English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 23rd October 2025
(2 days, 14 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 23 October 2025 - (23 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Amendment 408, in the name of Alison Bennett, was tabled late last night. As a result, it is not selectable for debate today.
We will continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members wishing to speak that they should bob to attract my attention. If a Member wishes to push to a Division an amendment that is not the lead amendment or new clause in a group, they must inform me in advance, or I will skip straight past it. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Schedule 23
Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 307, in schedule 23, page 237, line 9, at end insert—
“()ba a single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authority to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 309, in schedule 23, page 237, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may—
(a) create conditions which must be satisfied prior to the mayor exercising a function,
(b) create a requirement for members of the relevant strategic authority to assist the mayor in exercising a function,
(c) create additional powers for the mayor for the purposes of exercising a function,
(d) authorise the mayor to appoint a person as a political adviser for the purposes of exercising a function,
(e) create requirements for an appointment under subparagraph (4A)(d).
(4B) Powers under subparagraph (4A)(c) may not include a power to borrow money.
(4C) Regulations under this paragraph must have the consent of the relevant authority.”
This amendment would create additional boundaries for regulations which may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor.
Paul Holmes
Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward.
Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill.
Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle.
I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Let me take amendment 307 first. To be clear, the single foundation strategic authority will not have a mayor. That is not the intent of the provision or of the Bill and it is not in the Government’s plans. Invariably, however, we want to be sure that at every level we are devolving power. Certain powers will be devolved to single foundation strategic authorities, such as Cornwall, in order to enable it to respond to some of its issues. We are also clear that certain powers will be reserved to mayors, because a level of democratic accountability is critical to the exercise of such powers. That is the distinction that we have made throughout the design of the policy and it is built into the Bill.
Amendment 309 is out of the step with the Bill’s objective of streamlining the process for conferring and modifying the functions of strategic authorities and mayors. The Bill already puts in place sufficient guardrails when functions are transferred to mayors. When making functions exercisable by the mayor, it is already the case that constituent authorities will be consulted before such a change. Requiring the consent of those authorities will create an unnecessary barrier to enabling mayors to take on functions and to get on with the job delivery, which is what we need of them.
Finally, many mayors can already appoint political advisers—another piece of amendment 309—as agreed through the establishment of statutory instruments. The Bill will also allow mayors to appoint commissioners to support them in the exercise of their functions. That is the right balance to be struck to ensure that the mayor has what he or she needs to do the job that their constituents or voters require of them. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I hope that the Minister understands our motivation for tabling the amendment. We are not trying to score a political point, but to strengthen the Bill. I am reassured that the Minister has given us some reassurance that she sees that every kind of authority should be devolved and that the powers should be aligned with those. We may come back to this on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert—
“Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members
5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by—
(a) the deputy mayor,
(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,
(c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor.
(2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including—
(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,
(b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee,
(c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee,
(d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures,
(e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority.
This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level.
I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment. I would say that mayors are already able to delegate the majority of their functions to deputy mayors and to members of constituent authorities. In the evidence session, for example, Councillor Bev Craig from Manchester was responsible for the economic development portfolio in Greater Manchester. Such functions are already in place. In part in recognition of the fact that local councillors, in particular leaders and cabinet members, have busy paid jobs, we want to increase the mayor’s pool of support, which is why we are creating the ability for the mayor to appoint and to delegate functions to the commissioners. That will give the mayors options. We are not specifying how the mayor should do it, and ultimately each mayor will figure out what works for their area and the mix between deputy mayors, commissioners and lead members, but this provision will increase the pool and the options available to them.
Paul Holmes
We are content with that answer, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Third schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The schedule is introduced by clause 50. I have already spoken about why the clause should stand part of the Bill. As I explained previously, the schedule is essential to providing Government with the powers to add new functions to the framework. That will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers they need to deliver for their local people, which is what all this is about. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 51
Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This Government want to ensure we have a national health service that is fit for the future, and we are doing huge amounts to repair the damage to the national health service done by the Conservative Government. That is a core function of what we are doing. It is therefore right that certain core functions, such as the NHS constitution or university clinical training, remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This clause retains the existing limits on the devolution of health functions in England. Protections against devolving health functions are not new—they have been in place since the Government began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities—and the Bill maintains them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I was going to stay quiet, but unfortunately for the Minister I was inspired by her speech, so I hate to disappoint the Government Whip by speaking very briefly. The Minister, quite rightly—it is her job—outlined that she wants to rectify some of the supposed damage done to the national health service over 14 years, but I gently remind her that waiting lists are increasing and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking at possible strike action while putting forward a reorganisation that he cannot afford.
I look to the Minister for some reassurance regarding whether wider health policy, such as that reorganisation and some of the local functions of integrated care boards, which we know are changing, may affect the provisions in the clause. Could there be some effect on the ground that may create delay or necessitate some changes to the clause in the longer term?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Obviously, the NHS is going through huge reform. We are working closely with the team in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that reforms sit alongside our plans for devolution. A big part of what we are trying to do through our health reforms is to provide community-based healthcare, and there is a big opportunity for local and regional government to work alongside the NHS to deliver integrated services that work for our communities and are user-led. We are making sure that every stage of the reforms, including the changes to the ICBs, is done in lockstep with what we are trying to do across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Incidental etc provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This is a simple provision. When functions are conferred on, or modified for, strategic authorities in the future, the Government will sometimes need to make technical changes to other pieces of legislation to ensure that the functions conferred on strategic authorities work as intended. That is why the Bill includes this technical clause—it is just a technical clause—to allow the Government to have the power to make technical changes to existing legislation when necessary. The clause will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors are able to effectively exercise the functions, as intended by policy. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Transfer of property, rights and liabilities
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 299, in clause 53, page 57, line 31, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes the provision for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) to apply to a transfer by virtue of section 53 regardless of whether the transfer is relevant to the regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 221.
Clause stand part.
Paul Holmes
We understand the overarching aims of this clause, and the debate does not necessarily have to revolve around whether or not it should happen, but we tabled this probing amendment because we understand that the legislation is essentially applying TUPE regulations regardless of whether they legally apply. We want to challenge that and probe why, if TUPE regulations need not legally apply in cases of transfer, the Government have insisted that TUPE regulations have to go into this regardless. Can the Minister answer that key question?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
TUPE regulations are there to ensure that staff are not dismissed for the sole reason that functions are being transferred from one public body to another. We believe that they are fundamental to protecting staff, which we want to make sure happens throughout this process.
In line with the Cabinet Office guidance, this clause tries to ensure that the regulations apply when we have public bodies moving to strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, risks creating uncertainty for staff and disrupting the smooth transfer of functions.
TUPE regulations are there for a reason—to protect the workers that are fundamental and critical to delivering any public institution. When we are going through the process of creating these strategic authorities, it is important that we embed those TUPE regulations. That is why I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for her full and direct answer, and I understand it. I take it she accepts that TUPE is being put into this clause regardless of whether there is a legal necessity for it to apply. Has she had any correspondence or lobbying from the trade union movement to make sure that it is included?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To answer that question directly: no, although it helps that I am a new Minister. The clause is in step with long-standing Government practice. It mirrors provisions that have been made in previous legislation by the previous Conservative Government, including in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It is standard practice and it is done by all parties. It is there because we need to protect staff.
Paul Holmes
I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government could easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is sovereign, and the Government will always be able to table primary legislation to redesign how functions are delivered. However, the Bill makes sure that Governments will have to make that argument in Committee and on Report, as we are doing now. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. We want this to be locked in because we fundamentally believe that this is how to deliver for communities across the country. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this or any future Government to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation, so that they can be exercised again by central Government.
I commend clause 54 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
This is a difficult one for us. I am not saying that the Minister is trying to bind the hands of future Governments, but it does feel like the Government are trying to make this increasingly difficult. We would argue that any elected Government have a mandate to make legislative changes as they see fit. I wonder whether this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Of course, we accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but an elected Government should be able to use any mechanism they want to use. I ask the Minister once again to consider whether she thinks this is really necessary. A Government who might want to remove some of the functions would have a democratic mandate to do so, and arguably very good reasons for doing so when future structures need to change. I would like to challenge her on whether she thinks this is absolutely necessary, which may depend on our forcing a vote on this issue.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his question. My view is that devolution is a fundamental shift in power and a rewiring of how we govern the country. At the heart of the devolution process are a lot of democratic processes, where people vote for a mayor on the basis of what they say they will deliver for their community. To make a fundamental change, it is absolutely right that a future Government must get the consent of Parliament to rewrite it. That is the premise on which we think about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and devolution, and it is what we have done in the context of Scotland and Wales. These are fundamental shifts in power, and it is right that there has to be a full democratic process within Parliament to reverse them.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not about reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake; it is about creating better-functioning unitary councils that are more sustainable and better able to deliver the high-quality services that their residents want and fundamentally deserve.
Schedule 24 enables the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise. We are committed to working in partnership with local areas. Therefore, this will be used only where areas have failed to make progress following an invitation. It also includes new merging provisions to enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change would be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. That aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.
With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed in the Bill to ensure these reforms work in harmony. The first mechanism is the ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority. This is a straightforward and common-sense provision. When local government reorganisation takes place in an area covered by a combined county authority, we need a streamlined way to convert the authority into a combined authority.
The second mechanism is the ability to abolish a combined authority or combined county authority if local government reorganisation renders that authority obsolete. This mechanism would be used only in very limited circumstances: if a new unitary authority covers or includes the whole area of an existing combined authority or combined county authority. Any local government reorganisation proposal requiring the use of this abolition mechanism will need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as per the Government’s reorganisation criteria. That ensures these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.
I commend clause 55 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives.
We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause.
The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals.
I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed.
For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, Stratford-on-Avon district council will be abolished. I worked as a district councillor there, and I know how close district councillors are to their communities. They know their area best, and all that expertise and knowledge will be wiped out. Residents are really worried. For example, they do not want councillors in the north of Warwickshire to take decisions that will affect them in the south. There is a worry among our communities about—
Manuela Perteghella
Sorry, Chair. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resulting democratic deficit sets a dangerous precedent?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, she has the best interests of Stratford-on-Avon at heart. From her experience in local government, she knows the expertise held by district councillors who know the areas they serve.
In my local area, two new unitary authorities are proposed —one that looks eastward and one that looks westward. What happens to the semi-rural areas of my constituency, now having new unitary councils headquartered in Southampton and Portsmouth? Those unique connections that district councils have, which suit their smaller areas, will not be served as well by a larger unitary authority. That view is endorsed by the District Councils’ Network, which suggested in its briefing note that focusing on authority scale and population size during local government reorganisation would not lead to optimal outcomes. It stated:
“it will be tempting to pursue approaches to LGR that make it as easy as possible to implement—focusing only on scale and minimising disruption.”
The Government say they want to deliver growth and get the public finances in good order, but there are no concrete suggestions for how their proposals will save money. Just going bigger and larger, and having one tier across the whole UK, does not necessarily mean that services will be better. As I have said consistently, many district, town and parish councils do not want this to happen. Many Members across the House may say, “That is the vested interest of elected people who are going to be got rid of,” but that is not the case.
Paul Holmes
I will finish this point, and then I will give way, because I am a fan of the hon. Gentleman. Smaller district, town and parish councils know their local areas. This is not an efficient way of delivering reform. We will have councillors on a larger scale who do not take into account the unique structures and environments in which we serve our constituents.
Sean Woodcock
It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I refer the hon. Member to a point I made to his colleague in Committee a couple of weeks ago. Ten years ago, the district councils of Northamptonshire were dismantled by his party and forcibly put into unitary authorities. Where was his umbrage then? If district councils are so good, why did his Government not reform them, give them more money and reconstitute them? Clearly, his Government felt there was a reason why they worked better as unitary authorities. So what is the problem?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Does the hon. Member recognise the state of local government—the absolute mess and the financial vulnerability of local authorities—that his party left us with? Unique circumstances, absolutely. We are having to fix the mess we inherited. We absolutely want local government to be successful and to thrive, but it is on its knees after 15 years of austerity. That is why we are having to take the action we are taking.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister is seriously suggesting that a complete and wholesale reorganisation across the whole United Kingdom is the one answer to making sure that local government can operate on a sustainable footing, I do not buy that at all. There are many things that this Government could do to make local government much more efficient and to deliver for people. First is an uplift in funding.
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister should speak to the many council leaders across the country who do not agree that it is enough.
If the Minister is seriously saying that abolishing 90% of elected councillors in rural areas across this country will somehow be the miracle cure for local government, and that is what is driving these measures, then I am sorry but this Government need to go back to the drawing board.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Cornwall reorganised in 2009 and is now the third largest unitary council in the UK. There is no question of any sort of democratic deficit across the whole of Cornwall. Why does the hon. Member think that is?
Paul Holmes
I think it was reorganised under a Labour Government. When people in this country went to the polls in July 2024, and we accept that we lost the election—[Interruption.]—and lost it pretty badly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield says. I absolutely accept that, and I do not think there is any disagreement on why or how that happened, but can the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth point me to where his party’s then local government spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said to councillors in her party that they were about to be abolished, or where she said to local government leaders or the general public that Labour would carry out a huge reorganisation of local government? If he can, I will eat my words. I challenge him to show me where his party said at the general election that it was going to do that. Can he do that?
Perran Moon
When I was knocking on doors in Cornwall, people were worried not about a democratic deficit but about waste and bureaucracy in local government. They wanted a more streamlined local government structure, focused on delivering services. That is what the Bill aims to do.
Paul Holmes
Councillors across this country aim and strive to do that day in and day out, within the current structures. Any suggestion otherwise is an insult to elected councillors across the UK, and I am not saying that he said that—I am saying that every councillor in this country is elected to serve and to deliver services in the best way they can. My fundamental disagreement is that, as the Minister has said, reorganisation in a pure attempt to save money and deliver more efficient services is not provable. Many unitary councils across the country—a single tier of local government established in the last reorganisation in 1997—are now in huge financial trouble. That is not just because of the allocations that were put forward by the previous Government. It is because a single tier of local authority of that size does not necessarily deliver for an area. This Government’s aim of ensuring that that goes on across the whole country will not tackle some of the fundamental financial issues that our local authorities suffer from.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion, which is very much informed by his local circumstances in Hampshire. I can share my local circumstances in Kent, where the current two-tier system just does not work for my constituents. We have some great councillors in Swale and some good councillors in Kent, but over decades the system has not worked because the needs of people in certain parts of Kent are so different from the needs of people in my constituency, which is a much poorer, more industrial and more deprived area. We have been overlooked. I am afraid that the people in Tunbridge Wells, which is a great town, do not get the needs of people in Sheerness. This change will be a massive improvement for people in my neck of the woods, and that is why I support it.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is uniquely qualified to speak about his local circumstances—that is why he is sent here every day to serve his constituents—but I do not understand his argument. If he is saying that a larger authority that serves the whole of Kent, or two authorities in Kent, will know the unique circumstances of two fundamentally different areas, I suggest to him that nothing is going to change.
Kevin McKenna
It is obvious. My area has a very different socioeconomic status from that of the rest of Kent—frankly, a lot of the coastal parts of Kent are very different from the centre of Kent. The authority will not be as large as Kent county council, which currently is responsible for the biggest challenges—special educational needs and disabilities, adult social care and children’s social care. Those are a lot of the things that matter most to my constituents. Having more like with like areas in a unitary authority, the likely outcome of this reorganisation where I am, will be a massive improvement and will allow other parts of Kent to focus on their special needs.
Paul Holmes
What the hon. Gentleman describes is the very essence of devolution. I absolutely believe that if local authorities or local people want that reorganisation and unitarisation, that is up to them. My disagreement is with the Government and the Minister—not just this Minister, but the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who said in the House that everybody must do it. If this Government are seriously saying that this measure is universally welcomed by local authorities, they are heavily mistaken.
This Government are forcing reorganisation. They are putting a gun to the head of our county leaders and other local authority leaders in areas such as Hampshire and elsewhere in the country who have essentially been made to feel that they have to do this now or it will happen to them anyway. That is not genuine consultation. That is not devolution that allows local authority leaders to choose the structures that they want. It is unilaterally forcing all local authority leaders to undertake a form of reorganisation—gainsaying them. The Government do not have the democratic legitimacy to drive that forward. That is the fundamental difference between the Minister and the Labour party and the Conservative party. We believe that people should be able to restructure and reorganise, but in the way and at a time that they want. That is not to case under the Government’s proposals.
Finally, the Conservative party does not support the delaying of local elections if the Bill comes into force. Other parties have made many suggestions that the Conservatives have been calling for the delay of local elections. The pending creation of other local authorities has created a fundamental democratic deficit in the country. Some councillors who were elected in 2021 are still in post. That is not a sensible or ideal solution. People deserve to have a say in elections over the way their services are run. This Government’s unilateral reorganisation has prevented that from happening. We believe there should be local elections, so I hope that the party political literature stating that we want to stop the next local elections will cease.
I think I have made my point clear—I hope so, at least. We will oppose the clause.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is great to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I also wish to speak against this clause and against the Government suddenly pushing through local government reorganisation in this form. Of course, local government reorganisation does happen. Councils can, by consent, currently make such changes. The Government’s imposition of these changes, in a process that seems rushed and top-down to many people across the country, is against the spirit of devolution and against the spirit of the title of the Bill.
I do not believe that the introduction of new strategic authorities demands a quid pro quo of abolishing all remaining two-tier authorities in such a dismaying hurry, and I do not believe that one size fits all. I have served in unitary authorities, and I understand that they can work well. I am not a huge fan of county councils, but nevertheless, it should be up to local areas to do this by consent.
One point that is important to make is that there is no strong case for this change on cost or service delivery grounds. There is no consistent or conclusive evidence to justify a belief that the much larger councils that the Government want will result in services that are cheaper to run. Why even force attempts at savings of this sort now, when local government is still struggling so badly? Research from Unison has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of £4 billion by the financial year of 2026-27, and a cumulative funding gap of £7.4 billion by 2027-28. Let us please fix austerity first.
There are other problems, and I draw on the experience and expertise of the Association of Green Councillors in making these points. With this process, we are likely to see the destructive marginalisation of community identity in many places. There is no serious evidence to back up the choice of target for councils to serve 500,000 people, which Ministers have been asking for in their correspondence to councils. Many people in localities already affected are struggling to see how this will not result in arbitrarily drawn, essentially meaningless sub-county unitary councils with no identifiable sense of place.
Many very substantial towns, with history and a strong identity, often associated with strong values of independence of thought as well as governance, community spirit, welcome, inclusion and mutual support—places that people love—are currently or imminently in danger of being wiped off the local government map. They too are saying we should fix austerity first. The Committee has heard strong evidence of a clear and dramatic reduction in community representation from these changes, and we are already an under-represented population. Look anywhere in Europe or North America and people have far more peers, elected from their community, to represent them in decision making.
Unlike in so many other countries—unlike so many city council members or state representatives—our councillors, although they work hard, do not work as full-time representatives. I see no plans to make these new councillors with extra duties full time. Many existing councillors put in time way over what their allowances might cover, given the poor support and resources they often receive. They are overworked, and the job of councillors in these new super-unitaries is set to become harder if they are to maintain the strong community connections they currently have.
Hard-working local representatives also take on so much casework, helping people directly when public and private services drop the ball and helping them to navigate complex systems. We must not forget the value of a friendly face from the community who just listens and takes someone’s case up in a crisis. Have Ministers considered that the loss of thousands of people doing casework, advice and support work of this kind could have an impact on the caseloads of the hard working and hard-pressed staff and MPs taking up casework in local areas already? Have Ministers considered the impact on local advice services?
Sean Woodcock
Like the hon. Lady and councillors in my area, I too get casework, and one of the frustrations that people have in areas where there are two levels of local government—district and town councils—is that they sometimes go to one council and are told, “Sorry, we can’t do it. You need to go to the other one.” The priority for residents is surely getting things fixed and sorted. Does she not see benefit in having all services under one roof, so that the councillor knows that he can go straight to his officers and get it fixed, without having to say, “Sorry, it’s not my department”?
Siân Berry
I do not disagree with the essence of that point, but the Government are seeking to impose reorganisation, which could abolish a whole tier of councillors overnight and cause a spike in casework and the need for advice services. I do not believe they have really considered the impact of the transition.
This week, I met AdviceUK, whose survey of member groups found that the average advice service in the country has lost three staff members or volunteers in the past year, and needs three more advisers just to meet current demand. Have the Government considered that such services might face a spike in demand as a consequence of this reorganisation and the loss of community representation that is being imposed?
There are surely consequences for democracy. In contrast to the cost-saving argument, there is clear evidence that size matters when it comes to democracy and accountability, even with unitary authorities that work well—my constituency is in a well-established unitary. The proposed increase in population and geographic scale is likely to have a damaging effect on a range of democratic criteria, including electoral turnout, public trust in councillors and officers, and levels of participative engagement.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. It has been argued that a single tier, under one authority, might improve democratic participation, but does she agree that someone in Hedge End in my area, whose council headquarters will be far removed from them geographically, may feel that their council represents them less, and therefore democratic participation would be reduced?
Siân Berry
Having been a local councillor, I can see the other side of the Government’s argument. A local councillor based further away, representing a larger ward, will have to work very hard to maintain the face-to-face interaction with their community that makes residents feel represented. I do not believe the Government have really considered that. No matter how hard-working councillors are—even at Green levels of all-year-round hard work—residents will have less familiarity with who their local councillors are and what they do, which may increase alienation from local democracy and feed populist narratives.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley made this point well, but I have to complain that, unlike the new strategic authorities, which are about devolving power, forced and hurried local government reorganisation was not in the Labour manifesto, so I must oppose the clause.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I agree with much of what has been said already. This clause goes to the very heart of the Bill and highlights why it is bad.
I led Broxbourne council, a district council, and was a county councillor on an authority that represented 1.2 million people, so I can say from experience that bigger does not always mean better. I wish other Committee members had been elected to councils so that they could have had that experience. I only wish that it worked in the ways that Labour Members have described, and that it were so easy to get things done in large authorities. From my experience of serving on a large county authority, I know that councillors are more removed from the residents they serve. Those authorities are very officer led, and it is very difficult to get things done. At the end of the day, it is the residents who fall out from that.
District councils have planning powers, the best way to transform lives. I fear for what will happen to planning services when we have big new unitary authorities of 500,000 or 400,000 people. Those services will be far removed from the people the councillors are making decisions for.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
There has been a lot of conjecture about what could happen. I am from an area that has a unitary, because the Conservatives bankrupted the county council. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to people who have unitaries in order to fix some of his ideas in some sort of foundation? It is great to hear people’s ideas, but let us ground them in reality.
Lewis Cocking
When I go out to speak to people in Broxbourne, they are completely against this—they do not want it. They fear a large council. I have spoken to many councillors, and my reflection is that things depend on the size of the unitary. For those serving in a smaller unitary, people tend to be happier with the council and the services it delivers, but I am yet to find people—in particular, back benchers on a large unitary council—who feel engaged and motivated, with residents respecting that. However, the hon. Gentleman will have different experiences in his constituency.
I do not think unitarisation is a good idea. I have a lot of experience in local government, and it will cost people more in council tax where councils go through unitarisation and districts are forced to merge. My district, Broxbourne, has the lowest parish council tax in the country, so whatever happens through the proposed reorganisation, the good residents of Broxbourne will pay more in their council tax bills, probably for fewer services. Simply going through the reorganisation does not mean that we will see better services.
We are told constantly that councils have been underfunded and that services will improve, but no one can show me a council that has been through reorganisation that is awash with money. I have not spoken to one council that has been through reorganisation that has said, “Do you know what? We have been through a reorganisation. We have made loads of savings and we have become more efficient.”
In actual fact, all the councils that I have looked into that have gone through reorganisation have set up delivery mechanisms and organigrams of staffs and departments based on the old district boundaries. They all have area planning committees that all have to be costed and so on. A number of reports include farcical figures claiming that an area will save millions and millions from going through the reorganisation, because of redundancies, and better and joined-up services.
Let me tell the Committee this: many district councils already have joined-up services and have already gone through that process. Some services, such as human resources, are shared with upper-tier authorities, while others such as waste collection are shared across multiple authorities. The councils have already made lots of those savings, which are already baked into their district budgets and so on. I am yet to see any concrete figures for how much money reorganisation will save.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend, as an experienced local government leader, is making a very good speech. Many Government Back Benchers groaned when he spoke about the Government saying that better services would be delivered through the reorganisation. He outlined councils that have been reorganised, where services have not improved. The Government claim that austerity over the previous 14 years was the problem. Has he seen any policy proposition from the Government to suggest that local authority funding will get better, and that therefore councils will improve their services, if they go through the reorganisation?
Lewis Cocking
No, I have not. My authorities have lost out and are no better off under the Government proposals. In particular, rural authorities lose out even more. I have already touched on the fact that millions of people across this country will pay more in council tax.
We are also always told that we have to hit the figure of 500,000, which is the most efficient number and when we get all the savings. If that figure is so important, however, why are we not reorganising London? A number of unitary councils in London do not meet, or come anywhere near, the half a million mark. I suspect the reason why we are not reorganising London is that the Government do not want to upset thousands of Labour councillors. The reason we are reorganising the rest of the country is that the elected representation for the Government party in those councils is probably not where they want it to be.
We are always told that about half a million is the perfect sweet spot—where we get the best services and will be really joined up and so on—but that works only for one part of the country. In the rest of the country, where there are loads of examples of councils that face difficult financial challenges and yet have low population compared with the figures that the Government want, those areas are not being reorganised at all.
Paul Holmes
In talking about London not being reorganised, my hon. Friend makes what I might describe as a cynical but correct supposition that that is slightly related to the party political colours of the councils elected in London. Does he share my concern—the Minister might call me cynical—that 90% of rural councillors being abolished through this reorganisation also reeks of party political gerrymandering? Most of those councillors are Conservative, so there will be much more Labour representation in local government as a whole.
Lewis Cocking
I could not agree more. I think that is true, and it is an important reason why the Government are focusing on certain parts of the country and not others. If it were true that all councils have to be of a similar size to get the best services and save the most money, and the evidence supported that claim, then surely what is good for one part of the country should be good for all the country. The Government should be representing everyone in the United Kingdom, not just certain parts. They are rather worried about taking on their own councillors.
Mike Reader
I have some evidence on this point: under reorganisation, we actually lost Labour councillors. As the council came together, there were more Conservatives post reorganisation than before, so I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s evidence base for his suggestion that this is gerrymandering by the Labour party.
Lewis Cocking
Not as many under this proposal. The Government do not have a mandate for this. They said lots of things in their manifesto about what they would and would not do, but they have done lots of things that were not in their manifesto, which is really damaging for democracy.
The Government should be asking local people what they want, as I am sure we all do when we go out and speak to our constituents. I have two district councils in my constituency, Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire, and not one person has told me, “Do you know what we need to solve lots of the our problems and day-to-day challenges? We need to reorganise the council. We need a bigger authority. We need to be further removed from it.” This policy does not stack up, and it has been rushed.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In many ways, it is the ultimate Conservative argument that the status quo is exactly right and exactly what we need. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on public opinion of local government reorganisation in London in the 1960s, or the 1974 local government reorganisation in. I read a leading article in The Times from April 1974 in which there was a criticism of planning being at the district council level and highways being at the county council level, as that created problems between the two. Things change, do they not?
To suggest that the state of local government is optimal as we have it right now seems ridiculous to me. It is divorced from our experience, and many of us Government Members served as councillors. Surely we need to reorganise things so that they can run more efficiently.
Lewis Cocking
I have served in the two-tier system and know it is not perfect, but nor is what the Government are proposing in the Bill. There are some unitary councils, such as Slough, that face really difficult financial challenges. Just having all the levers of two councils around the same table does not make for better service delivery. I served on a county council covering over 1.2 million people, and I have been in meetings to discuss where we should invest for roads infrastructure in places that I had never even been to. That is what will happen with these large-scale unitary councils, and there is evidence for that.
When councils go through a reorganisation, why do they set up service delivery arms based on the old district boundaries? Why do they set up area planning committees, if everywhere is interlinked? What we are failing to understand or consider is how we will do planning and place, and how we will bring our communities with us. There are loads of areas around the country— I can speak for Hertfordshire on this—that have several significant towns all of the same size, and lots of people do not travel between those towns. My constituency probably feels closer to London, which is where lots of people commute for work, rather than to the county town of Hertford, which is just 10 minutes up the road in a car, if I can get through the traffic. We are not thinking about how we create communities and place.
I fear for the democratic deficit; no one ever says to me in my constituency, “Lewis, you know what? We really feel like a part of Hertfordshire. We are on the edge of the county. We want a single unitary council. We want to go through that process. We are going to get better services because of that.” I do not believe that is the case. This is being forced upon local councils. They were told in the letter that they had to reply to it. The timescales are just astronomical. I have led a council, and I know that sometimes it is really difficult to get things done. The timescales for the rest of the country, outside the initial wave of the six plus Surrey, to be reorganised are astronomical.
We are not doing this in a sensible and pragmatic way, and mistakes will be made. At the end of day, we should think about how to set up local government that is fit for the future. We should try to take the best bits for that, not create large super-unitary councils. The Government want to build 1.5 million homes, but they also want to rip up the existing planning committee system and put councils through this reorganisation. That will take a lot of work.
I was leader of my authority in 2021, when we were nearly marched up the hill by the previous Government. Some have commented, “Why didn’t you speak up then?” but they can read my press releases from that time and see that I was against it then, so it is not a party political point. We need to do best by existing councils and the councillors who work day in, day out, for their residents. Making big strategic unitary authorities covering large geographical areas and hundreds of thousands of people, is not the best way to do that. The Government need to look again. If they think this is so popular locally, why not commit to having local referendums where reorganisation is proposed and letting local people have their say? The Government could hold their head high and say, “We let local people have their say. They have agreed with us,” or, “They have not agreed,” and go from there.
Paul Holmes
Government Members raised their eyebrows when my hon. Friend talked about local referendums. Does he remember that it was a stated policy of the last Labour Government to have referendums when they were looking at devolving to regional assemblies?
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is interesting that the Government have moved away from that, particularly because I have not met one person who thinks that reorganisation into large unitary councils is a good idea.
If it is good for parts of the country, I hope that the Minister can explain why London and lots of the metropolitan boroughs in the north are not being compelled to reorganise. If this 500,000 figure is the sweet spot and the Government have loads of evidence to back that the claim that this will make services more efficient and put councils on a better financial footing, why is it good for only certain parts of the country, and not the whole country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their robust contributions. I will say a few things. First, we acknowledge that any process of change or reform is difficult. The Government do not underestimate the challenge of the process, but I come to why we are doing this. I made an intervention earlier to point out the state of local government that we inherited. Any one of us will know the huge pressures that local government are under. Fifteen years of austerity and rising demand has made local government increasingly unstable. The status quo is not tenable or sustainable. We have to do something systemic, because we have a systemic issue in local government.
Reforming and reorganising local government will deliver better services, because we can locate services at a level that works for residents. This is not reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake. It will be tough for our areas, but we are doing it because we are trying to ensure that local government services can work for their residents. It is about sustainability. We need to ensure that we have a model of local government that is fit for purpose and can be sustained in the future, because they provide absolutely vital services for residents. It would be completely reckless of this Government to see the state of play that we inherited and say, “We’re going to sit on our hands and not do anything.” That may be the Conservative way, but it is not the Labour way. We are clear that we have to help drive through a process of reform, and we are doing that because we want to ensure that local governments are fit for purpose to deliver those services for their residents.
There is a fundamental point about accountability and accessibility to residents. If we talk to any of our residents, they will say that they barely understand how local government works—who is responsible for what. Creating structures and systems that work, and that our communities can interact with and cohere with, is absolutely right.
We are very clear: this is not a one bullet solution. It absolutely is not. We know that local government reform needs to sit alongside other things that we are doing. We recognise the funding pressure that local government are under. That is why we boosted local government funding last year, and why we are delivering a real-terms increase to local government funding, despite the tough fiscal inheritance from the last Government. We are moving to multi-year budgets because we think that the system of year-by-year funding for local government is madness. We are making that reform. We are also moving towards consolidated budgets. Having lots of silos and funding streams has made it hard for local government to be strategic and to drive integrated services; we are reforming all of that. We are clear that this measure sits alongside all of that.
The final bit is our funding review. We understand that there are huge pockets of deprivation across the country—I come back to the Conservative party, which had a Prime Minister who boasted about the fact that he took money away from deprived areas to give it to affluent Tunbridge Wells. We will not do that. We are trying to recalibrate funding so that we can reduce deprivation and drive improvements across the country.
On the process—just to be clear and put it on record—we have not put a gun to any heads in councils; the Secretary of State has invited councils to put forward their proposals. Areas are now going through a process. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley talked about three proposals in his area; that is because we are making it bottom-up and saying, “Have a conversation about what model works best. We have a set of criteria to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Consult your residents and your stakeholders, and put that proposal to Government.” That is the process that we are undergoing at the moment.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says that there is no gun being held to local authority leaders’ heads. Can she therefore outline, in a clear way, what would happen to a county or district authority that said that it did not want local government reorganisation and refused to engage? They would be forced to reorganise, would they not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
They have been invited. There is a backstop power, but we do not think we will need to use it because the conversation now playing out across local government is that, yes, this is hard, but everyone recognises that the status quo—standing still—is not feasible or sustainable.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. She is being very generous, especially as I know that I have spoken for a while. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that Government Back Benchers are so delighted with my speaking.
I ask the Minister again, because she has not committed to this in clear language: if a county council leader or a number of district councils refused to engage with the Government’s process on local government reorganisation, they would be forced to reorganise, would they not?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is not where we want to be. That is not where we think we will end up. We have invited places and, to the credit of local government, everyone recognises that change is required. What is now happening is that places are making decisions about the best proposal to deliver the outcomes that they want for their constituents. This process has been hard—of course it has—but, throughout it, every single local authority has understood that the status quo will not deliver for their residents. That is the thing that is driving the impetus for change.
I will say a few words on the 500,000 population figure because Opposition Members have mentioned it. That is not a hard and fast number. We have said that it is a benchmark. If we think about other authorities that have gone through the process of local government reorganisation over the past 20 years—the likes of Somerset or Cornwall—500,000 is the sort of number that they have gone for, and we have seen that their reorganisations have delivered improvements in services and in the way that they operate. Places can go below or above that number. Ultimately, it is for places to figure out the best configuration of their locality to deliver for their residents. We have been clear and consistent about that point.
I want to address the specifics on London. We are open to a conversation with any part of the country that wants to talk about reorganisation. London, with its boroughs, obviously has a different configuration locked in legislation. It is distinct from our two-tier areas, which is why we are not focusing on it. But we are very open to a conversation about London, where we tend to have big authorities that are delivering some of these integrated services anyway.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 24, page 245, line 30, after “merger’” insert “or splitting”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in schedule 24, page 246, line 14, after “direction” insert “under subsection (1)”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
Amendment 50, in schedule 24, page 246, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may invite or direct a principal authority to make a proposal that there should be more than one single-tier local authority for an area which currently consists of—
(a) the area of a single authority, or
(b) one or more eligible areas.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority..
Amendment 51, in schedule 24, page 246, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) An invitation or direction under subsection (1A) may—
(a) be made in such a way that the authority may choose which eligible area or areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority;
(b) specify which eligible areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 50.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful for your indulgence on this, Dame Siobhain, because I know that we have had a very long debate on the substantive clause to which it relates. I want briefly to speak to amendments 48 to 51. Most of the amendments are consequential on or directly related to amendment 50, and they are all in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend thinks that this is a simple amendment that goes to the heart of what we were just discussing: the driving force behind devolution should be local situations and the local wants and needs of local people, rather than the standardised, central, top-down approach to local government reorganisation that this Government are advocating and forcing on local authority leaders across the country.
Amendment 50 would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct—the emphasis is on “invite”—an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority. This applies to many of the situations across the UK where there are a number of district councils or county councils that do not want to engage with the Minister’s local government reform, but are being forced to do so, as we discussed in the last segment of this Bill Committee. Local people or a local authority leader could decide to enter into a form of local government reorganisation, but do so in the way that suits them best. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in tabling this amendment, would have been referring to the situation around Bradford. Many people in the surrounding areas and in his constituency have indicated to him that they do not wish to be part of a local authority including Bradford. There is nothing wrong with Bradford—I have been there and it is a wonderful city—but there are two different and distinct types of geographical area within the single area proposed by the Government.
The same could be said of my local government situation. Many Members across the House know the distinct nature of Hampshire and the differences in approach to life between the people of Portsmouth and the people of Southampton. They would not necessarily want to be in the same local authority as each other—that is not the circumstance at the moment—but district councils in the proposed reorganisation simply do not want to engage because they want to stand alone to form a single-tier authority, perhaps with some of their partners. One proposal, which would not have met the Government standard test, was for a single-tier authority between Fareham, Gosport and Havant. They should be allowed to do that, but they are not, because of the top-down nature of the reorganisation.
Manuela Perteghella
In Warwickshire, too, four of five district and borough councils proposed a South Warwickshire—they wanted two unitary councils, rather than one huge, single unitary. That put them in collision with the county council proposal that was just voted through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need flexibility and the proposals should not be directed by the Secretary of State?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network.
I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me say three things in response. First, there is already flexibility in the creation of boundaries and geographies for unitaries to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they work for the communities they need to serve.
We are clear that, on the other side of local government reorganisation, councils must be the right size to deliver the high-quality services that residents deserve and need. Judgment on proposals will be driven by that fundamental question. Splitting up existing unitaries, further fragmenting and disaggregating services, does not feel like it would be in the interests of the residents concerned in delivering better and more efficient services, or value for money for taxpayers and those residents.
Clearly, we must have a reform process that fundamentally delivers those outcomes. There is now a process to do that. We will look at the various proposals and, ultimately, the test is: will the proposal deliver local government that is fit for purpose and deliver for our communities? Voters across the country want that and respect it.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for what she said. I absolutely knew what she was going to say—that comes as no surprise to us in the Opposition—but this is about what we discussed before. She said that it would not necessarily be to the advantage of local people were we to allow the splitting of unitary authorities, but she is missing the fact that some people want that. I think that the non-uniform approach to local government works. I still believe that this is a community empowerment and devolution Bill. One size fits all across the UK is not the way that the Government should be going. I will withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt of further amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 23rd October 2025
(2 days, 14 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 23 October 2025 - (23 Oct 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 24, page 246, line 27, after “government” insert —
“having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—
(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—
(i) economic zones,
(ii) physical geography,
(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and
(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.”
This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.
In an earlier sitting, the Committee discussed amendment 25, which would have required the Secretary of State, when preparing a proposal for a new combined authority—something we oppose—to follow such a proposal with a statement explaining how it would affect the physical geography, community identity and the boundaries of other public services. Amendment 5 focuses on the need, when we look at local government reorganisation into a single tier of local government or unitary council, to bring communities together by preserving or creating a sense of space.
It is our view that, when merging tiers of local government to create a new unitary council, as part of the strategic authority process, particular regard should be given to the size of the area covered by the new authority, which we have obviously debated in depth, as well as the merger’s impact on community identity, heritage, cohesion and pride. After the passionate intervention of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the need to focus on the socioeconomic requirements of the geographical landscape and the connection of communities within his constituency, perhaps he will support the amendment.
Obviously, from a central Government perspective, we accept that reorganising an area may improve clarity, but it is crucial that the Bill delivers clear devolution benefits for communities. To do so, areas merged or otherwise must remain responsive to their communities, and they must continue to engage with those communities by carrying forward a shared identity or a sense of place in some form. It goes to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said this morning about unifying communities in his area and reinforcing a sense of place. That is why the population figure of 500,000 must be just a benchmark—it must be flexible—and I know the Minister has already confirmed that.
We have already spoken about the existing boundaries of public service provision, including integrated care boards, local NHS areas and police and crime commissioner areas. To reiterate, however the reorganisation takes place, it must be responsive to the particularities of the area, not purely directive. It is that direction from Government that we oppose, and the amendment would mandate that, when deciding mergers, the Secretary of State considers these very important local characteristics that other Committee members have raised.
There is an intrinsic logic to the way in which those public service areas evolved to intersect and connect, and chopping them up just for the sake of numbers, without due regard to all these characteristics, is taking a significant risk with our public service delivery. For example, to narrow it down to one specific question, will our local NHS trusts and ICBs be brought along with plans to merge levels of local government, so that the staff in both the health services and the new unitary authority can keep effective working relationships and continue to provide high-quality services and care for their local populations? In conclusion, we think the amendment is important, especially in relation to the merger of authorities to form single-tier unitary councils, and we are minded to press it to a vote.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 5, spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. This is where the Government should have started. The amendment seeks to put place at the very heart of local government reorganisation, which the Government have missed. In coming up with the arbitrary target of half a million people or thereabouts, they have not thought about place and how communities connect with shared identities.
I have spoken in Committee before about Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has a number of significant towns, all of relatively the same size and population, but there is very little interconnectivity between the towns, particularly on rail and road. Not many people move between those towns, and I fear the consequences of an arbitrary target of around half a million. I appreciate what the Minister has said about the flexibility of that target, but even setting a target of 300,000 people is not looking at what best serves communities; it is sitting in Whitehall, coming up with a figure, and saying, “This is what we want to push top-down throughout the country. This is what we need to do,” rather than saying to places, “We want to reorganise you. Please come up with appropriate examples of how you might best do that within your communities.” That is what the amendment speaks to.
We really need to think about place. If we want these new councils to be successful, they must have buy-in from local communities. Local communities must have a shared sense of identity and a shared sense of vision. We cannot lump places together that have hardly any connectivity—places that people do not travel between—because we would be setting up those councils to fail, and to have competing priorities for the towns they want and do not want to invest in. The amendment is logical, and it is disappointing that the Government did not start off in this place and give more flexibility to the top-down reorganisation they are forcing on large parts of England. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wishes to push the amendment to a vote, the official Opposition shall support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are already building in provisions to reflect the issues that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has raised.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already provides that a direction for local government reorganisation can be issued only if the Secretary of State deems the proposal to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Having regard, therefore, to size, geography, public services and local identity is fundamentally embedded in the decision-making process. That is demonstrated by the statutory guidance and criteria shared with areas currently preparing for reorganisation. The hon. Lady is right to highlight those factors that matter for the sense of place, and therefore the boundaries of councils, and we think that the statutory guidance and safeguards fundamentally lock them into the process that we are going into.
On whether this process is top down or bottom up, let us look at it: we have invited places to go through a process of reform, and those places are now having conversations among themselves to come up with proposals. Those are not Government proposals; they are proposals from local areas. We are already allowing conversations to be had about what makes sense for those areas and how we take into account the specifics of identity and other issues in those proposals. Whatever proposal is chosen must be consulted on before it is implemented, which, again, is an opportunity for local people to have a conversation, and to have some say and voice in the process.
Although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, we have legal provisions and, critically, have set out a process that fundamentally addresses the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
I would like to press the amendment to a vote, because it is important to mandate that the Secretary of State consider these criteria. They will have many proposals from the same area, so these criteria would give guidance on how we can keep the cohesion of communities that hon. Members have discussed before.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 24, page 247, line 38, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (3), insert—
‘3A The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) unless he has satisfied the conditions under Section 7A (Requirement for a public referendum).’”
This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in schedule 24, page 248, line 9, at end insert—
“(6A) After section 7 insert—
‘7A Requirement for a public referendum
(1) An order cannot be made under section 7 of this Act unless a referendum has taken place in all areas proposed to be included in any merger under any order, and a majority of voters in that referendum has approved of the proposed merger.
(2) Arrangements relating to referenda held under this section may be such as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that the referendum is—
(a) conducted under the first past the post system, and
(b) held no sooner than six weeks from the date it is first publicly announced.’”
This amendment would require that no order could be made to implement a proposed merger of single tier areas unless approved by a referendum in the affected area.
Amendment 47, in schedule 24, page 250, line 6, after “opening words” insert—
“(a) after ‘an order made by the Secretary of State under section 7’, insert 7A, and”.
This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak to these amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). These are simple amendments—the Minister has heard me say that before; any amendments that we have tabled are very simple and aim just to do the job adequately.
My hon. Friend has tabled these amendments because, as we have said, the Conservatives believe that this is a top-down reorganisation that has not been endorsed by the people we serve. As I said earlier, it was not in the Labour manifesto. Many local authorities do not want to go ahead with local government reform, and the Minister tacitly acknowledged earlier that any local authority that did not want to go forward with local government reform would be forced to do so anyway.
We believe that is wrong. The lack of democratic legitimacy and the democratic deficit in the decision to pursue this very expensive and needless local government reorganisation require the people who we serve—the people who councillors serve—to have their say. There must be democratic accountability to them, which means there should be a requirement for a public referendum when a new authority is proposed.
The Government should not fear that. In fact, the policy of the last Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, was massively to advocate for local referendums. The Greater London Authority was created following a public referendum in 1998 in which the Government wilfully accepted that it needed to be created. It was their proposal, they sought the consent of Londoners, Londoners approved, and they went ahead and created the GLA. I think that is a very good thing; they had democratic accountability.
In the early 2000s, a north-east assembly was proposed by the late Lord Prescott and rejected by a referendum that the Government sought. It was rejected by the people who would have been affected by the proposal. The Government not only gave them a referendum, but listened and took away the proposal for that assembly because people did not want it.
The last Labour Government therefore had a history of listening and asking people for their democratic consent to reorganisations, so I do not understand what this Government have to fear. They have chosen to go forward with this reorganisation without any consent. These referendums would provide the consultation that the Government have so far lacked by asking and ascertaining, with certainty, whether people back it in local areas.
So far, the Minister is charging into a tunnel without any public say. I am sure that she will talk about local government consultations in her response, but most of the consultations that have happened have been very small and the democratic participation has been very low. In areas such as Gosport, which neighbours my constituency, people do not want this reorganisation and their council has refused to engage. They do not want it to happen, but the Government will force it to.
Under the Local Government Act 2003—passed by the previous Labour Government—an authority can hold a non-binding referendum on any local issue that it wishes. I do not believe that any local authority has undertaken that yet, but we certainly would encourage them to do so. The Government do not have to follow or respond to that referendum, but I wonder what weight the Minister and the Government would place on a referendum held by a local authority, given that the legislation was passed under a previous Labour Government.
The previous Labour Government had some quite radical thoughts on reorganisation that we opposed at the time, I think—I was at secondary school then; I know many people will not believe that, looking at me after more than six years in this place! That Labour Government believed in consulting the people who they served when implementing huge reorganisations of central, regional and local government.
That Labour Government had a proud history of listening to the people, but unfortunately, in many areas of policy, this Government have shied away from that. Instead, they have pushed ahead with policies that were not in their manifesto and do not have the democratic mandate of the British people. I have been clear from the beginning that they have a democratic mandate to govern, and a huge majority—although it was won with a very low proportion of the vote—but they do not have a democratic mandate for this local government reorganisation. They should not be afraid to ask people whether they want it or not.
The Government should take this amendment on board and make it part of this flagship legislation.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate.
To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment.
Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I will respond briefly. The Minister is entitled to say that she does not want to accept the amendment, but I ask her to look not at the logistical and legal arguments of the legislation, but at what is right and what is wrong in the practice of implementing local government reorganisation. As I say, we are all democrats—we are all elected to serve here—so she should not fear asking the people whether they endorse the local government reform that she is currently implementing without the consent of the public or many local authority leaders. We will not press these amendments to a vote, but notwithstanding what I have said before about other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we will table amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Clause 56 stand part.
New clause 24—Impact of local government reorganisation—
“(1) Whenever the Secretary of State has made any order or regulations in pursuance of provision inserted or amended by Schedule 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must, at the end of a period of two years beginning on the day of the making of the order or regulations, issue a report.
(2) Each report required by subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to, details of the following, as far as they arise from any reorganisation resulting from the order or regulations—
(a) the cost of the reorganisation;
(b) the impact on service delivery, including the quality of social care provision and quality of SEND provision;
(c) the impact on development, including the number of homes delivered against local targets;
(d) the performance of individual commissioners;
(e) the sustainability of the finances of the newly created authority;
(f) the extent to which Council Tax has increased and the extent to which any mayoral precept has increased; and
(g) satisfaction of local residents with the standard of services provided by the authority established or changed by the reorganisation.”—(David Simmonds.)
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it.
On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied.
The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
The Minister says it has not, but I will convince her that it has. All morning we on the Opposition side have been talking about the fact that the Government are forcing this to happen without consent. The mask has slipped because this clause disapplies the ability of a currently existing council to refuse consent for the creation of new authorities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.
Paul Holmes
Fine. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but the point I am about to make still applies: the people who currently serve have a stake. The people who send those people to serve have a stake. The way in which this clause is being put forward shows again that the Government are forcing change on a number of organisations and predecessor authorities that currently exist and serve their local people—so the mask has slipped. We have been saying all day that this is a proposal and local government reform that is not in the manifesto and is being forced on local authority leaders who do not want it.
The Minister said last week that she had had lots of enthusiastic conversations about people who want to go forward with devolution. I put it to her again that many local authority members do not, and the only reason they are going forward with it is because she is going to force them to do it anyway. Now that those local authorities might want to refuse to give consent to the creation of strategic authorities—something that should be within their gift anyway—she is disapplying their right to say that they do not want them. The Government are invoking a top-down reorganisation and not listening to the views of local leaders or of the people they are elected to serve.
I say to the Minister once again on this clause: throughout the Bill, she has advocated for it being a bottom-up reorganisation, but this is the sledgehammer of central Government refusing local people the voice that they should have. The mask has slipped and the Minister has just admitted that it is a centrally imposed thing, which many people do not want. The clause should be removed from the legislation, and we will oppose it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it.
It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, Ms Vaz; as the Committee can see, I got rather carried away and I forgot to speak to new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Briefly, the new clause should be included in the legislation, because all in the House believe in transparency. In the process, subsection (1) of the new clause would require an impact assessment of the local government reorganisation to be published. Each report would be required to include things such as the cost of a reorganisation, something that the Minister has advocated will deliver more efficient services and will not be onerous.
A report will allow us to see not only whether that is true post the creation of the authority, but the impact on service delivery and development, as well as the number of homes delivered—we have seen mayors who are not able to deliver the number of homes required of them—and an assessment of the performance of individual commissioners. It would provide a clear link for the people who live in those areas where the reorganisation is to go ahead. We believe that would not be onerous on the new authorities and that new clause 24 would bring the right balance between transparency and accountability, so we ask the Minister to accept it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie.
The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely hate to detain the Committee—I do not just say that out of politeness—but I believe that we should press new clause 24 to a Division, when we come to that point.
The Chair
We will vote on new clause 24 at the end, when we come to the new clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 24 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 57 and schedule 25 will simplify and bring consistency to local authority governance arrangements. By abolishing the committee system, we will ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance, providing clearer, more easily understood governance structures at a local level and more efficient decision making.
We will accept the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones. This will ensure a more consistent approach to governance and avoid the potential confusion caused by the establishment of new regional mayors for strategic authorities and mayors for councils. It is at this strategic level that we think the single focal point of leadership for the area and direct electoral accountability and mandate works best, and we believe this provision delivers the right powers in the right places.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz.
I rise to speak against clause 57; I believe it is extreme control freakery and overreach from the Government and in no way essential to this Bill. Why impose a leader and cabinet model on all councils, even against their will, along with all these other changes? The Government can see only the benefits and, like a poorly run council, they ignore the critical risks.
Good governance benefits in many places from a deeply involved voice for principled opposition councillors to vote on policy, check the numbers, put forward good ideas and raise mission-critical questions about issues such as fire safety, service quality or big projects and contracts, even when that is uncomfortable for the administration. Places need the right to choose, democratically, a new model of governance when appropriate—especially when councils face problems and need a fresh start.
Changes of this sort are sometimes made after a crisis or a period of problems; I will talk in the next debate about changes made by referendums. I hear the claims of stagnation and indecision often levelled at committee systems, but I point out that under the current system people who see that happening have the right to change the model and try something else. A new administration can vote to switch to a leader and cabinet for a period, or to a mayor, if it wishes, or the people can make the change themselves by calling a referendum. The Government want to take away all that choice. That is very wrong and this clause is overreaching in the extreme.
Given the exceptions being made for mayors in the mandate for leader and cabinet, it seems that the committee system is the one most under attack from the Government in this Bill, so I want to provide some words and examples from cross-party local councillors about its benefits for their areas. In July 2025, Sheffield city council voted unanimously for a motion defending its democratically chosen model, stating that
“the benefits of the Committee System demonstrated in Sheffield include: greater collaboration across political groups in policy formulation and in decision making; overcoming party political tribalism and focussing on areas of agreement, not antagonism; improving the culture of the Council, with officers and Councillors focusing on what is best for the city; all Councillors being involved in the decision-making of the Council, and greater accountability to the electorate; and improved outcomes for the residents of Sheffield”.
That is a cross-party view.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I ran a constitution review for Cambridge city council while I was a councillor there, and we spent a lot of time talking about the committee system versus the cabinet system. Does the hon. Member not agree that what she has just described is an example of really positive culture in a council, which can be had regardless of the governance system? Does she also agree that the key thing about the committee system is that it is slow, inefficient and leads to much worse scrutiny? Under a leader and cabinet system we have scrutiny committees, and we end up with much more detailed questioning of evidence in those than in a committee system.
Siân Berry
I implore the hon. Member to listen to the rest of my speech and further points I shall make on other amendments. In Sheffield, at the same time, the council resolved unanimously that
“Sheffield benefits from fairer, more representative governance arrangements, and that people expect the Councillors they elect to have a vote on the decisions that affect them”.
Bristol also has a committee system, and Bristol Green councillors have told me how their cross-party committees have had a series of task and finish groups, where policy is developed with the input of councillors from all parties. They say that, while everyone does not always agree, this process allows for much more rounded development of policy ahead of implementation, not just scrutiny afterwards or divisive call-ins. There is rich debate, with more voices taking part in it.
Those councillors also say that the committee system also allows for back benchers to have more influence and input, with a positive effective on equalities as well, so that more councillors with a variety of different characteristics have space to input, and that, in turn, has a positive effect on policy development. New councillors also have more of a chance to develop their skills and interests than under a cabinet model, where only a handful of councillors have proper influence and are hand-picked by the leader or mayor in many cases. Sheffield councillors also say:
“The critical budget-setting process has worked better in Sheffield since the committee system was introduced, avoiding last minute wrangling and hasty deals between the parties. This is because the detail of the budget process is worked through each Committee in the months leading up to the budget, so all councillors are involved. This contrasts with the last budget brought under our Cabinet system where the budget proposal was voted down as the council meeting descended into chaos.”
I also urge the Committee to note that none of the councils that have issued section 114 notices in recent years have been run under a committee system. Worcestershire city council has had a committee system since 2017, implemented after a council motion that was proposed by Conservatives and seconded by Greens. Councillors there tell me that they see scrutiny within the committee system working really well to improve policy before any decisions are made, and it has improved cross-party working relationships and helped to build consensus.
The council has also been independently praised for its collaborative approach, and was commended in the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge in April, which said:
“The peer team found evidence of good governance across the organisation. The peer team found there was positive Member collaboration across political groups which makes the most of the opportunities in this type of governance and there was comprehensive coverage of council business at Policy Committees”.
I can speak on cabinet governance from my previous experience as a councillor in a Labour council, as it is currently the choice of the Labour administration in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency sits. Cabinets can obviously be quicker to act through a rapid decision-making process, but that has risks too. For good reason, the saying is not “Measure once, cut once”. I have noticed a disturbing trend of scrutiny committee time being squeezed by leaders and cabinets, with some councils having just one broad scrutiny committee—I did not experience that and I honestly cannot even imagine it working in agenda terms.
A single scrutiny committee has, by definition, only a limited time to examine a wide range of upcoming decisions in any detail, and surely has no space on the agenda for the kind of through pre-decision scrutiny or issue-based evidence gathering to generate ideas or feedback on services that good scrutiny committees also do, and which I have seen. There are further risks; along with maintaining first past the post, the leader and cabinet model preferred by the Government is a recipe for seeing purely one-party decision making in more places, overriding all opposition voices when key decisions have to be made. One-party states are not more efficient or effective.
Manuela Perteghella
Does the hon. Lady agree that the heart of the issue is actually choice? In this brave new world of unitary councils, local councils should have the ability to choose and shape their own future governance model.
Siân Berry
I quite agree. We have heard a lot about the benefits of this new model, and this change is a sign from the Government that they are not even going to trust their new unitaries to choose their own governance systems. I find it a really strange addition to the Bill.
The Electoral Reform Society, in its 2015 report “The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and Public Procurement Corruption”, estimated the cost to the public purse of councils having weak opposition to be about £2.6 billion a year. Finally, in November 2017, the current Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, “In my experience in life, the best decisions are made with proper scrutiny, and the worst mistakes come from not having scrutiny.” The Government should listen to that man. This clause—of all the bad parts of the Bill—is the most exact opposite of community empowerment. If it stays, the Bill should be renamed the “Very Little Devolution and Too Much Centralised Control Bill”.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly to clause 57. The Opposition recognise why the Government are bringing in this system. As I have said before, I was a councillor in a unitary with a leader and cabinet system, and I think that that delivers the fastest decisions, and the most accountable decisions when there is a full council. In fact, we were able to constitute an overview and scrutiny committee, the chairmanship of which we gave to the opposition.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Having been a district council opposition leader for 10 years, I can say with some real clarity that the agenda was not always dominated by the controlling group; in fact, a lot of the motions put forward by the group I led were accepted by the controlling group. It is all about the quality of the councillors and the opposition—it goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said about culture—rather than necessarily the system. Does the hon. Member agree?
Paul Holmes
I do agree. I am sure the main reason his group’s motions were accepted is that they were very well written. I know how he behaves in here—I do not agree with his speeches most of the time—and he comes from a decent place. I know that any motion would have been beneficial to the residents of wherever he served at the time.
Councils will have the power to internally constitute themselves to give opposition councillors the best way to scrutinise them. As I said, in Southampton city council, we gave the Labour group leader, or an allocated person, the chairmanship of a genuine overview and scrutiny committee, whose power the administration used to fear. Particularly at a time when the first-past-the-post system delivered what might have been a hung council or a minority administration, that committee, consisting of opposition councillors, had huge power. So I do not have a huge amount of agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on that point.
However, we have just had a debate about referendums, and an amendment asking for referendums to allow people to say whether they want local government reorganisation, so I want to say something about paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 25. Paragraph 3 would prevent any local authority from deciding to establish a directly elected mayoralty, which is absolutely fine. Paragraph 4 would amend the Local Government Act 2000 to allow an authority with a mayoralty to change to a leader and cabinet system. However, it leaves in place provisions governing how that change could take place, and a mayoralty established after a referendum could be abolished only if that is approved in another referendum, which can be triggered by the local authority, a petition or the Secretary of State.
In the schedule, the Government want to hold referendums to try to get what they want, so they approve of them. But they somehow do not approve of referendums to ask people in the first place whether they want to go into this local government reform. If the Minister could explain how that is not having her cake and eating it, and being completely inconsistent in the Bill, I would be grateful. Here, she is saying, “Well, we want you to change to a leader and cabinet system, but you need a referendum to do that, because you have already had a referendum.” That is tacit approval from the Government; when it comes to local government reform and changing how a local authority is set up, they want the consent of the people, but on the overarching view of local government reform, they somehow do not. After the last debate, I would ask the Minister to clarify again: do this Government believe in the right of local people, by referendum, to change the way in which they approve their local structures and live their lives? Yes or no? If it is good enough for this clause, she should go back to the schedule we have just discussed and put in the amendment we discussed to approve a referendum there.
I am slightly teasing the Minister, but she must understand that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach—although I am not surprised about that. Overall, that is not enough for me to say that the clause is not worth being in the Bill. I think it does deliver a streamlined and accountable process for a leader and cabinet system, but she really does need to tell her officials, whom she leads and gives political direction to, to be consistent about when the Government believe the public should and should not be asked.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I understand hon. Members’ sentiments, but 80% of councils currently operate a leader and cabinet model. My view is that that executive model allows for greater accountability and better decision making, and that is why we are proposing these changes.
My hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury eloquently set out the experience of that model and said that it leads to quicker, better decision making and efficiency. It is about spending less time in committees and meetings and more time delivering. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about things that make that consensual, collaborative way of governing work, but critically they are more to do with the culture in the council and the quality of the councillors, as my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury pointed out.
We think the model used by the majority of councils is working. Delivering for residents is at the heart of the entire Bill, and we think that that model can lead to much stronger governance and decision making, which will deliver for residents. That is why we are keen for this provision to remain in the Bill.
On the point about consistency, there is always a place for referendums. As the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said, the last Labour Government were a great fan of them and introduced provisions to lock them in, but there was always a balance around proportionality. My issue is not about the logic of having a referendum or not; there is a judgment to be made about what is proportionate, given what we are trying to do and the urgency of the reform agenda. Local government is under pressure, and there is a need to deliver services when resources are really tight. Our constituents rightly demand good-performing public services, and that is what is driving us. We think we have the balance right in the provisions and safeguards in the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 315, in schedule 25, page 251, line 1, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 316 to 325 makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 318, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out lines 9 to 19.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 316, in schedule 25, page 251, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 319, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out lines 27 and 28.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 320, in schedule 25, page 251, leave out from line 33 to the end of line 7 on page 252.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 321, in schedule 25, page 252, line 8, at end insert “or committee systems”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 322, in schedule 25, page 252, line 12 after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 323, in schedule 25, page 252, line 14, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 325, in schedule 25, page 252, line 18, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 315.
Amendment 326, in schedule 25, page 252, leave out lines 20 to 24.
This amendment removes provisions relating to the discontinuance of the committee system.
Amendment 327, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out paragraph 7.
This amendment removes provisions relating to the discontinuance of the committee system.
Siân Berry
Having spoken about clause 57 as a whole, I will now speak to amendment 315 and the other amendments in the group, which support its goals. As the Government will not listen and have not removed the clause, the amendment is essential. It is about fair play. While maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive, it would simply match the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems to that for legacy mayor and cabinet systems.
Allowing places that have chosen committee systems to choose for themselves whether to change their governance back is important. I will highlight briefly, for the record, the story of two places that have chosen by referendum, driven by the people, to move to committee systems, and their case for allowing their choice to stand, unless and until they decide to make a different choice. As the Local Government Association told us in its evidence, it is not right for these democratic decisions to be disregarded. Councils using the committee system should be allowed to retain their governance system until they or their communities choose to move to a leader and cabinet system.
My first example is Sheffield. This is from the Green councillors, and the full story is available in their written evidence. Sheffield is a good example of the committee system being a success and making things better for residents after a crisis. Over time, the people of Sheffield became very dissatisfied with how the council ran things under the cabinet model, and particularly its disastrous handling of the long-running street trees fiasco. That brought Sheffield into disrepute. The Lowcock report on the eventual independent inquiry into the street trees dispute found:
“While a Strong Leader cabinet model with fewer checks and balances arguably gives authority to get things done, it can also, as in this case, enable the wrong things to be done without serious challenge.”
The ruling administration of Sheffield city council never agreed to switch to a committee system; that was people power. More than 26,000 people signed a petition demanding a statutory referendum. On 6 May 2021, the people of Sheffield voted by 65% to 35% to require the council to change to a committee system. For Sheffield, the committee system works better. The Green councillors told us:
“We know from talking to our residents and our election campaigns that people wanted to see parties working together”
after all this strife. They continued:
“They wanted to see an end to secretive decision-making behind closed doors and they wanted to see all the councillors taking responsibility for making decisions, not just a select few...There has been a culture shift, making working conditions better for staff, as well as improving outcomes for residents of the city. Even amongst those who were doubtful of the benefits of the committee system, very few argue for a return to the Cabinet regime.”
As mentioned in my last speech, the council voted unanimously to defend the committee system against the changes in the Bill. In June 2025, the Labour leader of the council issued a statement, with cross-party support:
“Since its implementation, and the publication of the Lowcock Report in 2023, we have been on an improvement journey to listen, change and rebuild trust with the city, a journey which was recognised in our recent nomination for Most Improved Council at the LGC Awards.”
My second example is Bristol city council, which changed after a referendum in 2022 from mayor and cabinet to a committee system. The Liberal Democrats proposed the motion to Bristol city council to bring about the referendum. It was seconded by the Greens and supported by the Conservatives. The city was given the choice of continuing to have a mayor and cabinet or changing to a committee system. The referendum result was 59% in favour of the change.
The people of Bristol, by a sizeable majority, expressed their dissatisfaction with the mayoral model, and cited a desire for more transparency, less tribalism and less power concentrated in one person as reasons for moving to a committee system. Under the new system, the people of Bristol now expect all councillors to take part in making decisions that affect the city, and that all councillors and political parties should work within the committee system to the benefit of local residents.
There has been more public engagement too since the committee system came in. There have been more public questions and statements, with each committee having a public forum. There has been a marked improvement in the governance of the city with this refreshment of the governance model. That has been evidenced in council worker surveys and through feedback from residents. Far from the predicted slowing down of policymaking, policies have been developed in good time and delivered, and many people have commented on the overall improvement in the working culture of the council.
The people of Bristol have now twice rejected a leader and cabinet model via referenda, once in 2012 to vote for a mayoral model, and again in 2022 in favour of a committee system. Those were local decisions, and to overturn the most recent decision only three years after it was made, without another referendum, would directly overturn the clear democratic mandate of the people of Bristol. It is not in the spirit of devolution to not respect places that have chosen what kind of local governance suits the people of that area. If people vote for a committee system in a referendum, they think it will work for them. It is not about what members of the governing party think will work or would like to operate, and it is not up to them to impose that on places where they are not in power.
My amendment is constructive: it respects the way in which the Government want to create new authorities. However, where authorities that remain in place and have made a decision, the Government need to be consistent between legacy policies for mayoral authorities and legacy policies for committee systems. I hope the Government will act and make the schedule consistent in what legacy systems it respects. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Manuela Perteghella
I want to support the hon. Lady. The national Government should not force structures of local governance on local councils. We saw written evidence from Councillor Martin Smith, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield city council, showing how the committee system has made the governance of the city council more transparent. Abolishing the committee system in Sheffield and Bristol, and in other areas where local people wanted a change from the leader and cabinet system, would go against the will of the people in those areas. For that reason, if the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion were to press amendments 326 and 327 to a vote, I would support them.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking us through some of the specifics, particularly in the context of Sheffield. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) have been very effective in explaining the specifics of Sheffield to the Government, including the history of how the council got there and how the democratic process has played out. We are very mindful of that, and we will reflect on that and on the question of legacy.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I would just like to give a counter. We have heard some very interesting evidence, but my own local authority has the misfortune to operate under the committee system, which was largely brought about in a deal that created a rainbow coalition with the Greens and some other local parties. Honestly, it is a dismal failure. Contrary to the evidence that has been presented, it has made the council more siloed, and fewer councillors feel that they can engage well with the council. Frankly, it is the whim of every individual committee chair as to how they operate, often constraining meetings to an extremely short duration. That has reduced the amount of scrutiny and gummed up the business of the council. I would like to present that as evidence from someone who actually lives within a council that has a committee system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We made this proposal because we fundamentally believe that the cabinet and leader system provides more effective governance. There is a question about legacy and what the transition will look like, and we have heard representations on that from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Sheffield Hallam. We will reflect on how to get the balance right, because in the end we want stronger, better governance for residents and constituents across the country, and obviously we have to ensure that the transition is done in a way that minimises disruption and has local support. We will reflect carefully on how to get that balance right.
Siân Berry
I am grateful for the Minister listening to those important points, which I stress again are cross-party points. I look forward to seeing further developments on the clause, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 336, in schedule 25, page 253, line 25, at end insert—
“Duty to introduce code of conduct, inductions and ongoing training (England)
4A (1) Every local authority must adopt and enforce a code of conduct for elected members that—
(a) includes provisions addressing harassment, discrimination and online abuse; and
(b) provides for independent investigation of alleged breaches, overseen by the monitoring officer.
(2) Every local authority must provide a structured induction programme for all newly elected members, which must include—
(a) professional standards and responsibilities;
(b) equality and diversity duties; and
(c) family-friendly and inclusive working practices.
(3) It is a duty for local authorities to provide further such training every two years following the election of new members to the authority.
(4) Local authorities must also make provision for continuing professional development for elected members.
4B (1) A monitoring officer’s functions shall include responsibility for—
(a) investigating breaches of the code of conduct in accordance with paragraph 4A of this schedule;
(b) promoting councillor welfare and wellbeing;
(c) ensuring compliance with equalities duties; and
(d) maintaining transparent procedures for the handling of complaints.
(2) Every local authority must publish an annual report on complaints received by the monitoring officer, including—
(a) the number of complaints received, and
(b) outcomes of those complaints.”
This amendment ensures that all local authorities are required to maintain clear and enforceable codes of conduct for councillors, tackling harassment, discrimination and online abuse and mandates induction and continuous training on equalities and conduct. It embeds and extends independent oversight by monitoring officers.
The amendment deals with a separate matter of inclusive practices. It is aimed at improving more diverse access to elected office and arises from work I have been doing with the organisation Elect Her, which aims to motivate, support and equip women in all their diversity to stand for political office in Britain, and to nurture an ecosystem of organisations reshaping the political system so that all women can thrive once elected. Its research found that weak codes of conduct, poor induction for new councillors and lack of financial recognition all deter women from entering and continuing in office. The amendment would help deal with that.
Elect Her’s report on Scotland by demonstrates how inclusion can improve when councils adopt stronger codes of conduct, structured induction and clear reporting mechanisms. The amendment would introduce a duty to have a code of conduct for elected members, which would include provisions against harassment, discrimination and online abuse. It would provide for independent investigation of alleged breaches overseen by the monitoring officer, and a structured induction programme for newly elected members.
Setting the stage for behaviour is crucial, particularly when new councillors are elected, before things start to go wrong. The programme would include important information and training on professional standards, equality and diversity duties, and family-friendly and inclusive working practices. It would also mandate that the training should be refreshed, particularly following the election of new members. Continued professional development is also covered by the amendment. It asks monitoring officers to investigate breaches of the code of conduct and gives them duties to promote councillor welfare and wellbeing, equalities duties and transparent procedures for complaints. It also asks for an annual report on complaints.
The provisions are sensible suggestions that I hope the Government will take up. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, it speaks to the fact that while we have discussed potential problems with workload that councillors in these new authorities may have, which are also inclusion issues in some cases, the Bill could more directly address some of the issues that we know affect people’s ability to carry on in the job. We have received disturbing evidence from Elect Her on the extent to which councillors report abuse. We know that women and minorities are disproportionately likely to experience abuse, and we have a duty to do what we can in the Bill to make being a local councillor a more inclusive job. My amendment addresses some of the systemic barriers that might stand in the way of local democracy truly representing all of our communities. I hope the Government will look again at the options.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government fully understand that greater devolution relies on local authority members embodying the highest standards of conduct, so we absolutely agree with the spirit of the amendment. We have consulted on proposals for comprehensive reform of the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. Our response to the consultation will be published shortly and will set out in detail the scale of our ambition for a whole-system reform of the standards and conduct framework.
Our ambitions go significantly further than the amendment in terms of introducing a clearer and consistently applied framework for standards and conduct, and ensuring misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly in every type and tier of local government. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the amendment.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 250, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out lines 3 to 12.
This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 251, in schedule 25, page 254, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—
(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and
(b) be published at regular intervals.””
This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.
New clause 55—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—
(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and
(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).
(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—
(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,
(b) access to information for local authority residents, and
(c) local democracy and accountability.
(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”
Amendment 405, in clause 78, page 78, line 3, leave out “1 to 6” and insert—
“1 to 5, 6(1), 6(2)(b) and 6(4)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406.
Amendment 406, in clause 78, page 78, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Paragraphs 6(2)(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, but such regulations cannot be made until the Government has responded to the consultation provided for by virtue of section [Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals].”
This amendment is consequential on N55 and would prevent subparagraphs 6(2(a) and 6(3) of Schedule 25 coming into force until the consultation provided for in NC55 has been carried out and responded to.
Amendment 407, in clause 78, page 78, line 17, at end insert—
“(11) Regulations under subsection (4A) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 406 and would require such regulations to be subject to Parliamentary approval.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media.
In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access.
In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive.
Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area.
The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I am delighted to speak to amendments 250 and 251, and to new clause 55 and amendments 405 to 407, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I am sure that pleases everybody— I remind the hon. Member for Banbury that I have been seated for quite a while now, and I do not want him to miss out on my dulcet tones.
This is slightly complicated, but I will not spend too long on it. New clause 55 will require a consultation on the publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals. Amendments 405 to 407 would essentially act as a block to the regulations set out in the Bill until the proposal is consulted on and an assessment undertaken of the consultation responses on
“the economic viability of local newspapers…access to information for local authority residents, and…local democracy and accountability…. The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”
We believe that it is crucial to consult on the different aspects and different geographical situations of our local newspapers. Local newspapers are essentially the beating heart of various sections of our society who are not online and who rely on or may be interested in such information. It is not a novel thing for people to be interested in what is going on in their local area. As we have seen, with the reduction in regional TV broadcast news and the restructuring of our national broadcaster and other local news providers on television and radio, local newspapers can be the only channel for local people to see what is going on in their local authority area.
I am sure that many people on this Committee have been lobbied by various trade bodies and organisations on behalf of local newspapers. With the advance of digital technology and the internet, the circulation of physical copies of local newspapers is declining. When I was a councillor in 2008, the amazing and historic Daily Echo, which covers Hampshire and Portsmouth news, had a circulation of around 200,000 hard copies sold; it has fallen to around 40,000 now. Local newspapers rely heavily on the income stream from statutory notices and local government notices; it is a lifeline for local newspapers.
Such notices allow people to read about what is going on with their planning applications and some of the changes that local authorities are putting forward. In my local authority, as in local authorities across the country, these statutory notices and planning notices sometimes act as a safeguard when—I hate to say this— a local authority does not act on its statutory duty to alert relevant people to a planning application or a statutory notice. I would hate to guess how many times we have had an email from a constituent that says, “I didn’t know that this planning application was going to go ahead, and I’ve missed the consultation and can’t do anything about it,” either because the postman did not deliver the letter, or the local authority did not deliver to everybody in a restricted cul-de-sac some information about a block of flats going up next door. If they miss that information, they lose their chance to be consulted.
Sean Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of local newspapers. I have some brilliant ones in my constituency, including one that goes out in Chipping Norton and hence is called Chippy News. It is produced by volunteers and does a lot of the things that the hon. Gentleman talked about. However, he mentioned the diminished circulation of newspapers. If he really wants better consultation and engagement with residents, does he accept that making the proposed amendments that might not be the best way to ensure that?
Paul Holmes
There is an argument for accepting that, but I would ask in return why the Government are giving local councils the opportunity not to use newspapers. Why put that in the Bill rather than allow the status quo to continue while enabling local authorities to do it in other ways? Why are we bringing forward legislative changes that will harm our independent newspaper sector? I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about not making useless amendments or putting useless new clauses into legislation, so why is this measure in the Bill in the first place? That is why we feel that we have to amend the Bill to protect our local newspapers, the vulnerable people who use them and their engagement in the democratic process.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that all of us in this room should understand the importance of printed paper to get our message across, considering that during our election campaigns we deliver thousands of leaflets to get our messages out? Does he agree that we should support these amendments to make sure that councils still have the ability to connect with communities that are not digitally connected?
Paul Holmes
As you would expect, Ms Vaz, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s words. I suspect that if we took the motivation of this part of the Bill and told Labour Members that they could not put out any of their “Labour in touch” communications, or whatever they call them, they would be shouting from the barriers that they could not communicate with residents who are digitally challenged or not engaged in digital communications.
It is important that there are varied and diverse ways for our punters, if I can call them that, and our voters to find information and to engage in the process. I do not understand why the Minister is proposing to actively harm our local independent newspaper sector in a Bill that has admirable intentions and will radically change the face of local government, in some cases for the better, but in the majority of cases for the worse when it comes to accountability. We all see that press is becoming much more large scale and a lot less local through TV and media restructuring. I do not understand why the Government would put in such a retrograde step for independent local newspapers.
We support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. When the Committee comes to new clause 55, we will push it to a vote. I am not sure whether we are voting on the consequential amendments to new clause 55 today, but if we are, we will push those to a vote too.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy.
Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do.
In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach.
It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate.
In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4—Funding for Local Authority governance reorganisation—
“The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As we have debated amendments to the schedule, we can deal with it formally.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 25 accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I realise that Ms Perteghella wished to speak to new clause 4, which was grouped with schedule 25, which we have agreed to. I will suspend the Committee briefly to determine the correct way to proceed.
The Chair
Order. We have not debated new clause 4, but since the selection and grouping of amendments is always provisional and at the discretion of the Chair, there will instead be a chance to debate it at a future sitting of the Committee. This is, effectively, a conscious decoupling of the new clause from the group.
Clause 58
Local authorities: effective neighbourhood governance
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 58, page 60, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).”
This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.
Amendment 13, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) But regulations may not—
(a) alter—
(i) any function exercised by, or
(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,
a parish or town council, or
(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.”
This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.
Amendment 15, in clause 58, page 60, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.”
This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.
Manuela Perteghella
I will address these amendments as two separate groups. Amendments 14 and 15 are simple and, in combination, would ensure that the definition of a “neighbourhood area”, which is important in this clause, is decided by the effective local authority and not by the Secretary of State. In these amendments we are again trying to devolve powers to grassroots governance. For the sake of clarity, we drafted amendments 14 and 15 to grant that neighbourhood areas are defined in accordance with local perspectives, rather than with the view from Westminster.
Amendment 13 complements those changes. Within the locally agreed and defined neighbourhood area, the authority would be required to make appropriate arrangements to secure effective governance. This amendment specifies that those arrangements must not alter any function performed by a town or parish council, or result in the abolition of a town or parish council. As I have explained previously, it is really important to keep town and parish councils. The amendment would give important protections for our smallest and first tier of local governance. The Committee has already debated how town and parish councils perform a crucial role in effective governance and in providing services. They are to adopt many more services as well. We talked about them being consulted, and this amendment is about making sure that they do not get abolished in the definition of a “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood governance”.
The Liberal Democrats continue to be surprised by the lack of protection for, or even reference to, town and parish councils in the Bill. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to protect those tiers of governance, and put on record her support for hyper-local government, as we consider devolution more broadly.
Amendment 61 has a different purpose. Throughout the Committee debate, hon. Members have spoken about the need for authorities to be able to access support of all kinds, including financial and advisory support, while delivering local planning functions. The amendment is relevant in the light of the Government’s decision earlier this year to remove funding for localism and neighbourhood planning, which was an excellent initiative that put planning and growth plans in the hands of local people. That initiative saw more than 1,000 neighbourhood plans approved at referendum, and was a key way of securing other local involvement in planning proposals and decisions, giving the local community the power to shape their own future in development. Neighbourhood plans were also very much linked to local housing needs, such as locally how much social housing is needed in a village or town, so they were really important.
Removing funding from neighbourhood planning seems to run contrary to this Government’s aims of devolution and community-engaged house building. I urge the Minister to reinstate some form of funding. I would like to hear reassurances from her, especially in relation to the protection of town and parish council governance, which I set out in amendment 13.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The key thing to say in response to this group of amendment is that provisions in the Bill are not about central Government imposing a model of neighbourhood governance without the flexibility or consideration of local places and their requirements; they are about setting a standard for smarter, more responsive decision making for our communities and, critically, ensuring that there are no black spots or gaps across the country, so that every community has the ability to shape, and have a voice, say and power in the decisions that impact their neighbourhoods.
We are not designing the regulations in isolation; we are working closely with local government and the community sector—including the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the We’re Right Here campaign—to make sure that the provisions in this part of the Bill reflect how we get effective good community governance.
On amendment 13, throughout the debates in this Committee I have said consistently that we absolutely recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in our democracy and our community life. There is no intention to abolish parish and town councils in the Bill. It is not about duplicating them—in fact, I have consistently said that where we are building neighbourhood governance, we should rightly build on the civic institutions that are there anyway, to ensure that we have both depth and proper coverage across the country. The regulation-making powers in the clause therefore cannot be used to make regulations that amend primary legislation, which protects town and parish councils already, and there is no intent to do that.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the Minister for her reassurance, but would she put what she has said about the protection of town and parish councils in writing to us?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to put that in writing, but I will state again that there is already primary legislation in place that protects town and parish councils and means they cannot be abolished. There is nothing in the clause that undermines that. I will absolutely put that in writing. Again, the intention of the clause is to recognise that town and parish councils exist in some parts of the country, but not others. We want every community across the country to have effective neighbourhood governance structures, so that people can have power, agency and a voice to shape their locality and their direct neighbourhood.
Finally, on amendment 61, again, I agree that we should protect the important functions of neighbourhood planning. That is why my Department has already committed to ensuring that local planning authorities continue to be appropriately funded for their neighbourhood planning functions, including for plan examinations and referendums. Funding for those costs is provided through a claims-based system. We will make an announcement on the claims for this financial year in due course. As I said, there is nothing in the clause that undermines effective neighbourhood planning; it is quite the contrary. We think there is an opportunity, as we strengthen neighbourhood governance structures across the country, for that to enhance and build on the work that has been done through neighbourhood planning. I ask that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon withdraw the amendments.
Manuela Perteghella
In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) requiring that local engagement activities under paragraph (d) meet minimum standards to ensure meaningful community participation, including—
(i) the use of deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations;
(ii) the active inclusion of communities most likely to be impacted by the policy measures, and communities underrepresented in policy making; and
(iii) reporting, and publication of resulting reports, on how community input has influenced local plans and decisions;
(f) providing existing local democratic bodies, including parish and town councils, with appropriate powers, funding and infrastructure to support and facilitate such participation.”
This amendment requires regulations on neighbourhood governance to set minimum standards for involvement, including deliberative processes, inclusion of underrepresented groups and transparency.
This is a really important amendment. It proposes a minimum standard for meaningful community involvement be added to this part of Bill on neighbourhood governance. It aims to put people at the heart of the new local decision-making structures by setting minimum standards so that community involvement is inclusive, uses deliberative methods and clearly shows how people’s views have shaped decisions. It would also give local councils the powers and funding that they need to make that happen effectively. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that “appropriate arrangements” is left undefined. That risks weak or inconsistent community participation. The amendment would ensure that the arrangements meet minimum standards and would make engagement consistent, inclusive and transparent.
The Bill’s success depends on whether it achieves what the Minister has been assuring us of throughout these proceedings: a shifting of democratic power. It needs to ensure that decisions are made with people rather than consulting them or imposing on them. I am sure we are all aware of the ladder of engagement, where final decisions are simply waved in front of people for consultation. That is the bare minimum and, in many ways, the worst form of engagement with the public. People will often look at a big proposal and respond in great detail, only to then see that nothing has changed. That really undermines trust. We need to make sure that people can see how their voices are shaping outcomes at a local level. This amendment would enable us to rebuild public trust through the Bill.
We need to ensure that we actively facilitate and enable community participation, and it is important that it is properly funded. Doing a consultation is a very separate thing to participation. We do know that people want participation. Demos polling from 2024 found that 63% of the public would very likely accept an invitation to take part in participation exercises of this kind, but 41% said that they would be less likely to take part if they believed that the Government would not listen to what they had to say. I recognise that the Bill presents the opportunity for secondary legislation to fill these gaps, but if the Government cannot support the amendment, it would be helpful for the Minister to put clearly on the record that those regulations would include deliberative processes, real involvement and reporting back on the ways in which decisions are changed, as the amendment would require.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am pleased to see the focus on community engagement in this amendment. However, we already have powers to set standards for local engagement through regulations, and that is what we will do. We are currently working with local government and the community sector to understand what best practice looks like and what is already happening on the ground. My view is that it is right and appropriate that different principal authorities work out the best way to engage their communities, which can be very diverse and will need different approaches.
We are clear that principal authorities can and should already be working to support their communities through meaningful and robust community engagement and coproduction. The very best councils already do that, and we have examples of that across the country. It does not always happen in the way that it does with the very best, so we will work with and support councils to have meaningful community engagement. At the heart of this is giving communities and residents—people in our localities—proper voice, agency and ability to drive decision. We will ensure that we design this in a way that enables and supports that.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister is giving me, but I would like some further reassurance that poorly performing councils will face some sort of redress under the system that she is talking about.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
As I said, for this to work, we need councils to enable it. We will introduce a set of measures including peer-to-peer support—so, where we have great practice, sharing it with other councils—as well as capacity building and training, in order to make sure there is meaningful community engagement, because we believe it is fundamental. If we get this right, it is fundamentally about empowering our communities and residents. Every tier of government, from national Government through to strategic authorities and local authorities, will all have to play their part to ensure we do that well.
Siân Berry
I am content with the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 58, page 60, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—
“‘local authority’ means—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a London borough council;”.
This narrows the types of local authority in England that are bound by the requirement to make arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Bill sets out our clear ambition to embed communities at the heart of local decision making. This is about ensuring that decisions are shaped by those who know their communities best. Our ambition is that this will result in visible improvements in every neighbourhood across the country. Neighbourhood governance moves decision making closer to residents. It empowers communities to hold leaders accountable for their decisions and ensures that local priorities are understood and considered in the decision-making process. This will improve public trust in our councils, enhance our local democracy and ensure that our governance arrangements are rooted and working in the interest of our communities.
Turning to amendment 222, the policy intention is that only county councils, district councils and London borough councils will be subject to the duty to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. As currently drafted, the Bill also includes parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London within scope of the provision. That is not the policy intention, and our amendment seeks to rectify it. We do not consider that town and parish councils should be subject to the duty, as it would be disproportionately burdensome.
Lewis Cocking
Does the Minister include metropolitans and unitary councils in what she has just said?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. This is purely putting in exemption for parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London corporation. That is because, in the instance of town and parish and councils and the Isles of Scilly, it would be disproportionate and extremely burdensome. Town and parish councils are already doing effective community engagement, and we will continue to support them to do that. At the heart of this is empowering our communities and creating structures that enable effective neighbourhood governance.
Amendment 222 agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: supplementary vote system
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 312, in schedule 26, page 259, line 35, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities.
Amendment 313, in schedule 26, page 261, line 27, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities.
Amendment 314, in schedule 26, page 263, line 6, at the beginning insert “For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,”
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities.
Schedule 26.
New clause 7—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—
“(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to clause 59 and schedule 26 now, and I will then respond to hon. Members on their amendments.
The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. Given the large population that each regional mayor and police and crime commissioner represents, far exceeding that of Members of Parliament, the Government believe they should have a broad base of support among the electorate. We believe that a supplementary voting system, a preferential voting system, will achieve that and is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. The supplementary voting system will help to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose their first-choice and second-choice candidates, and it will require the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for begrudgingly giving way. She has just outlined that she believes a winning candidate should win a majority of the vote. We entirely agree with her, which is why we support first past the post. Why does she not seem to think that the supplementary vote should also be used to elect MPs, who are single executive politicians but do not necessarily always receive a majority of the vote?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making.
Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.
Manuela Perteghella
I will speak to new clause 7. I commend the Government for their decision to do away with the first-past-the-post system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. As has been said, the decision to move mayoral elections to first past the post was a complete disaster, and this improvement will ensure better local voter representation. The Mayor of the West of England, for example, was elected with only 25% of the vote. Supplementary voting is a significant improvement, but the Liberal Democrats believe we should introduce the alternative vote system as a further advance on that.
We all want to see genuinely representative local elections to ensure that local people know that every vote counts, and so that the councils they elect are truly representative. Where the supplementary vote system allows people to vote for their first and second choices, the alternative vote system allows for a more comprehensive ranking by each voter. For example, under first past the post, a candidate with no majority backing can still win because of vote splitting. We believe that an alternative vote system will increase engagement and deliver fairer outcomes. Our new clause has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, which strongly recommends that it is incorporated into the legislation. I await the Minister’s response.
Siân Berry
Amendments 312 to 314 aim to achieve the same thing: formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system, which is already being legislated for, at next year’s local mayoral elections, including the newly established combined authority areas of Greater Essex; Hampshire and the Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton, in which my constituency lies.
The Government have clearly admitted, accepted and legislated for the need to return mayoral elections to a more proportional system—in this case, supplementary vote, which achieves a majority vote for whoever wins. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Second Reading:
“We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]
I will give a few examples of the election outcomes we might expect if we go ahead with next year’s elections under first past the post. I remind the Committee that the results will be baked in for four years in each case and have serious implications.
Andrew Cooper
We have established a principle in this country of changing our electoral system via referendum. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system during the coalition era. The Bill is going to switch the system back to single transferable vote as it was when it was originally envisaged, so I believe that it is fair enough to go ahead without a referendum. But what the hon. Lady is proposing would be to change to an entirely different system without any democratic mandate to do so.
Siân Berry
I want to clarify that I am talking about the supplementary vote for mayoral elections in clause 59.
To return to some examples of mayoral elections under first past the post with results that are not optimal for democracy or public confidence: the 2025 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election saw Paul Bristow elected on 28.4% of the vote, with a turnout of 32.9%. That gave 9.3% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.
In none of my examples am I saying that the result was wrong, but they are not results that clearly command the confidence of a majority of the people in the area —that may well have been the case had a second vote been counted, but no second vote was allowed. I do not think that is a good way to conduct things. The 2025 West of England mayoral election saw Helen Godwin elected on 25% of the vote. With turnout at 30%, that gave 7.5% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. The 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election saw Luke Campbell elected on 35.8% of the vote. With turnout at 29.8%, that gave 10.7% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.
In contrast, the last election held under the supplementary vote system in 2022 for South Yorkshire saw Oliver Coppard elected with 71.4% in the second round, up from a first round vote of 43.1%. That is a sea change in confidence and mandate compared with some of those marginal wins on a small turnout that we have seen in other areas.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady says that Oliver Coppard got 71% of the vote in the second round, but her quote leads me to believe that the number of people who voted was no different from what it would have been under first past the post. Is that correct?
Siân Berry
I stopped reading out turnout results, but turnout was 42.8%—much higher than in previous examples. To be honest, I would prefer a ranking of all candidates down the ballot paper, but I believe that when people are able to use their votes to express both their first and second preferences they are not discouraged from turning out. When parties are not forced to put out leaflets all about who might win but leaflets are instead about the actual issues that might affect people’s lives, turnout goes up. It is really important that this change is made.
On consistency, I want to raise an issue from Sussex. A motion passed by East Sussex county council makes a really good point:
“When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue”.
That is the problem: the areas that have stepped forward sooner are being forced to accept a substandard election system. I recognise that the motion at East Sussex county council was to delay the elections, and that is not my wish either. I absolutely recognise that there is a timetable challenge: if the amendments were accepted today, they would need to wait until the Bill was enacted to come into force. We cannot make changes to an imminent election, so I do not intend the press the amendments to a vote today.
However, I call on the Government to fix the situation. I would like the Minister to go away and talk to colleagues about how she might be able to fairly resource all the areas holding mayoral elections, including those that have chosen to go first and should face no penalty, so that they can conduct next year’s elections under the supplementary vote in the way that other areas will benefit from later.
Paul Holmes
I have to speak to this group of amendments because only one party has consistency when it comes to a “one vote, one election” philosophy: the Conservative party. It is lovely to see the weird and wonderful array of views on electoral systems from parties that want to gerrymander political systems to try to suit their own ends. That is what we have seen this afternoon.
At the mayoral elections, the first-past-the-post system worked because it clearly showed that when the people entitled to vote have one vote, the candidate who gets the most votes wins. We would always argue that that is the simplest and fairest system for the election of a single politician. I do not often compliment the Government, but they have always been consistent on this issue when it comes to mayoral elections. But we cannot keep asking the same person to be subject to two votes and claim that in the second round they have 71% and therefore an overwhelming mandate, when the turnouts under AV or SV are not markedly different from first past the post. Actually, the 41% turnout cited by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion still means that fewer than half the total electorate voted for that winning candidate so the hon. Lady’s argument against first past the post is exactly the same as that in favour of the gerrymandering political voting mechanism that she wants to bring in.
Siân Berry
I would not claim that a turnout of nearly 43% is a triumph, but the hon. Member has to admit that it is a good turnout compared with that of most local government elections.
Paul Holmes
I would argue that it is up to us as politicians and candidates in the election to advertise the position and generate excitement among the electorate, so that people vote for them. It was still 41%, I think, in the election that the hon. Lady cited; it was below half the total electorate, so this is not a panacea for improving electoral participation.
Also, I know that the hon. Lady was advocating for SV, but the Liberal Democrats have always been vehement in their approach to AV, despite the fact that they lost the national referendum that they managed to get on the AV voting system. [Hon. Members: “You gave it to them.”] We gave it to them because that is coalition, but they lost and we won, so I am quite happy with the outcome. They lost a test on the national system.
AV was used in mayoral elections and PCC elections when these positions were created, and turnouts were demonstrably low and very low in some cases—12% to 18%. They are now massively higher. Okay, they are not high enough, but they are higher now because they have become a constant and well-established institution in our voting system. That is not because of the voting system. It is because the system has been allowed to bed in and people have the choice of whether to elect a PCC or mayor or not. That is one of the bedrocks of our political systems today.
I thought I was triggered on the amendment where I saw the words “citizens’ panels”, but now I am even more triggered; we have a long history of speaking about citizens’ panels and citizens’ assemblies. As I said at the beginning, there is a clear need for local people to have a straightforward system that does what it says on the tin. The Conservative party will always believe that first past the post is the system that does that. Other parties want to gerrymander a system to try to suit their own preferred political outcomes.
The Minister said that directly elected people need to have the widest possible mandate and number of people voting for them. Her Prime Minister secured 32% of the vote in a national election and won a majority of the size that he did. [Interruption.] It is not a reason to support another system at all. I do not think that the Minister can advocate for a different voting system in one case, but then—the Government’s position is confused on voting systems—accept that a 32% vote share got well over 60% of the seats on a turnout, I think, in the high 60s. That is not exactly representative, either. The Government need to have a solid position on all kinds of elections, not just ones that suit their potential candidates.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to.
Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place.
On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will convenient to discuss new clause 54—Duty relating to community empowerment—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).
(2) The report must—
(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and
(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.
(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—
(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;
(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;
(c) access to land for food growing;
(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;
(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.
(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.
(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Many Members will have pubs or community centres in their constituencies that are at risk of loss or closure, despite being the heart of their community and playing a crucial role in local lives. Too many valued community spaces are being lost because communities do not have the powers they need to protect them. That has a massive impact on the vibrancy and identity of local areas. Clause 60 and the associated schedule 27 will put control back into the hands of communities, giving them real power to take ownership of cherished local assets and protect them for future community use.
The clause will strengthen the existing assets of community value scheme in England, which since its introduction in 2012 has seen only 15 in every 1,000 listed assets come into community ownership, and create a new, far more effective and far more powerful, community right to buy. This will give communities a right of first refusal on the purchase of valued community assets. It will give an extended 12-month period to raise funding to purchase the asset, as we recognise that the current six months is not long enough. It will also introduce an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price for everyone.
We know that village shops and bank branches are a lifeline to our communities. The clause will therefore extend the definition of an asset of community value to include those with an economic value and assets of historical importance, so that communities can protect and make use of them.
Finally, the clause will address the historically low uptake of sporting assets under the current regime by establishing a new sporting asset of community value designation. Sports grounds across England will be automatically and indefinitely designated as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that these cherished facilities, vital to our communities, are protected for generations to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 27
Assets of community value
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 349, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 1 to 8.
This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 350, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out from “value” in line 10 to “the” in line 11.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.
Amendment 351, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 13 to 15.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 349.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 349 to 351 concern the rules around assets of community value. The designation of a building such as a pub, community shop or village hall, or even a piece of land like a community orchard, as an asset of community value allows local people to protect the places that play an important role in their community. They are often linked to wellbeing and social cohesion. The intent behind the original legislation was to give communities a real say on places that matter deeply to them, particularly when they are at risk of being sold or redeveloped.
There is, however, a flaw in the current system. Under existing law, once an asset is listed on the register by a local authority, it automatically drops off the register after five years. This creates a huge burden not only on the local community, including local community groups and parish and town councils—as they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to resubmit the application to the local authority—but on the local authority itself, as the application has to go through its legal department and be scrutinised once again. In the time it takes for that to happen, a cherished community asset might be sold off.
Like sporting assets of community value, these important buildings and sites must remain on the list of community assets. Amendment 349 would remove the automatic five-year expiry for assets of community value for all buildings and places on that list. It would mean that, once an asset is listed as being of community value, it will stay on the register indefinitely, unless there is a clear reason for it to be removed.
The amendment would shift the burden from communities to maintain protection for something that is still vital to local life. I had an experience in my constituency where one of the village pubs, which had been put on the register of assets of community value, dropped off the list during covid. Obviously, we were all preoccupied with the pandemic, and we only realised later that it was not protected any more.
Amendments 350 and 351 are consequential to amendment 349. In a way, these amendments would also take away the burden on local authorities that have to assess the application once again. This change matters because reapplying is not a simple process; it takes time, organisation and paperwork, and it is handled by volunteers who may have limited capacity and resources. Removing the time limit for all assets of community value would mean that we provide continuity of protection and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for both communities and local councils. It would also recognise that community value does not just disappear after a few years. A local pub or post office that was vital to a community in 2019 is still vital in 2025.
In our view, these amendments sit entirely within the spirit of the Bill by giving communities more tools to strengthen local decision making, and not limiting them with arbitrary timeframes. I urge the Minister and the Committee to cut the red tape and strengthen local power, and I ask her to consider reviewing the time limit.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. We absolutely want to ensure strong protections for assets of community value, and the five-year listing period recognises the need of the community in that period of time. We also recognise that the need and desire of the community may change over time. Something that is an asset of community value in year one might not be an asset of community value in year six or seven. This allows a review process to happen.
We are also trying to balance the protections that we absolutely want to give to communities with those of the asset owners, and to ensure it is proportionate. We think that five years is a fair balance between both parties. I am also mindful of the risk that if we designate assets of community value permanently, local authorities may be incentivised to take tougher judgments on requests from communities to list assets of community value. On balance, when we think about the incentives to create more assets of community value, protections that we need to give to communities and protections for the asset owners, five years feels like the right amount of time to allow the system to operate in a way that is fair for all parties. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her amendment.
Manuela Perteghella
Would the Minister consider looking at extending that five years to give a bit more time to the community to—
Manuela Perteghella
Okay. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 27, page 265, line 41, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in schedule 27, page 266, line 4, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in schedule 27, page 266, line 12, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 37, in schedule 27, page 266, line 18, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Manuela Perteghella
These amendments are interlinked. First, I would like to speak in support of the Bill’s provisions to protect assets of community value under the new sporting category. Those are important, and we are all delighted to see them in the Bill. These are key community hubs, including for our grassroots sports clubs and particularly for our young people. They play a fundamental role in building local pride, building engagement and developing young people’s skills. I thank the Government for these welcome provisions.
In that context, the Bill’s exclusion of environmental assets of community value seems stark. Social, economic and environmental impacts are often grouped together in legislation, and yet although sporting assets have been added to the group of possible categories for an asset of community value, environmental assets have not. The environmental impact is absent. We can only assume that exclusion is a protection against environmental considerations being used as a mechanism to prevent development. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in her response. This seems needlessly reductive, because the positives outweigh the negatives, and the negatives can be mitigated if there is a concern.
There is widespread support for these amendments. We worked on them with Locality and the Community Land Trust Network, in conversation with them I heard about sites all across the country that could be protected. I am sure that Members can think of many examples in their constituencies. Given the value of environmental conservation—the value of nature for its own sake, as well as its benefits for public health and mental health—we ask the Minister to consider including provision for considering environmental impact in assets of community value. It would be of huge value to my constituents to be able to ensure that measures are in place to protect the environmental value of, for example, Meon Vale woods, which they fought to save and which has become a local nature reserve. Depending on the Minister’s response, I will press amendment 34 and consequential amendments 35 to 37 to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government absolutely want to ensure that the community right to buy can be used to protect a wide range of assets. That already includes a wide range of environmental assets where communities can demonstrate an existing historical, social or economic purpose, including allotments, woodlands, parks and other green spaces. We know that many of those can already be found on local lists of assets of community value.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 373, in schedule 27, page 266, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) it is land of on which there are buildings of historical significance.”
This amendment would expand the criteria for a local authority classifying land as of community value to include land on which there are buildings of historical significance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in schedule 27, page 267, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.
Amendment 374, in schedule 27, page 276, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) If there is no preferred community buyer, the Secretary of State must ensure the relevant local authority receives financial support to buy the land of community value.”
Amendment 42, in schedule 27, page 279, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.”
This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.
Amendment 41, in schedule 27, page 280, line 28, at end insert—
“(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.
Amendment 249, in schedule 27, page 283, line 8, at end insert—
“(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.”
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.
New clause 51—Community ownership fund—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—
(a) voluntary and community organisation, or
(b) parish or town council,
to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.
Manuela Perteghella
Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions.
Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved.
This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent.
For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities.
Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success.
Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement.
Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in.
Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance.
Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important.
More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs.
Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured.
I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing.
The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.
Sean Woodcock
Briefly, I want to put on the record how much I value the protection of sporting assets. I have already mentioned Chipping Norton in my constituency, and how the football club there lost its land to a rather unscrupulous developer the best part of a decade ago and ever since has not been able to play in the town itself; it has to play almost 10 miles away. The protections are very close to my heart and I very much support them.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about pubs. I have numerous pubs in my constituency with active campaigns—the Fox Inn and the Bell Inn, for example—where the community is very active and keen to take on the pub to save it so that it is not lost to the community.
I rise to speak, however, because sometimes pubs close down and, with the best will in the world, are unable to reopen, despite the efforts of the community and people nearby. There is a real danger of unintended consequences if the amendment puts in too much protection and removes the flexibility that is necessary to allow historical buildings to survive.
I offer an example from my constituency, where massive efforts were put in to retain a particular pub. The brewers who owned it put it out to all sorts of people. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to bring it back up to standard made it totally unviable, not only for other brewers or people wanting to take it on, but for the community. The pub was in a historical village, and the real danger is that we wrap it up so much in protection and regulations that, in trying to save the pub, we will lose the historical building. If the landlord is not able to do anything with it, it can fall to rack and ruin, and even with the best will in the world we can end up losing that historical building. That pub ended up becoming a house; granted, it is no longer a pub or a community asset, but the building is retained and is no longer a dilapidated ruin in the middle of a village.
Although the amendment comes from a really good place, I cannot support it. I support the Government making it easier for communities to get involved, giving them more time and granting them more powers to take on historical pubs that are important parts of the community, but there is a real danger that the amendment could have an unintended consequence: a historical building being lost purely because it is so wrapped in regulation and protection that nobody is able to do anything with it. I would therefore vote against it.
Siân Berry
I will speak briefly on new clause 51. It is really encouraging that there is a cross-party effort to reinvigorate community ownership funding, which has lapsed. Although I am excited about the pride in place funding, which is quite extensive and goes into local areas in quite an intensive way, I think the community ownership angle of that is limited to the geographic area covered. Things such as sporting assets or community assets that serve a whole town may not be within that area. I would like to hear from the Minister that, if she will not accept new clause 51, something will be done for other parts of the country to ensure a fund to support community ownership.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will try to work through all the amendments. Let me start with amendment 373. I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to protecting historical assets. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate heritage buildings and assets, and there are already protections in place for them to do that. Historical buildings that are valued by local communities, but do not meet the criteria to be nationally listed, can be listed by local authorities as non-designated heritage assets. That protects them through the national planning policy framework, so the protection is already there.
On amendment 40, I reassure the Committee that we already have established processes in place to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to deliver new policies, and this is no exception. The new burdens doctrine requires that all new responsibilities placed on local authorities are properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant Department. We are assessing the cost of the process for local authorities and will provide new burdens funding accordingly.
On amendment 41, I can confirm that we are assessing the costs of independent valuation to local authorities. Where the owner and community buyer cannot agree a purchase price for an asset through negotiation, the local authority must appoint an independent valuer. We will provide new burdens funding to meet those costs accordingly, once assessments have been finalised and tested with local government. I hope that that provides some assurance.
On amendment 374, we know that some community groups may not come forward as they do not have the capability or capacity to put together a bid for an asset. The intention of the 12-month sale period is to give communities time to organise and to raise the funding required. We will continue to work with community organisations to ensure that they have the support to do so. Requiring local authorities to step in to purchase assets where there is no community buyer would put too much of a burden on local authorities, and we could end up with local authorities taking over and having to run theatres and pubs. Although those assets might have value for the community, that does not feel appropriate for a local authority.
We think we have the balance right and that this measure is proportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said eloquently, however much we might want a particular asset to stay in its original form, sometimes that may not be viable. We do not want buildings becoming dilapidated when they could be retained in a different way.
On amendment 42, we are already putting requirements on local authorities to enable and facilitate this process. For example, they must arrange that joint meeting between the asset owner and the community buyer at the start of the process and enable that process of negotiation and, as I have said, local authorities again need to step in to provide the independent valuer if negotiations fail. We think that is the right role for the local authority, not least because it has to be an arbiter in the process.
However, we want there to be enough capability across all our communities, irrespective of the level of social capital, to be able to take on these powers. There is a range of community organisations with the expertise and experience to provide this kind of support to communities, such as Plunkett, Power to Change and Locality, and we are working with those organisations on the additional support that they can provide to communities across the country.
Amendment 249 would restrict what an asset owner can do with their property once listed. We think that it is ultimately up to local planning authorities to consider planning applications in accordance with their development plans and other material considerations. That could include the listing of an asset of community value. The weight afforded to material considerations in making the decision will be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we think it is right that that is left to the local planning authority.
Critically, the national planning policy framework already includes important safeguards to protect against the unnecessary loss of social, recreational and cultural facilities that serve an important value for the community. We think that the balance between what already exists in the planning system and the protections that we are providing through the community right to buy is right and appropriate.
Finally, on new clause 51, let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to empowering our communities. We are giving communities everywhere the power to take ownership. Our pride in place programme, which the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about, is providing £5 billion over 10 years to support 244 places, to enable and support them to take on such community assets of value.
We will continue to review this area, because we are committed to communities having a stake in and ownership of their assets, and we are committed to doing our part as a Government to enable them to do that. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her many amendments.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press the amendments to a vote, although my hon. Friends might table them again on Report, but I will press new clause 51 to a vote later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 236, in schedule 27, page 275, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—
“(b) the relevant local authority has determined that the preferred community buyer does not meet the progress requirements after any of the review periods (see section 86U), or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 234, 223 to 233 and 235.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
This group of amendments introduces and defines the new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. This will permit landowners to request evidence from the preferred community buyer no less than two weeks before the end of the new 16-week review period. The period begins on the date when a notice of intent to enter into a relevant disposal is given. At the end of the 16-week review period, the local authority will decide whether the community has met the progress requirements and will give written notice of its decision to both the owner and the buyer.
While I remain committed to empowering communities to take ownership of larger sports grounds, I also recognise the importance of ensuring that they have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively. That means putting in place processes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of those assets, ensuring that community buyers are well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of permanent ownership for an asset that will be critical to their community.
Amendment 236 agreed to.
Amendments made: 234, in schedule 27, page 281, line 39, leave out “that” and insert “the notice”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 223, in schedule 27, page 281, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) Where the land that the notice relates to is a sporting asset of community value which can accommodate over 10,000 people, and the owner makes a request in writing, the relevant local authority must—
(a) determine whether at the end of the 16 week review period the preferred community buyer has met the progress requirements, and
(b) as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of the determination to the owner and the buyer.”
This provides that where requested by the owner a preferred community buyer of a sporting asset of community value which is a large venue must show additional evidence of progress of their proposed purchase at an earlier stage in the process.
Amendment 224, in schedule 27, page 281, line 13, leave out “first” and insert “6 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 225, in schedule 27, page 281, line 18, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 226, in schedule 27, page 281, line 19, leave out “first review period” and insert
“review period that it relates to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 227, in schedule 27, page 281, line 21, leave out “second” and insert “12 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 228, in schedule 27, page 281, line 28, leave out
“the first and second review periods”
and insert “each review period”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 229, in schedule 27, page 281, line 34, at end insert—
“‘the 16 week review period’ is the period of 16 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of a wish to enter into a relevant disposal was given under section 86M(1) (‘the notice date’);”.
Amendment 230, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “first” and insert “the 6 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 231, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “six” and insert “6”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 232, in schedule 27, page 281, line 36, leave out from “with the” to the end of line 37 and insert “notice date”.
Amendment 233, in schedule 27, page 281, line 38, leave out “second” and insert “the 12 month”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Amendment 235, in schedule 27, page 281, at end of line 39 insert—
“‘review period’ means the 16 week review period, the 6 month review period or the 12 month review period.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)