30(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.
(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the CCA” means—
(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19 (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or
(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’”
In new sections 107DZA and 30A, subsection (1) would prevent the mayor from delegating fire and rescue functions to a deputy mayor or another member or officer of mayoral authority; and subsection (2) would replace wording in clause 9(2) and (5) (see Amendment 68 and Amendment 69).
As the Committee has previously discussed in the context of consequential amendments 68 and 69 to clause 9 of the Bill, Government amendment 220 ensures that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor. The mayor can delegate those powers only to the public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, which strengthens accountability. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 220 agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47
Mayor with PCC and fire and rescue functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces alternative ways by which a mayor or strategic authority may exercise fire and rescue and police and crime commissioner functions introduced by the Bill. The Government aim to establish mayoralties with the full range of powers and responsibilities wherever possible. The clause enables the Secretary of State to authorise a mayor of a strategic authority to delegate fire and rescue authority functions to a chief constable and to authorise that chief constable to further delegate fire and rescue authority functions to police and fire rescue personnel. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Sharing of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities have a number of responsibilities in relation to public safety, something that I know Members across the House care very much about. The Bill deepens those responsibilities. The clause brings combined and combined county authorities into a group of public sector organisations that can receive information in relation to crime and disorder. It also places a duty on the combined or combined county authority to share information about crime and disorder with other public sector organisations as required, and vice versa. That will empower the combined and combined county authorities and partner organisations to develop intelligence, make informed decisions and implement appropriate responses to crime and disorder issues such as crime prevention. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Vikki Slade
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 49, page 54, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.
(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —
(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—
(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;
(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 49, page 54, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,
(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
New clause 32—Devolution of further powers within strategic authority areas—
“(1) A strategic authority may—
(a) devolve to any local authority within its area any second-stage power;
(b) form bodies, and groups within its area to coordinate action needs, provided that any body or group includes representatives from all affected local areas.
(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), the strategic authority must consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level and, where it considers this to be the case, must act in such a way to enable such devolution.
(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this section is commenced, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how it intends to carry out the duty under subsection (2) (a ‘community empowerment plan’).
(4) A strategic authority must review a community empowerment plan at least once during the period of four years starting on the day on which the plan is published.
(5) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or body to which it has devolved powers.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in the event that the authority considers there to be a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.
(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
New clause 33—Devolution of powers from non-departmental public bodies—
“A Strategic authority may request the transfer of duties and functions from Homes England, Highways England, and any other non-departmental public body as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 53—Annual report on requests made under Section 49 of this Act—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which section 49 is commenced, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report about notifications given under that section.
(2) Each report must summarise—
(a) the number and nature of notifications given by mayors;
(b) the Secretary of State’s decisions in relation to notifications, including the number and nature of—
(i) cases where the Secretary of State agrees, and
(ii) cases where the Secretary of State does not agree,
with the notification;
(c) any further legislative measures mayors have requested the Secretary of State takes to further enable mayors to make notifications to fulfil their objectives in areas of competence.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report summarising notifications made by Mayors for powers to be devolved and the Secretary of State’s responses and any requests by Mayors for the Secretary of State to take legislative steps to enable Mayors to adequately fulfil areas of competence.
Vikki Slade
Amendments 3 and 9 would require that, when a mayor or a mayoral strategic authority wishes to obtain more powers, those powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is fairly common practice for Members to be called into a Statutory Instrument Committee to make changes to such things. If we are going to ensure full transparency and ensure that mayors do not exercise powers beyond what seems appropriate, there should be some level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 3 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek Parliament’s approval through secondary legislation before implementing those requests. We do not believe that decisions around funding and changes of law should be made without that oversight and approval. It is hugely important to maintain the highest level of democracy; to remove that would be a missed opportunity. We therefore ask that the legislation should be protected from abuse whereby future Secretaries of State could implement requests without laying them before Parliament.
Siân Berry
I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts.
I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues.
If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve.
If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence.
The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups.
That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue.
The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill.
New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge.
The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally.
I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those.
We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important.
In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process.
I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities.
We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority.
Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level.
Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.
Siân Berry
Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge those mayors who are seeking greater powers to continue to do so, and to talk about it in the public sphere, as they have done?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I must tell the hon. Lady that I can barely hold them back. Our mayors are pretty independent-minded and robust, and they are very clear when they want a particular power. They run effective campaigns and they are very good at advocacy, so I do not think the Government need to—or indeed can—tell them what to do. They are very clear about the powers they want; they build consensus among all their partners to ensure that they apply maximum pressure on Government to respond effectively to the right to request, and rightly so. That is the case now and I suspect that, once we give them legal powers in this Bill, it will continue to be so.
Vikki Slade
I am content that the scope of the amendment may have been broader than intended in terms of some of the minor things that a local authority may wish to do, but I ask the Minister to keep in mind the larger-scale changes that may be required, which really should come with some form of Government statutory intervention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and all hon. Members for the swift and substantial progress we have made on the Bill today. I am grateful for everyone’s patience and the constructive way they have engaged in debate.
The devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition for devolving real powers to local communities. That is why we are taking the power to add new functions to the framework, which will ensure that strategic authority mayors have the powers they need to deliver for local people. The Government will not be taking those decisions in isolation; any new functions added to the framework will be subject to votes in both Houses of Parliament and to consultations with the mayor, the constituent councils and the body currently holding those functions.
It is important that the governance arrangements within strategic authorities enable local leaders to make effective decisions to deliver for their people, so the Government are taking the power to modify governance arrangements where necessary. In some cases, the best way to bring about real, substantive devolution across the country will be to test it in one or two places first. The Bill therefore allows the Government to confer or modify functions on a pilot basis, which will enable local leaders to innovate in order to deliver the best outcomes for their citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)