House of Lords
Renters’ Rights Act: Definition of Court Readiness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they define “court readiness” in the context of the answer by the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Matthew Pennycook MP, on 14 January 2025 (HC Deb col 258) during debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, “court readiness” means ensuring that courts and tribunals can operate effectively and maintain swift access to justice under the new tenancy system. We are supporting the justice system with funding to ensure that courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload these reforms will generate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in the other place, the Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said that
“court readiness is essential to the successful operation of the new system”
and that he was working
“to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is ready”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/25; col. 258.]
The Minister also gave this House that assurance during the passage of the Bill. Yet the time for a landlord to regain possession through the courts has increased dramatically across the country since 2024, particularly in London, increasing from 7.5 months to 15 months, and that is before bailiff delays. Given that the Government have failed to ensure that the courts are ready for this Act, will they now delay implementation until they are?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It certainly would not help tenants to delay implementation of the Act. Tenants are waiting for this, and have been for a very long time indeed. We are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on a number of fronts, including digitisation of the system, ensuring that more staff are prepared and making sure that we are ready for this. We are working closely with the judiciary and the ministry to ensure that the First-tier Tribunal has the capacity to deal with applications.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Sadly, there is not just the current delay of up to 15 months in the court granting a repossession; there is then an additional delay of up to seven or eight month waiting for a bailiff to carry out the eviction. What plans do the Government have to improve the bailiff service? A further point is the bankruptcy service’s increased granting of a breathing space to enable the tenant to put his affairs in order, though there is no consultation with the landlord on this. This can result in a further two-month delay in obtaining possession, along with the time necessary to appoint a bailiff. Is this the level playing field promised by the Government?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think we should exaggerate the situation as it currently stands. The Ministry of Justice quarterly possession statistics show that median timeliness for claim to order is 7.3 weeks and that the median average time from landlord claim to repossession is 27 weeks. However, not all landlords will experience the whole court process. Of the landlord possession claims issued in 2024, only 28% progressed to the stage where bailiff enforcement was necessary. Bailiffs are responsible for a range of sensitive work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is working to make sure that the timeliness of bailiff enforcement is improved.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s Question, the Master of the Rolls has warned that ending Section 21
“will undoubtedly create more contested possession cases than we have had hitherto”.
As we have heard, the average delay last year, according to the MoJ’s figures, was eight months. Ministers have repeatedly said that court readiness is a prerequisite for the success of the system. The courts are not ready. They will not be ready in six weeks’ time, when Section 21 will no longer be operative. What is the Minister going to do?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know how many times I am going to repeat this, but I will carry on doing so. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to prepare county courts for implementation of the tenancy reforms. These are very important reforms for landlords and tenants; landlords do not want to see the actions of bad landlords helped and tenants want to make sure that they are secure in their tenancies. Existing possession processes will be updated to reflect the reforms in the Act and we will ensure that sufficient capacity is in place for the courts to handle new cases. There is an increase in capacity, including an additional 115 court staff, in anticipation of the increased demand for hearings under the Section 8 claim process. Staff managing possession claims are receiving detailed training, supported by refreshed training materials and process guidance. Working practices have been reviewed and best practice shared in readiness for 1 May, and the Judicial Office is taking forward judicial training on the new legislation.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned, the First-tier Tribunal clearly has a critical role to play here. Ministers have continually said that they will act if it is “overwhelmed by increased claims”, yet I was surprised to find that the MoJ does not even collect the data needed to assess its case loads. How can the Government credibly promise intervention without the basic monitoring information required to trigger some action? When will they begin collecting and publishing monthly data on rent appeals so that Parliament can assess mounting pressure? If the tribunal becomes overwhelmed, will Ministers commit to using the backdating safeguard immediately?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Data is collected and published—otherwise I would not have the figures for the current situation. MoJ statistics, as I said, tell us both the median time from landlord claim to repossession and how many possession claims progress to bailiff stage. Data is available. On the noble Baroness’s other point, the Government decided to put in place a proportionate safeguard if the tribunal system is on course to be overwhelmed, as we discussed during the passage of the Bill. That involves the creation of a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal in respect of new rent amounts.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, in response to a question during Oral Questions on 11 February about the risks of the First-tier Tribunal becoming overwhelmed by rent increase appeals brought by tenants who have nothing to lose, the Minister stated that
“there is a case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations”,—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. 216.]
yet an amendment to that effect tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, to the Bill was rejected by the Government on 1 July last year. What alternative body or mechanism is now being considered after all and how will it meaningfully be done without the force of legislation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her contribution on the Bill. To ensure long-term sustainability, we have concluded that there is a case for the use of a non-judicial alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. We are continuing to work with partners across government to develop this rent determination function as quickly as possible.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, this House has often said, and Ministers agree, that justice delayed is justice denied. Has it occurred to the Minister or her colleagues in government that the more rules they make and the more laws they pass, the more pressure they put on the judicial system, which is already overloaded? Ministers have expressed concern about delays at all levels of our judicial system. Perhaps the answer would be to stop making so many rules.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government are acting as they should according to their manifesto and putting the legislation in place. On top of that, we have had to correct the 14 years of decline of effective action in the justice system. We have had a lot of work to do and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are taking that action urgently.
Given the need to provide families living in the private rented sector with greater certainty and stability, it is not appropriate to delay implementation while assessments of court readiness are carried out. An assessment of the possession process would provide no new insight or benefit to interested parties, and quarterly data on the operation of the court possession process for rented properties is already published by the Ministry of Justice and will continue to be. My department has allocated increased funding for the court service to enable it to deal with the increase in workload, and we are working very closely with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure they are able to cope.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, some of the worst cases I had as an MP were to do with housing. We had children who had to move home every six months, absolutely wrecking their life chances. They were unable to stay in the same schools or with the same friends unless they travelled for hours on buses, going from stop to stop. Can my noble friend think of a single reason why we would delay the implementation of this Act?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. Her experience as an MP was similar to mine as a councillor. I had client after client come to me to discuss the horrendous impacts of homelessness. But we are implementing this Act not just for tenants but for landlords. As I said, good landlords deserve support, and they do not like to see poor landlords not having action taken against them when they are not acting in the interests of tenants. This Act actually benefits everybody in the private rented sector.
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing a code of practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
It is me again, I am afraid. The Government are committed to raising standards in the private parking sector. Last summer, my department consulted on proposals to raise standards across the private parking industry, ahead of implementing the new code and accompanying compliance framework for parking operators. The consultation attracted over 4,500 responses—which was no surprise to me; I know people have a great interest in this subject—a significant volume, and it is right that these are considered very carefully before the code is finalised. I add that the Government intend to lay the code in the House in autumn 2026.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in 1989, I had the privilege of taking through Parliament the Parking Act, which was there to assist in the parking process. Some 30 years went past, when cowboy operators really let rip on the motoring public, until my good friend, the right honourable Sir Greg Knight, introduced his own Bill, which we are discussing today. I am very unhappy about the lack of progress in this matter. The right reverend Prelates will understand when I say, at the third time of asking, that I must press the Minister to get a move on with this, or else we will all suspect that she is simply parking it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It certainly will not be illegally parked if I am doing it—I can promise the noble Lord that. In February 2022, the previous Government introduced a private parking code of practice, which reduced the level of private parking charges and banned debt recovery fees. However, as the noble Lord will know, the parking industry subsequently challenged the charge caps on the grounds that the economic impact on the sector had not been sufficiently assessed and that caps were not supported by robust evidence. In the light of that challenge, the previous Government took the decision to withdraw the code in order to review the level of charges and the ban on additional fees. That review has been thorough: there was a call for evidence, and an impact assessment, an options assessment and a full public consultation, which I mentioned earlier, were published. It has been necessary to minimise the risk of further legal challenge and, crucially, to ensure that the impact of any future charge caps is understood and achieves the intended objectives. I recognise that the noble Lord’s patience is being tested and the process has taken time. However, we are committed to raising standards across the private parking sector and will lay the code in autumn 2026.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, according to the RAC, private parking companies have issued a staggering 76 million parking tickets in the seven years since the Parking (Code of Practice) Act became law. In addition to this long-awaited code, what update can the Minister provide on work to introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
A parking regulator was considered as an option in the options assessment published last year. However, it was dismissed as disproportionate. Establishing a regulator would have involved significant cost, complexity and even further delay, duplicating functions that can be delivered more efficiently through the 2019 Act and existing sanctions, including access to DVLA data.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I put it to my noble friend the Minister that wheel clamping took some 20 years from the Scottish courts declaring it illegal in Scotland, against lots of obstructionism within officialdom in the Department for Transport and other departments, to finally being banned in England. We must know now what we want to do. Motorists are still being ripped off, companies are still behaving badly, and the appeals system often does not work. Should we not just take action and get on with it? It might even be rather popular.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It would be popular with me, but we need to make sure, once we put something in place, that it is legally robust and understands the impacts that the code will have—that is really important. We consulted on the appeals process last year to understand the concerns that motorists have with it—I have also heard many concerns from around the House when we have discussed this before—and we are working to address them. Is it very important that motorists have confidence in the appeals process and trust that they will get the right outcome as quickly as possible. For motorists, this means ensuring that appeal decisions are fair and, importantly, that those decisions are made independently from the private parking industry.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, on many new housing estates, the roads have not been adopted by local highways authorities, despite residents paying council tax. What are the Government doing to ensure that they are built to adoptable standards and then adopted? That would allow local authority enforcement of parking offences.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is slightly tangential to the Question. I know that this is a real frustration both for those living on new estates and for the local authorities that are sometimes charged with picking up the bill for the insufficient quality of roads. Steps will be taken in the forthcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill to address many of the issues with these so-called freehold estates. I am sure that we will have a very useful discussion on that when the Bill comes before the House.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister has heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, had to say. I think that his argument has prevailed. As was just demonstrated, parking covers a very wide landscape, so may I draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulty one has in parking electric bikes in London? They are now geolocated, so you park it outside a station, but the app will not let you close. Can the Government please sit down with the mayor and the London boroughs to create a win-win—for people who hate these bikes being parked randomly on the street and for those of us who depend on them, who would just like to see more parking places for them?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the frustrations that people feel, but if you are parking the bike where you are supposed to park it, you should be able to log out of the system. It is absolutely unacceptable for bikes to be left in some of the places that I see them being left, and it causes a great obstruction, particularly to our residents with less mobility. If there is a bike in the middle of a pavement it is very hard to manoeuvre around it, particularly if you are in a wheelchair. We are looking at all these issues. New powers are being granted to local authorities as part of the Bill we will be debating later this afternoon, so I hope that will help the situation.
Public Transport: Accessibility
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public transport is fully accessible.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving public transport services so they enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. The Bus Services Act 2025 and the Railways Bill both include a comprehensive package of measures to improve the accessibility of public transport. We have also committed to developing an accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local transport authorities, driving improvement towards a barrier-free transport system.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that the Government have cancelled a significant number of Access for All schemes which had not been fully funded, will the Minister commit to a replacement long-term programme of accessibility works on the railway to ensure that there is a pipeline of improvements, and to help the supply chain have the confidence to invest in this area?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The oldest railway in the world still needs better accessibility at many stations, between platforms and trains, and in information and customer service. We have committed to more Access for All schemes at stations following the recent spending review and intend to set out clearer criteria for future such schemes, which we would expect to fund in future spending reviews and with third-party contributions. The long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will embrace easier access on to and within trains. The results of all this will produce a clearer future pipeline for the supply chain.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done on accessibility; he has real experience and commitment. To that end, does he consider so-called floating bus stops to be inclusive by design and accessible for all? That is but one example; whether it is trains, taxis, buses, streets or stations, there are common issues of exclusion and inaccessibility. Does he agree that, tragically, the truth is that in the UK we do not currently have public transport—we have transport for some of the public, some of the time?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely respect the noble Lord’s determination in the matter of people with any disability accessing public transport. A lot has been done on the accessibility of the bus service, and the noble Lord knows that during the passage of the Bus Services Act, we agreed to cease those particularly difficult propositions whereby you alighted from a bus or got on to a bus directly from a cycle path, which do not work and clearly are not sustainable. On floating bus stops, the noble Lord knows that we paused them and that we have published a better definition of a floating bus stop, which is still a bus stop. The Government intend to proceed with a balance of interests of both cyclists’ and bus users’ safety, which includes disabled people.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, thousands of new trains and carriages are coming into service on the national, regional and underground networks between 2025 and 2030. The Minister referenced the rolling stock strategy, but how many of these trains will exceed the minimum legislative compliance for accessibility, and how many will have a proper platform-to-train interface? I ask this after recently negotiating what is now known as “the leap” at Norbiton station—which, ironically, is the main transport access to Kingston Hospital.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: there are far too many varieties of train on the national network. While it has been possible to build and operate trains with level access to at least normal height platforms, that has not been and still is not a consistent feature of recent train orders. One of the reasons for a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy is to embed level boarding in all future train orders. However, the noble Baroness also knows that these things last for a very long time and sadly, some of the vehicles that have been bought will last for the next 30 years. It is quite difficult to fix that, but she is right that it does need to be fixed.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. What is the Minister’s ambitious timetable to finish the work to make all public transport wheelchair accessible?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I rather thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question, since I only met him at 11.30 am this morning to discuss the same issue. His determination to make taxis fully accessible is admirable. However, since taxis are intrinsically part of a service of both taxi and private hire vehicles, and 87% of the total provision of private hire vehicles is not taxis, the Government are determined to embrace his determination with our own determination to make the whole provision suitable throughout England for wheelchair users and people with all disabilities. We will have more to say on Report of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in this House shortly, when we deal with the amendments the noble Lord has tabled.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, would it not help the standardisation of trains if we ensured that the trains we purchase—whether for the rail network, the Underground or even the light railway systems—are produced in this country by British workers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The variation in orders for railway rolling stock has been feast and famine. It resulted in the closure of several manufacturing facilities over the last 30 years, and there is now one manufacturing plant and three assembly plants. One of the determinations we have is that the long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy produces a forward order book which is sufficient to keep those plants and the workers who work in them running for the long-term future.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, accessibility into Macclesfield station is severely curtailed for disabled people. The booking hall has been refurbished, which is most welcome, but it would be helpful if there was a completion date. Can the Minister look into this matter? The travelling public understand that it takes time to do refurbishments, but it would be helpful if they had a completion date as the dates keep changing at Macclesfield.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry—I know quite a lot about the railway system, but I do not know the completion date for the station works at Macclesfield. I will find out for the noble Lord and write to him.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Borwick. Is the Government’s new position that they would make taxis accessible in the rest of the country outside London, where they are already accessible, but they feel inhibited in doing so because they cannot make private hire vehicles—a completely distinct legal category —accessible at the same time? Is that the Government’s current position? Is that what the Minister said?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not think that is what I said, because if I meant to say what the noble Lord said, I would have said it. The point is that the definition of “taxi” is venerable and that taxis, in various forms, have been on our streets for several hundred years. Private vehicle hire, as the noble Lord knows, has been legitimised in London only recently and, in the rest of the country, is quite different from what it was 20 years. We need to make sure that the combined provision of those two types of vehicles, which provide what is nearly but not quite the same level of service, is suitable for the users of those services throughout the various rural and urban areas of England.
The present design of accessible taxi of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, is a beautiful vehicle that is largely used only in London because it is so expensive. We need to make modifications to all taxi and private hire services, as the legislation is woefully out of date, and find a way to make them suitable for all people, both disabled and non-disabled, who seek to use them as means to get around their towns, cities and countryside.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend welcome the reopening of Kings Heath station, which was closed in the Second World War? It is a fully accessible station, and the first trains will go through it on 7 April.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am delighted that my noble friend raised that. It is one of several stations that have been completed in the West Midlands; all are accessible and all will make travel around the West Midlands easier, which will improve economic growth and access to jobs and homes.
Reducing Government Spending
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to (1) data released by the Office for National Statistics on 20 March showing that public sector borrowing in February was £14.3 billion, and (2) the increase in 10-year gilt yields, what plans they have to reduce Government spending.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, UK markets are of course affected by global developments, but it is long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific market movements. Because of this Government’s economic plan, we are more prepared for a more volatile world, with lower inflation and more resilient public finances. This year the deficit will fall by £20 billion, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP—its lowest level for six years and the fastest reduction in the G7. Global financial market volatility means that it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government by returning to austerity or cutting public investment. That was a short-term fix that has created long-term problems.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the ultimate judge and arbiter of the Government’s success is the bond market. As of this afternoon, 10-year gilts are at 4.91%, higher than in the famous Liz Truss era, which Members on the opposite Benches are so keen to reflect back at us, and the highest in the G7. The OBR had said that the UK’s fiscal position is vulnerable to external events, and so it proved. Will the Minister explain to us why we are in this position and what steps HM Government are taking to reduce government spend, particularly in welfare?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said at the outset, of course UK markets are affected by global developments but it is a long-standing convention that the Government, as an issuer in gilt markets, do not comment on specific market moves. The noble Lord will be aware that the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration, but we enter this period of uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. The spring forecast showed that this year borrowing falls by almost 1 percentage point to its lowest level for six years, 4.3%. That is the largest fall in the deficit since 2016. Borrowing as a share of GDP will then fall in every year of the forecast, from 4.3% in 2025 to 1.6% in 2030. Borrowing will fall more than in any other G7 economy. This year, for the first time since 2004, we will be borrowing less than the rest of the G7 on average.
The noble Lord asked about welfare. It is right to point out that in the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion. No one believes that the system we inherited is working: it abandoned too many people to a life on benefits, it wrote off too many people as too sick to work and it condemned too many children to be too poor to eat. That is exactly why we are reforming the welfare system.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I have a suggestion for saving money in the public sector. At the moment, billionaire farmers who do not pay any tax in the UK can claim farming subsidies. Is it right that we all pay them extra money at a time when they have not paid money into the system?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend makes a very interesting point. It is notable, though, that the party opposite’s first instinct is to cut spending at a moment of instability such as this. That is precisely the stop-go pattern of investment that got us into the problems that our economy is now in. Cutting investment at this point and returning to austerity would be the very worst thing that we could do for growth—the very definition of short-termism—yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was needed most, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, despite these volatile times, the Debt Management Office, on behalf of the Treasury, still seems determined to issue £20.4 billion in index-linked gilts this year. The cost of servicing the UK’s national debt is already far more vulnerable to rises in interest rates than comparable countries, thanks to past issuances which have meant that 25% of our national debt is index-linked. Surely it is time to rethink this strategy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Debt Management Office’s operations continue to see strong demand, with efficient pricing. As I have said already, this year the Government will reduce the deficit by £20 billion since last year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, and global financial market volatility means it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework, with fiscal rules that provide stability, ensure our public services are sustainably funded and reduce the burden on future generations.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, in January the Chancellor said that the UK is
“in a very strong position”
to withstand new shocks to the public finances without further tax rises. Can the Minister repeat that assurance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Of course, I agree with everything the Chancellor says. Since coming to office, this Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last month, showed that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. We have cut inflation, which is standing now at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards and have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend spell out to the House the benefits of increased public expenditure on health and how this actually contributes to economic growth? Can he spell out the benefits of increased public expenditure on defence, which contributes to the safety of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with me that the years of Tory austerity directly damaged the defence standing of this country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with everything my noble friend says. The legacy of underinvestment from the previous Government still affects the economy today. When we won the election, private sector investment was the lowest in the whole G7. Public sector investment was no better and was set to fall again from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. We have invested £120 billion of additional capital investment. The OBR estimates the eventual growth impact of this increase in capital investment as adding 1.4% to GDP. As I have said before, cutting this and returning to austerity would be the very worst thing that we could do for growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the facts that were included in my noble friend’s Question show that we face a very troubling position on the public finances. I think the Chancellor’s Statement has done nothing to reassure the markets today. The Government’s economic policy is not fit for purpose, if it ever was. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of the position, and what do they propose to do about it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We do. As I said already, and as we know, the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration, but this year borrowing falls by almost one percentage point to its lowest level for six years, 4.3%. This is the largest fall in the deficit since 2016. For the first time since 2004, we will be borrowing less than the rest of the G7 on average, something the previous Government did not achieve in their 14 years in power. I should point out that these falls in borrowing are as a result of some tough decisions that we have taken on the public finances. The noble Baroness and the party opposite have opposed every single one of those decisions we have taken to get the public finances under control.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lord Eatwell.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench illustrate three things—first, the folly of criticising a medium-term policy of stability on the basis of one month’s figures; secondly, a failure to understand that the gilt rate is determined in international markets and that, for example, the rate on US treasuries has risen rather more in percentage terms than the rate on UK gilts; and, thirdly, the persistent addiction of the Conservative Party to the economics of austerity?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is far more expert than me, and I agree entirely with all three points that he makes. I do not seek to add very much to what he says, but I agree most of all with his last point that returning to austerity would be the very worst thing we could do at this point for growth.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I hope the House will forgive me, but I can scarcely keep up with the good news that the Minister keeps showering upon us, so may I ask him for an indication—not a guarantee or promise but an indication—that he will put his noble name to? One thing he has not mentioned is when unemployment will start coming down. Can he tell us whether it will be in 2027, 2028 or 2029, or have the workers’ Government forgotten about the unemployed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I can only go by what the OBR says, and it says it will be 2026. The OBR said that unemployment will peak later this year before falling for the remainder of the forecast period, ending the Parliament lower than the rate we inherited at the election. Clearly, the economic impact of the situation in the Middle East will depend on its severity and duration, but the OBR forecasts that over the course of this Parliament, employment will rise and the unemployment rate will fall.
Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 and 12 February be approved.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, we are about to start the first day on Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are 13 groups to be considered. I will therefore briefly remind the House of some of the key parts of the Companion, with the intention of helping us to make progress and proceed to votes. First, every Whip’s favourite line in the Companion is:
“The House has resolved ‘That speeches in this House should be shorter’”.
Secondly, and particularly relevantly, the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed in Committee … should not be repeated at length on Report”.
Thirdly, while interventions are in accordance with the custom of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification, and
“lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made”.
This is Report, not Committee. A collective focus on ensuring that debates are contained, with those objectives in mind, would be welcome to help the House proceed in an orderly fashion.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:45 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 5 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 8 agreed.
19:19 - Division on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 45 agreed.
Lord Freyberg
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment adds tourism to the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence for strategic authorities.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to be the opening speaker on the first day of Report on the English devolution Bill. I begin by acknowledging the Government’s significant new amendment, Amendment 2, which adds “culture” to the list of “areas of competence”. This is a hugely important and very welcome step forward, and I thank the Government for addressing what has been a clear gap in the Bill. In doing so, I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Minister herself, her officials and others across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Griffin and Lady Prashar, whose efforts have helped bring this change about, and without whom this omission might well have remained.
The Minister will know that we would ideally have preferred a wording in Amendment 3. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to explain the importance of the inclusion of the arts in this context, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to speak to the significance of heritage in his amendment. In supporting Amendment 2, I also support the Government’s Amendment 42, which increases the number of commissioners that a mayor may appoint from seven to 10. I also support the related Amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment. This change is sensible and proportionate. If we are recognising additional areas of competence, it follows that mayors should have sufficient flexibility in their leadership structures to reflect those responsibilities, provide subject matter focus where needed, and ensure that new competencies are not merely symbolic but can be exercised effectively.
I turn now to my own amendment. I have brought Amendment 1 back on Report as I am seeking further clarity following the Minister’s answer in Committee, and because the Government’s new Amendment 2 raises related questions about how the framework of completeness will operate in practice. I am therefore grateful to the Local Government Association for its briefing and for its support of this amendment.
My amendment is narrow and practical. It simply clarifies that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it on the ground. The Local Government Association has been clear that, within the structure of the Bill, the most coherent statutory home for tourism is economic development and regeneration where it aligns with the visitor economy, place-making and local growth.
The Bill recognises this to some extent. Clause 41 extends powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. As the Minister explained in Committee, combined authorities and combined county authorities may use these powers to support the visitor economy, host events and attract people to their areas. However, as the LGA has pointed out, that clause reflects a relatively narrow understanding of how tourism policy works in practice. In reality, the visitor economy is closely connected to transport, to regeneration and to wider economic strategy. Therefore, greater clarity in the competence framework would help authorities make full and confident use of their powers.
This is why I was somewhat surprised by the Government’s Amendment 128, which moves Clause 41 to a later part of the Bill. That change risks creating the impression that tourism is being treated as part of culture, rather than as a core element of economic development. Without explicit inclusion, tourism risks falling between stools: assumed but not fully recognised.
That matters in practice. Tourism is a major economic driver, as we know, and the Government’s decision to introduce powers for an overnight visitor levy reflects the importance of the visitor economy to local growth, regeneration and place-making. It also illustrates why tourism sits most naturally within economic development. The success of the visitor economy depends on the strength of the wider offer, including cultural and heritage assets, which attract people to the place in the first instance.
As these new levy powers develop, I hope that some of the funds raised will be used to sustain and improve that offer, since visitors are unlikely to come to theatres, museums, arts centres and historic sites if there has been no investment in them. All this underlines that tourism policy does not stand alone but must be planned alongside regeneration, transport, culture and local growth. Ensuring that tourism clearly sits within economic development would therefore help strategic authorities take that joined-up approach.
Against that background, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking. In particular, do they intend tourism to be understood primarily as part of economic development and regeneration, as local authorities currently treat it, or do they envisage it sitting alongside culture, following the restructuring in the Bill? Given the breadth of the competence framework, will the Government consider issuing non-statutory guidance after enactment, developed with local government and the sector, to clarify how these boundaries are intended to operate in practice?
My amendment does not seek to change the architecture of the Bill; it simply reflects how local government already works on the ground. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing their Amendment 2, adding culture to the list of areas of competence, and say at the outset that I have no intention of taking my own amendment to a vote. The Minister has listened to many of our arguments in Committee and I think this will make a big difference. It is what much of the arts has been asking for. The glass then is considerably more than half full.
However, although I support Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would add “heritage” to the wording, ideally, I would have preferred the wording in my Amendment 4:
“the arts, culture and heritage”.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for that amendment. The word “culture” on its own is nebulous so, as the Local Government Association recommends, to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities can engage with the breadth and diversity of culture in their area, including the arts, heritage and creative industries, non-statutory guidance should be co-produced with the sector and published post-enactment to better define this area of competence. Will the Government produce such guidance and, if so, what will the detail be and are they seeking input into that? The Minister used “arts, heritage and creative industries” as being included in “culture” in the all-Peers letter of 17 March, so what is the basis for that assertion?
It is the subsidised arts sector, alongside cultural services such as museums and libraries, which I most worry about being overlooked. New research by Equity shows that council arts funding in England fell by 61% between 2010 and 2024, so there is a huge amount of ground to be made up. There is the added concern, as the arts professional, Steve Mannix, CEO of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester, pointed out back in January, that:
“As councils merge, a new narrative could take hold: ‘We only need one theatre/museum/gallery in the new area.’ This may be efficient on paper, but it is culturally and economically short-sighted”.
I hope that the Government’s amendment will help to counter that, but ultimately, of course, we need significantly more council funding of the arts.
It also worth pointing out that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, who led the Arts Council England review, said in relation to the Bill on 17 March at a Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting:
“It is a recommendation that”
for councils
“there should be a statutory duty to produce a cultural and art strategy”.
Later in the Bill, we will again discuss local growth plans, and I have retabled my amendment for cultural ecosystem plans. I mention that now only because, if we are talking about guidance for culture as an area of competence, it would also be useful to know what might be in the guidance in relation to the requirement for a strategy or a plan—although of course the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, used the word statutory.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said about tourism. Culture is not tourism. Spending on culture should be spending on the arts, and not on access roads leading to a cultural attraction, for instance.
As in Committee, my Amendments 43 and 47 are designed to provide a commissioner for arts, culture and heritage, but the Minister has rather leapfrogged over us by increasing the number of commissioners from seven to 10. The Minister’s Amendment 46 is in a later group, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what her expectations are for a commissioner for culture for each of the authorities.
I am grateful for the discussions a number of us have had with Culture Commons and for the support of the Local Government Association. In summary, I am very pleased that the Government have made culture an area of competence and look forward to hearing more of the detail.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too am delighted that the Government have decided to bring forward this amendment to include culture as the eighth area of competence within the Bill. I hope that the term culture will encapsulate arts and heritage as well, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has argued. I regard this as a very significant and constructive step, and I too have been very pleased to work closely with colleagues across parties in developing amendments which have helped to bring the issue to the fore.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time and care she has taken to engage with us. I would also like to acknowledge the role played by Trevor MacFarlane and Culture Commons for the support they provided to us and across both Houses.
At Second Reading, I argued that devolution cannot succeed with structures which promote only growth—important though that is. Devolution will succeed only if people feel more connected to the places in which they live, and if they are able to participate and see themselves as part of shared civic and cultural life. On that, in turn, rests the strength of the place’s social and cultural fabric. In a society such as ours, the question is not whether we live together alongside difference; the real question is what holds us together. The answer is culture, which is fundamental. It is a thread which weaves difference into unity. Culture is the quiet architecture which shapes values and relationships.
As this agenda moves into implementation, there will be important questions to address about how local mayors will make this a reality, what guidance will be given, how we maintain the arm’s-length principle at the subregional level and how strategic authorities can add value rather than cut across the work local authorities are already delivering in this policy practice.
I am delighted that this has been included. I will not develop the arguments, but it is important to understand why culture is a social glue in building communities at a local level. Therefore, I commend the Government for bringing this forward.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like others, I commend the Government for their Amendment 2. We had a good debate about this in Committee, with significant support from across your Lordships’ House for the Government to expand the list of strategic competences in this way. As I hope the Minister can hear, we are very glad that she has done so. As she can see from the other amendments tabled in this group, however, there remains enthusiasm for ensuring that we do not just look at culture but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board.
In Committee, the Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competences. Indeed, when one looks down the list, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, the environment and climate change and health and well-being. She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I am very glad that there is further encouragement, because we know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or have taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring.
As I said in Committee, when I had the pleasure of being the Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities—of all parties and at every tier—that were cutting their spending on culture and therefore missing out on savings in their health and well-being budgets, for instance, and missing out on opportunities for economic development. When one sees what is going on in some of the coastal towns around the Kent and Sussex coasts, such as Margate and Eastbourne, and when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north-east coast in towns such as Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts, culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of local authorities, so I am glad that this nudge is being put in. However, I am curious to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen their minimalist description of just “culture”, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in Committee and that other noble Lords have proposed.
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Often, when people think about culture or heritage, they think of it solely as a subsidised sector. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right to talk about the importance of that: this is where the new, the experimental, the avant-garde, and the works that we will come to love in years to come can first be tried. However, most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised, and most of the live music venues that are struggling but surviving in our counties are small businesses. It is important to stress the commercial element of culture and heritage, and the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre do not know whether they are going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre; they are just glad that there is one there that is putting on things that attract people and boost tourism.
While there is enthusiasm for the opportunities presented by the visitor levy that the Government are embracing, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others, there is concern that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than fixing the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we see in some local authorities. If the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed. I commend the Minister for government Amendment 2, and I hope that, even at this late stage, she will look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.
In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.
I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.
However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.
The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.
There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.
In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.
This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very important debate. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, whose expertise in and commitment to this area continue to illuminate our discussions and have brought us to this point of having a new area of competence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; his point that not all local authorities are similar is worth repeating. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who spoke with such clarity on the importance of place-making and culture as an area of competence. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made an excellent point about how culture can help growth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that it already exists in existing local authorities and that we should not forget that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised an important point about the commissioners: their roles and what they are doing really needs to be ironed out so that we have clear oversight of what is happening. Lastly, I thank the Minister warmly for her reply, which I found genuinely helpful and which I know will be welcomed across the House and further afield.
On the broader question of what we mean by culture, I continue to believe that clear and detailed guidance will be essential if the competence is to be exercised with clarity for local leaders and the cultural sector generally. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others have so ably argued, both today and in Committee, there is a meaningful and practical distinction between the arts, cultural services, creative industries, heritage and tourism. Without greater definitional clarity, strategic authorities may struggle to know where their responsibilities begin and end. None the less, I hear what the Minister said on these and other points, and I welcome her commitment to ensuring that the framework is workable in practice. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(h) culture.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add culture to the list of “areas of competence” in the Bill.
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include rural affairs as an area of competence of strategic authorities.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 5 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Bill is extensive, covering many areas of local government, and aims for the improved delivery of services by local and strategic authorities. The areas of competence for strategic authorities covered by the Bill are listed in Clause 2; mindful of the Whip’s instructions at the beginning, I will not list them, but all are extremely important. I propose adding rural affairs to that list.
Over the years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have often promoted the need for rural affairs to take a more prominent place in government thinking. The previous Government brought forward strategies for industry, business, cities, et cetera, but nothing for rural areas. Why do those who live in rural communities get such short shrift? The funding of rural school education is inadequate compared with that received by urban schools. The buses are infrequent, GP surgeries are in larger villages, the pub has closed, the local shop exists on a knife edge, the roads are repaired irregularly, and top dressing appears to be a thing of the past.
Those who live in rural areas are not living a life of luxury in idyllic countryside. Having to travel miles to a supermarket or by bus for a GP or dentist appointment or to get their hair cut can be a real problem for the elderly, the infirm and young families. Many families may not have a car, or perhaps the one car they have is taken by the breadwinner to get to work. A trip to the GP by bus could well take half a day. In areas where there are two buses a day, one going into town in the morning and the other coming back late afternoon, it could take all day.
The relevant local, parish or town council will be aware of the problems of service delivery in isolated areas. Likewise, the district council, when there was one, had brilliant knowledge of the problems of its community. Where the village shop has been threatened, in some cases the community has come together to run it with volunteers. Some pubs have been run by community volunteers on the same basis. Communities themselves know who would welcome a lift to town to keep important appointments. Larger strategic authorities are unlikely to have this knowledge at their fingertips, so they will need a strategy to support rural areas.
Children and young people are particularly disadvantaged by living in rural areas. The school bus picks them up in the morning and drops them off in the afternoon, but there is nothing to take them to a friend’s house three miles away for a chat on a Friday evening. There is no youth club in their hamlet or village where they can relax with those of a similar age. The village bus stop, where there is one, is often the congregation point for young people in the early evenings—they know they will not be disturbed because no bus will stop there. Mum and dad, where they have a car, will often provide the essential transport for young people to meet up with their friends.
Living in a rural area does not mean that you wish to give up your independence. Moving to larger, more strategic local government delivery could be a lifesaver for some communities, but it could also mean that deep rural areas will be overlooked. Population numbers matter when allocating finance. Everyone understands that the limited resources must cover the greatest number of people, but that should not be an excuse to ignore rural deprivation and poverty. I will not go into detail on the complicated issue of rural housing, where larger four- or five-bedroom homes are often built when what is required are smaller starter homes to rent and to buy, as others who have amendments in this group will do this more eloquently than I.
The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the delivery of services via local government on a quite different level. Now is the time for rural areas to have full consideration in the context of housing and strategic planning, health, well-being and public service reform and the other services listed in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences is a must. Rural communities are not a “nice to have” requirement, they are a “must”. This group of amendments is essential for rural communities. I welcome the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to ensure that rural communities are treated on a par with their urban counterparts. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I am sure she understands the strength of support for rural affairs to be recognised on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving the first amendment in this group so eloquently. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52, 61 and 326 in my name, but all the amendments in this group look to put rural areas front and centre.
For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre. I was very proud of the fact that we had a rural-proofing unit within Defra at that time, so it was a source of great disappointment to me that it was disbanded.
The 2021 census defines the rural/urban classification in this way: urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more, and rural areas are literally everywhere else and include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside. Nearly one in five of us lives in a rural area. The challenges facing rural areas are very different from the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We are also off the energy grid and dependent on oil for delivery in most cases. In normal times, it is bad enough, but with the Middle East hostilities at the moment, it is a completely different situation.
Houses are often isolated, and there is a lack of housing, particularly small units of one or two bedrooms. All the developers seem to want to build four- or five-bedroom homes, for which there is not the same need in rural areas. Public services are sparse and cost more to deliver, whether it is accessing GP surgeries, ambulances or hospitals. School buses are a particular contention at the moment after the rural deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this Government.
I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors—they are not suited to rural areas. When we debated the orders on the combined authorities and the metro mayors for North Yorkshire, only the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I spoke against the move. I know there was a feeling of great loss in North Yorkshire when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs which had served North Yorkshire extremely well over generations.
The definition of rural-proofing, according to the Government’s own website, is
“assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable”.
I will preface the amendments in my name with remarks from some of the briefings I have received in preparation for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that at present, many combined authorities are focused on large urban areas, with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure. The Government have said repeatedly that they see cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, the CPRE is concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own SDSs. In a similar vein, the Better Planning Coalition briefing I received states:
“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure … the Government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their workplans”.
The model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, and where policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population. That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas—it simply does not stack up. The needs of the residents of the city of York and of those of North Yorkshire are in direct competition with each other in terms of economic growth, culture, tourism and other areas.
My Amendments 52 and 61 seek to ensure that mayors in rural areas appoint an extra commissioner to have responsibility for rural areas. I am not wild about commissioners in any shape or form—it would be far better if the mayor set the priorities and that those elected to the office should have that focus—but my Amendment 61 looks at appointing
“a commissioner with competence for rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority according to the Rural Urban Classification”,
to which I referred earlier.
For me, the most important of my amendments is Amendment 326, which goes to the heart of rural-proofing and making sure that not just one department—such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—should be responsible for rural-proofing. I would like to see a real pull from the Government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is rural-proofed before it becomes policy. I will explain why it should not just be Defra. I am very exercised at the moment about the powers of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because it is directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly those who live in open countryside, who do not want to have all these clean energy projects that will destroy not just their view but, quite possibly, their way of life and the value of their properties.
Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that, before any regulations are made under the future Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the future Act’s impact on rural areas, including its costs and benefits. Without that amendment, I feel that the Government will be wading into areas where they will be so focused on the issues of those living in urban areas that they will leave behind the interests of those in rural areas—including market towns, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings—who enjoy the open countryside they have at the moment.
I will end with a plea. Local elections are coming up in May, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to be honest about what their plans are for future planning policy. If the Bill really has nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment and will actually take away the rights of those who live in rural areas to object to some of the sites being proposed, particularly because of the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake-up call for those electors in rural areas and a one-off opportunity to reject what this Government are proposing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require
“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.
Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.
Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.
Historically, strategic investment has typically focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire forward investment from the private sector, and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here, as we move forward with this programme of devolution, with rural parts of the country now being covered at strategic level, to ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.
Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.
My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.
With 85% of the country’s land being classified as rural and 17% of the population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition of the value of our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include this duty and, at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in the Bill. It must be clear that the Bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this very important group, having attached my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and Amendment 310, which was just very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
All these amendments constitute a group; I chose these two because we are introducing rural affairs as an area of competence for strategic authorities, giving them a duty to “have regard”, which makes quite a nice package. Interestingly, in the last group the Government conceded the power of the argument for including culture as a key element of the Bill. I really cannot see why they have not done the same thing with rural affairs, having heard the very powerful arguments made in Committee. I live in hope that, having now heard the arguments on Report, the Government will see the sense of including rural affairs in the Bill.
We spoke extensively about this issue in Committee, and we have already heard three powerful arguments today for taking this direction, so I will just add a couple of points. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, put it very well when she talked about young people gathering at the bus stop in the early evening because they know that a bus will not come along and disturb them for 15 or 16 hours—or possibly six days, the way these things work. That really is a measure of deprivation. At the other end of the population age scale, of course, we have a fast-ageing population, many of whom live in rural areas. They may once have had enough money to have access to a car, but that does not mean they are going to be able to use one indefinitely. That is a crucial issue in relation to bus services in rural areas. If you have a metro mayor, it is going to be very hard to get attention paid to that kind of issue.
I want to major, as I did in Committee, on the issue of food growing. Many other things happen in rural areas—people live in rural areas for all sorts of reasons—but our rural areas should be regarded far more centrally as part of the way in which we feed our population. Speaking at the NFU conference in Birmingham recently, Professor Tim Lang, a well-known food expert, reflected that the UK is only 54% self-sufficient in food. Lest someone say, “It’s a crowded island”, the Netherlands is 80% self-sufficient in food. We need to treat our land, our local areas, as places that produce a lot of their own food. Professor Lang said that our model of agri-food capitalism has just relied on the idea that others can feed us, but we all know the state of the world, the state of geopolitics and the state of climate. That is not something we can continue to rely on.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 310 under the welcome leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I declare an interest as a retired participant in a mixed family farming business in Somerset.
In Committee I spoke at length on the very real need for some form of rural-proofing or rural duty, preferably even a rural commissioner, where a strategic or combined authority had any rural communities within its boundaries. I will not repeat what I said then or speak at such length, noble Lords will be glad to hear, but things are very different in rural England compared with urban England. The needs are different and the solutions to those needs are different. Without some form of rural thinking at the seat of power, rural communities will inevitably lose out if they are poor and need special attention or, at the other end of the scale, if they are enterprising and need help to fulfil their potential.
Rural communities have lost out for decades from not having any clout, rural-proofing or consideration at the various seats of power. We touched on these issues in Committee; some have been raised already in this debate. First, houses are more expensive and wages are lower. In many rural communities there are no houses to rent or buy unless you are very rich. It is a serious rural problem.
Secondly, on transport, how do you get your children to the doctor, to local football training or to the local HE college without an extra car in your family? The answer is that you cannot. Local political administrative thinking needs to take this into account.
Thirdly, on energy, most rural houses have poor insulation and very rarely is mains gas available, so you have to have more costly forms of heating—oil, electricity or bottled gas. The Government have recognised this in recent days, and we are very grateful for that.
Fourthly—this is the most convincing one—there is higher council tax. Central government support for rural local authorities, despite delivery of services being more expensive in rural areas—is 40% less per head compared with the towns, which is why rural council tax is on average 20% higher per head than in urban areas and is about to get worse. This is caused by the fact that there has never been a proper rural voice in central government, which supports the point we are making.
These are some of the shortcomings that rural dwellers have to suffer, but there are also missed opportunities. For instance, in delivering training for entrepreneurs, how do you reach out to the various different businesses that exist many miles distant from each other? How do you set about pumping new life into the various market towns in your area? It is amazing what can be done in this respect by, for example, finding a business theme that can inspire visitors and customers. For instance, there are food festivals at Padstow, which is near me in Cornwall, and at Bridport in Dorset; there are culture festivals, such as those at Hay-on-Wye, Broad Chalke or Cheltenham; or those on art, as at St Ives, again in Cornwall. But there could be garden attractions, nature tours, beer festivals or a major town attraction to attract footfall in its various forms.
I remember visiting, a few years ago now, a small town in central France that had a massive sports centre with a swimming pool, ice rink, gymnasium and climbing walls—note the plural. As a result, every day the town and shops were humming with families who had come from far and wide. The possibilities are endless, but you need a rural focus to help kick-start them and provide some pump-priming funding. In essence, this issue has at its heart both deprivation and need, as well as opportunity and possibilities. It should not be ignored.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that the Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. What we are trying to do here is to empower rural communities. I would be appalled if we missed this opportunity to empower our rural communities, when it is such an easy change to make.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 310 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, while also supporting all the other amendments in this group. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Town and Country Planning Association, and as an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Amendment 310 would create a duty for strategic authorities to consider the needs of rural communities. It specifically covers land use, development of land and regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. Several noble Lords have made the point that there are quite different considerations for these functions when addressing rural needs as opposed to those of urban communities. For example, on housing, many rural areas will see competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, from rightsizing retirees and, in many places, from second-home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet, on average, social housing accounts for just 11% of homes in rural locations, compared with 17% in the country as a whole. Younger people brought up in the locality, including those badly needed for public and private sector jobs, are forced to move away to find somewhere affordable.
On land use, there will be severe constraints on rural areas including green belts, areas of outstanding natural beauty—now known as national landscapes—and local constraints. But urban-rural differences apply to opportunities as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. For example, rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere, and there are opportunities to work with major landowners.
In many respects, there are substantial differences that require different policies and actions for rural communities, yet these communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority, and pressing priorities from the majority urban areas may drown out the rural voice. A duty to take on board the needs of rural communities would counter this imbalance.
Of course, the mayor or the combined authority could take a far-sighted approach to embracing the rural agenda for their area without any legislative prompting, but this is by no means guaranteed. The amendment provides the safety net that would make sure that rural issues are not neglected in places where towns and cities dominate. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support all these amendments, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The tiny village where I have a house, 10 miles from Exeter, is not just a rural community but a farming community. For years, Exeter City Council has wanted to take over the area; those of us living in this tiny village and the other villages round about it know perfectly well that there is not a single person in the city council who has the slightest knowledge of anything to do with rural affairs. It is very important that the Government pick up and take on the fact that rural affairs need to be separately considered.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I regret not having taken part in Committee. If you come to the arguments on Report quite fresh, they have a curiously powerful impact. This afternoon, we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments on rural needs and ambitions that have been very powerful. We do not have planning and development Bills that often, and I know my noble friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of the Bill, but I do think that a Bill that claims to speak for the whole of development, in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK, and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country.
We have had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, rural priority and rural needs as long as I have been in this House, for 25 years. The same arguments have been made by many of the same noble Lords and have grown in urgency rather than diminished. The loss of the unit for rural-proofing was very seriously misjudged.
If the Minister could give some further thought to Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend, it would be incredibly welcome. It is reasonable, proportionate and comprehensive in what it would achieve, to flag up the seriousness with which the Government take the contribution of rural areas to growth, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak about this based on my experience and the report I helped author for the Co-op commission on rural poverty some four years ago. What was clear to us then was the growing disparity between our towns and villages and our cities. The disparity manifested itself in the flight of public services: principally transport, but other services too. Unless we get the balance right with the creation of the new strategic authorities, villages and small towns will feel very much left behind, and that is not right or just. I know that that is not the Government’s intention. Amendment 310 goes a long way to trying to ensure that we get that balance in the right place.
Combined mayoral authorities are, by and large, a very good thing, but applying them to rural areas is difficult. In creating these new combined mayoral authorities, we have to ensure that a balance is sought between town and country. Otherwise, the smaller communities will feel left behind, left out and disadvantaged. We have to take measures to adjust and remedy that disconnection. Otherwise, I fear that the flight of public services and professional services in rural communities will continue apace. As I said earlier, that is not right or just, and it undermines the need in those communities for, in particular, new housing and new services related to housing.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have found this a very important discussion. I am in favour of all the amendments: they all seem to me to have merit. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who said that things are very different in rural England—for they are. He talked about empowering rural communities; that is absolutely right. I also found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, very helpful indeed. It is very important, as in Amendment 326, to rural-proof what happens in public spending. The difficulty is that, when you rural-proof after the event by reporting on it, the damage may have been done. You need to make sure that, as decisions are being made, rural areas have been proofed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I did not know that I had to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward important amendments in this group and for the debate highlighting clearly the different challenges faced by rural areas compared with neighbouring urban areas. I very well remember my social life at a bus stop in a rural village in Essex, and that was 65 years ago, so it is interesting that social life in villages is still at or by the bus stop.
I will start with Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The current areas of competence outlined in the Bill broadly cover the responsibilities of public officeholders. While we previously expressed concerns that rural affairs should not be considered in isolation, since Committee stage the Government have announced changes to ensure that a commissioner’s work can relate to one or more aspects of an area of competence, to tackle these cross-cutting issues. Therefore, we support this amendment to include rural affairs.
As it stands, the Bill fails to highlight the specific attention that rural affairs deserve. While it does indeed cover the environment and climate change, this is a more macro—and, I dare say, politicised—area of policy. Rural affairs are far more localised and are often the basis around which local economies function. They should therefore get specific consideration and be part of the responsibilities of these new authorities.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendments. We entirely understand the desire to mandate the appointment of a commissioner to oversee rural affairs, and we support that sentiment, but we are hesitant to specifically legislate that mayors must do so. In the debate on group 9, we will highlight that we are rather sceptical of the proliferation of these commissioners in the Bill. These commissioners are unelected and often bureaucratic; we do not want them to absolve mayors of the responsibility that they were elected to hold. We have already outlined our support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which would add rural affairs to their areas, meaning that mayors would already be required to oversee rural affairs. I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendments none the less, and we will wholly support the principle behind them.
I believe that the same argument can be made for Amendment 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. If rural affairs is to be included in the responsibilities of strategic authorities, then, by definition, they will have the duty to consider the needs of rural communities.
We believe that accepting Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, would be the easiest way to achieve the end that everyone in this debate seems to be after: that rural communities’ needs are acknowledged and catered for.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and her explanation as to why rurality is not in this Bill at all. Mayoralties are moving much closer to the more rural areas of this country and away from our cities and our more urban areas. It therefore seems sensible that rurality should at this point be taken into account. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, decides to divide on this issue, we on these Benches will support her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.
Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.
On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,
“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,
and
“the environment and climate change”.
Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.
I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.
However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.
The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.
Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.
I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.
I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.
I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley
“Devolution of powers within strategic authority areas(1) A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds.(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(3) Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(4) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3) (a “Community Empowerment Plan”).(5) A Community Empowerment Plan must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities within its area will consult local communities on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies.(6) A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published. (7) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in circumstances where the strategic authority considers there to have been a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.(9) Regulations made under subsection (8) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for co-signing this amendment, which covers a fundamental issue. It would simply allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.
This Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Devolution should be at the heart of the Bill. What we actually have is decentralisation to mayors from Whitehall, but there is to be no decentralisation or devolution of power from mayors to lower levels. If this is a serious devolution Bill, it should devolve powers and responsibilities to the lowest level possible. It is very difficult to see where the community empowerment that the Government talk about actually is.
Some things in the Bill are relevant but, for the main, there is no money for councillors elected in existing local authorities to deliver the community empowerment that the Bill sets out. This is crucial, because we now face centralisation around the mayoral structure. The set of competences that we have been talking about will suck power out of existing local authorities, whereas I want to see people empowered in their neighbourhoods to take greater responsibility for what happens in those neighbourhoods. By that I mean that we need to enhance town and parish councillors, who are currently missing from the Bill.
So, this Bill is about decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. I want it to go further and to be about devolving powers from mayors to local authorities and then from existing local authorities to lower levels: the town and the parish council structure. My amendment simply says this: I am trying to prevent upwards mission creep. I want a strategic authority to
“devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”,
through an annual review system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, having attached my name to this crucial amendment. I declare my position as vice president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils.
What we are trying to do here is to save the Government from themselves, because without this amendment, this Bill risks being entirely referrable to the Advertising Standards Authority for false advertising. This is supposed to be the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but instead it concentrates power and does nothing about empowering communities, so this is the essential amendment.
We know how much parish and town councils are embedded in and are part of their communities. We are taking away that district council layer and putting all the power in the hands of one person. It is no secret that we in the Green Party do not believe in elected mayors, but even if you do believe in them, just think about that concentration of power. Should we not also refer power outwards?
There are two crucial parts of the amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) states:
“Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must … consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level … and … where it considers that to be the case … enable such devolution”.
Proposed new subsection (5) states that local authorities must have a community empowerment plan to work out how to empower their communities. These are absolutely basic provisions.
I guess I apologise to noble Lords for bringing up the Brexit referendum, but last week I was with a group of young university students. Ten years ago, they were, of course, quite small children, and it was really refreshing and telling that they were asking me what had actually happened: “How did Britain get itself into this mess? Why are we in this situation?” One answer I gave them was that “Take back control” was a very powerful slogan which lots of people felt really spoke to them. We now know that, now we have left the European Union, people do not feel any more in control. If we do not make this Bill provide some sense of taking back control in England, that enormous problem of lack of trust in politics will only increase.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, democracy starts with local engagement. As the saying goes, all politics is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community.
We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire; place is your local community. What this Bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should perhaps be somewhere between 1.5 million and 4 million people. There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and Iceland, with populations below that, and Luxembourg is not that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we are talking about Denmark, Estonia and Latvia: states that seem not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them—and they work.
I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the winter Olympics the other week, at which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present. They have several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe, and what this legislation is intended to reduce as far as possible. Local politics is essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds: things that, ideally, are not left with strategic authorities and mayors, who would be roughly equivalent to the President of Finland—to whom I was listening the other day—in terms of the number of people they are responsible for. Let us be realistic about that and recognise that, unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level, with elected representatives who know those who voted for them and who are known by those who voted for them, we will lose an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party—and, I hope, everyone else here—is committed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I too declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing back this amendment. In Committee, we discussed how much of this Bill, despite its title, centralises rather than devolves. This amendment would enable a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a more local level. As other noble Lords have pointed out, strategic authorities cover large geographical areas, whereas parish and town councils have long been promoted in this House as vehicles for genuine localism and community empowerment. It is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have our own amendments to support the role of town and parish councils.
We support devolution. However, this amendment is not simply an amendment to devolve community empowerment. That is the first subsection in the amendment. There are further eight subsections, and we have some reservations on the details and complexities in these additional subsections. Delegating competencies or functions must be accompanied by clear assessments of capacity, resource and capability. It must avoid additional bureaucracy, and duties imposed must be practical in their implementation. That said, I thank the noble Lord for his efforts and for the spirit of this amendment, which we agree with. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to how powers can be genuinely devolved to local levels to support town and parish councils, and how local authorities can be enabled to exercise them effectively.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 6 on further devolution of powers. As your Lordships will know, one of the core aims of the Bill is to create a standardised devolution framework, with a consistent and coherent set of functions held by strategic authorities and their mayors. This amendment would risk undermining that objective. It would lead to functions being devolved in some places and not in others, making it harder for local residents to know who is in charge and what they are accountable for.
The noble Lord and others argued in previous debates that power should be devolved to the authorities best able to carry out that work. The Government agreed with that principle and are therefore conferring powers and functions through the Bill that are best exercised by strategic authorities operating across wider geographies: for example, strategic transport and spatial planning matters. I understand that part of the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling this amendment is a concern that there will be a transfer of powers away from lower-tier authorities to higher ones. It is not the intention of the Bill to strip powers from communities and councils and give them instead to strategic authorities. Indeed, the Bill provides new powers for communities, such as the new community right to buy.
There was a lot of talk about parish and town councils and I think everybody in this Room appreciates the work that local parish and town councils do, but this amendment would essentially force a new level of bureaucracy on local authorities. In Derbyshire, for example, there are 204 parish and town councils and a further 199 in Nottinghamshire. That would mean that the East Midlands combined county authority and its mayor would be engaging with over 400 councils. Were such an approach taken, it would place a considerable cost of consultation on an authority, as well as potentially crowding out time for other core strategic responsibilities. I think we need a plan that fits the bill for each of the local authorities concerned, not one kind of framework that apparently suits everyone.
We need to take into consideration that there are 10,000 parish councils in England, with more than 100,000 local councillors. The sector varies hugely in size, from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings, which I know a lot about from when I represented Sedgefield. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections 21% of seats were left vacant. Where we can engage with parish councils, we should do so. If we cannot, because of competence issues or a lack of councillors, we should look at other ways of doing it. That is exactly what this Bill will do. The new neighbourhood governance duty will bring decision-making closer to residents and aims to ensure that people across the country, no matter where they are based, have the opportunity to influence the decisions that mean most to them in their local areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for pointing out that issue. I am glad that she did. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I have concluded that the Government have no plan to empower local communities in the way that the Bill suggests: it talks about devolution and community empowerment, but I see little prospect of real community empowerment.
The Government need a plan to prevent the upward drift of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, talked about lots of parish and town council seats not being contested, but that is because they do not have decent enough powers to make it worthwhile for people to stand. People do not stand because they do not see what they would do. The Government have to be convinced that devolving power to communities can make for better governance in England. That is where I am. I am grateful for the Conservative Party supporting the spirit of the amendment, which I think means it will be abstaining on this—or perhaps voting against, but I think abstaining. I wish to test the opinion of the House because this issue is central to an English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, without it, will be neither of those things.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out Clause 4 on the basis that the establishment of (and changes to) combined authorities and CCA should be based on local consent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group, on the establishment of combined authorities and combined county authorities, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.
Our concern is about the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. As drafted, Schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to create or make certain changes to the governance, boundaries or composition of authorities, without necessarily obtaining the explicit consent of the councils involved. This is entirely contrary to the principle of community empowerment. It is a top-down reorganisation directed by the centre. We firmly believe that changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities must be based on local consent. Reflecting that principle, Amendments 7 and 38 would entirely remove Clause 4 and Schedule 1 respectively.
Other amendments in this group, Amendments 9 to 24, 28, 29 and 35, are consequential to Amendment 8, but they all rest on the same fundamental principle: that changes should be made with the consent of the local authorities involved, not imposed from above by the Secretary of State. Are not local empowerment and consent the very essence of devolution?
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant authorities have consented “in principle” —but that is not enough. How can local democracy be meaningful if changes can be imposed without explicit consent? Should locally elected councillors merely rubber-stamp decisions made in Whitehall? I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of a situation in which authorities have not consented explicitly, but the Secretary of State could argue that they have consented “in principle” to justify top-down changes?
These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they go to the heart of the balance of power between local government and central government. Obtaining the consent of the relevant authorities is not an inconvenient administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Changes to local government should reflect the wishes of those they are intended to serve. If anything, the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill raises questions about the Government’s true intentions. Is the Bill truly about empowering local communities, tailored to their geographic, historic and cultural identities? Alternatively, will it force locally elected representatives to conform to managerial directives from the centre? Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments address the specific drafting of Schedule 1, and I am minded to test the opinion of the House on them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am not at all sure that the Government understand that decentralisation and devolution are fundamentally different things. What we have here is a Bill for continued central control of the governance of England, subject to allowing mayors rather more powers. I therefore strongly support these amendments from these Benches, while saying that the practice of the last Conservative Government was rather different from the principles we have heard enunciated today.
I recall vividly that all but one of the councils in the great county of Yorkshire asked, when negotiating with the Government for restructure, for a whole of Yorkshire authority with other authorities underneath it, and it was made clear that it would be conditional on acceptance of a four-mayor structure for Yorkshire. If we were to get the money that the Government were offering, we would have to accept what the Government insisted on having. That is a good example of Conservative decentralisation, and now we have Labour decentralisation.
I am my party’s Cabinet Office spokesman; I am concerned with constitutional issues. In the majority of democratic states, the structure of local and regional, as well as national, government is a constitutional issue. In England, it is dealt with as a matter of convenience. Successive Governments talk a certain amount about how to get civil servants out of London, but the extent to which what local government does is controlled and funded in detail by Whitehall departments means that of course the majority of civil servants have to stay in London because that is where the power is and the decisions are taken.
This is a very flawed Bill. We are doing our best to limit its many problems. This amendment will perhaps limit the damage a little and allow local and regional areas to have some continuing say in how the governance of England should be maintained.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, not only on these Benches, the Bill is titled the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but it seems that it does the exact opposite. I strongly support my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson’s amendments in this group.
Amalgamation of councils or the establishment of new combined authorities should definitely not be allowed without local consent. Consent is necessary to ensure that the proposed restructuring reflects the views and needs of the local community. Without local consent, the transfer of contracts and services may not be efficiently handled, and there is a large risk that service continuity will not be maintained. Of course, that will lead to increased public discontent with the changes. Already the public are not happy at the rushed changes being proposed, not only to local government but because the changes themselves are unpopular and probably mostly bad. However, in addition to that, to try to install, from above, elected mayors for every local authority in the land at the same time is very risky and damaging.
Where new combined authorities are to be created, particularly those being directed by the Secretary of State, it is very important that the new structure preserves local identity and sense of place, which is so important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has often acknowledged during the debates on the Bill. It is also very important to obtain consent from councils because without consent, it is unlikely that adequate discussions will have been held between either councillors or staff, and there is unlikely to be a common understanding of which roles will be affected by the reorganisation.
For these and other reasons already well put forward by my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I support all the amendments in this group and will certainly support my noble friend if she should divide the House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will just say very briefly: what a load of hypocrisy from the other side of the House. I was a member of Cumbria County Council from 2013 onwards. In 2021, a Conservative Minister took a decision to ignore our wishes and create two unitary councils in Cumbria instead of what would have been the most sensible solution: a single unitary council. I hope that when my noble friend on the Front Bench responds, she will agree with me that the Government are not proposing what previous Conservative Ministers did.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who I have great respect for, that I see the Bill as a foundation on which further devolution can be built. If you mess around with it, you will prevent the whole thing going ahead.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.
The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.
Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.
Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.
Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support, and to the Minister for her reply.
I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister’s response. I return to the principle that underpins this group of amendments. Any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment 8 and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship and genuine partnership between local and central government.
The question is simple: should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? We stand firmly on the side of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments and would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment opposes paragraph 11 on the grounds that no local consent is needed.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the proposal for the new combined authority, in circumstances where it is directed by the Secretary of State rather than by the communities it is intended to serve.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the proposal for the creation or expansion of a combined authority where the Secretary of State directs the inclusion of existing areas, rather than the communities it is intended to serve.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments 75 and 106 correct references to combined county authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined authorities. Likewise, Amendments 25, 26, 27, 32 and 37 correct references to combined authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined county authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined, they are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and combined county authorities to ensure consistency across the Bill. We recognise the need for that consistency.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I commend these amendments to the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Lord Teverson
“(2A) The local authority of the local government area does not have any specific responsibility for and stewardship of the rights of its population under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent an area from being added to another combined authority, if that authority for that area has responsibilities relating to a protected national minority and language. It is intended that this provision would apply to Cornwall.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 31, I shall speak to my Amendments 33 and 34. I am very privileged to have a group all to myself. These amendments aim to safeguard Cornwall’s distinct constitutional and cultural position within the Government’s devolution framework. I thank the Minister and her team for the time they gave to talk through these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Hutton and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for adding their names to the amendments. I also thank the Public Bill Office for its efforts in crafting these amendments.
I must explain to the House that, although these amendments are on Cornwall, they do not actually mention that name. The reason is that, if these amendments were agreed, I am assured that they would hybridise the Bill—although London does not seem to have the same problem, as is so often the case in our affairs. That is why the amendments refer to certain European conventions, which I will come to later. Needless to say, in effect, these amendments refer specifically to Cornwall.
I will not take up a huge amount of the House’s time, but I remind Members that Cornwall is not traditionally part of England: it has its own language and its own Celtic culture and, indeed, used to have its own Stannary Parliament. Although it does not allow those traditions to get in the way of its future, there is still a huge pride in Cornwall’s own culture and history, among not just those who were born there and have a long pedigree of being Cornish but the many people who come into Cornwall to have it as their home and workplace. They too treasure the distinction that comes with that history.
I wish to make this point quite strongly: Cornwall is not isolationist. These amendments attempt to prevent moving towards a mayoral system, which has not been received well in Cornwall generally, and to ensure that it is not part of a wider authority; the Isles of Scilly could perhaps be an exception to that, but I am not here to speak on their behalf. We do not want to take on the Government’s devolution agenda.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.
There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.
We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.
This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.
As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that
“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.
Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.
Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her excellent comments. This is the first time I have put down an amendment that has been rejected by the Government partly because it gets in the way of international treaties or something like that. I mark that up as a first, and I am sure Cornwall will be delighted to hear that news.
I take the point that discussions are continuing, and I stress again that this is not Cornwall isolationism. We are there to work with our friends in Devon on the other side of the Tamar and further up in the south-west as well. In the meantime, because even I must admit that the amendments are so highfalutin in terms of avoiding hybridisation, I will not press them, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment opposes the requirement that decisions of a Combined County Authority have the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a majority of members.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. These amendments address a fundamental question at the heart of this Bill: whether decisions of a combined county authority should depend on the agreement of the mayor or instead be determined by a majority of its members. At its core, this is a question of democratic balance. Combined authorities are designed as collective institutions bringing together elected councillors to reflect the diverse voices and experiences of the communities they serve. That purpose is fundamentally compromised if the will of the majority can be overridden by an individual. Requiring the mayor’s agreement is not a minor procedural step; it is a significant concentration of power that cuts against the grain of local democratic tradition.
In Committee, noble Lords raised serious concerns that granting the mayor what amounts to a veto could sideline the will of the majority and move us towards a more presidential model of governance. That concern is not merely theoretical. One can readily imagine a situation in which the majority of councillors support a vital transport or investment decision only for it to be blocked because it does not command the mayor’s agreement. In such circumstances, can it truly be said that the outcome reflects the democratic will of the area as a whole? If the majority view can be set aside so easily, what meaningful role remains for the collective body?
I recognise the argument made by those who support these provisions. Directly elected mayors bring visibility, leadership and a clear mandate, but strong leadership should not come at the expense of collective accountability. What is the value of a majority decision if it can be overridden by a single officeholder? Does such a system strengthen democratic legitimacy or does it in fact weaken it by concentrating power into too few hands?
These amendments seek to restore the balance for three reasons. First, they uphold the principle of collective decision-making. The authority should act as a body reflecting the range of communities it represents, not as a forum in which the majority view can be set aside by a single voice. If we accept that councillors are elected to represent their communities, on what basis do we justify diminishing their collective authority? Secondly, they reinforce democratic accountability. Councillors, like mayors, are elected representatives, answerable to their constituents. Where decisions are taken collectively by the majority, responsibility is clear. Where agreement of the mayor is required, accountability becomes blurred. In such cases, who is ultimately responsible for the outcome? Is it the mayor or the authority as a whole? Thirdly, they support effective and practical governance. Combined authorities must take timely decisions on transport, economic development, public services and many other things. A system that enables one individual to block decisions supported by the majority creates a clear risk of delay, deadlock and politicisation, particularly where political control is divided.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.
Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.
I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.
Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?
Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.
In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?
In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.
We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.
These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.
The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.
The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.
The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.
I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.
Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.
We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.
Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.
We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.
We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that
“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]
In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 307 would require every local planning authority and every strategic authority, separately or jointly, to appoint a qualified and experienced person to act as chief planner, as a number have done already. This amendment has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has been steadfast in his commitment to this reform, which he has maintained would accelerate housing delivery and growth. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who in Committee stressed the value of a high level of professional planning input for mayors and strategic authorities.
The proposal for a chief planner has been gathering momentum from the time of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It has been promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute with support from the Better Planning Coalition, which represents some 40 organisations in this sector. Just last week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment recommended this approach to drive the professionalism and responsibility in decision-making that is required to unlock planning delays and command the level of respect needed when negotiating and liaising with senior local authority members.
The relationship between council members and their officers is changing. The Government’s policy for deregulation of planning decision-making means that decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by planning officers alone will be determined by the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This procedure underlines the need for a senior figure to be identified with the status to assume this responsibility. It has also been suggested that the chief planner might have a formal role in ongoing training for council members with planning duties, a role that requires a person of seniority who commands respect.
Having a named chief planner who is fully qualified and experienced with the corresponding status attaching to the role provides, in the words of the chief planner for Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority, the strategic direction and strong professional leadership that a planning authority needs. It creates a clear and trusted voice for our communities, our elected members and our developers. She concluded:
“Making this role statutory would strengthen our profession and inspire the next generation to aspire to be chief planners themselves”.
Meanwhile, the experience of taking this approach in Scotland has demonstrated its value there, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. It is worth noting that the amendment would enable authorities to choose to share a chief planner with one or more other authorities, if they so wish.
Here is a chance to help reverse the decline in the position of planning, raise morale and support the profession without costs to the Government. Planning departments have been starved of resources over recent decades, yet planning is set to be hugely important in the work of new mayoral and other strategic authorities. The RTPI’s latest survey of the state of the profession lists the recruitment and retention challenges. Local planning departments are short of up to a third of their staff. Two-thirds of them are using agency staff to fill gaps. Shortages of suitably qualified people mean delays that undermine new development and less proactive engagement before and during a planning application, leading to worse outcomes. The profession needs boosting, bolstering, encouraging and promoting, as well as very welcome additional government funding. This means changing perceptions and enhancing the status of a vital profession. Appointment of the key officer as chief planner would do much to achieve this.
In Committee the Minister said she would continue to keep this matter under review but would want
“to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 593.]
I hope that she has now been able to satisfy herself that this is a worthwhile initiative and that she is able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 186, which would allow a separate cultural ecosystem plan to be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan. I was very heartened by the support for this amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He said this amendment
“really matters … because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what”.
Furthermore, he drew attention to
“the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 619.]
I could not have put it better myself.
Our cultural assets are an ecosystem that crosses boundaries as well as being hugely important at the local level, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasises. We talked at some length about culture on the first group today, but I ask the Minister once again whether cultural ecosystem plans might be considered for the guidelines at the very least.
I have also put my name to Amendments 124, 127 and 246 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which she fully explained. Her agent of change amendment is hugely important. I will not repeat the arguments I gave in Committee except to say that the Music Venue Trust points out the significant difference between how the system works in England, where it is non-statutory and unsatisfactory, and in Scotland, where there is a statutory requirement and it works well. If the noble Baroness wishes to take this to a vote when the time comes, I will certainly support her in the Lobby.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I remind the House that I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I provide advice to the Norfolk and Suffolk, Thames Valley and greater Cheshire development forums as well. I apologise to the House in advance, as I know that I cannot be here for days two and three on Report, which is one reason why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for leading the amendment relating to the statutory position of a chief planner.
In the spirit of the Whips’ rendition of the Companion, I will not repeat either the points so splendidly made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, or the speeches I made in Committee and on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I know that his amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my own Front Bench, appears to have a great deal of support not only in the country but in the House. I hope that when the time comes, if that is on day three, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House to show that support. We have not previously imposed that provision on the Government but, if necessary, the House should impose it in this Bill.
I also thank warmly my noble friend on the Front Bench for speaking to Amendments 122, 123, 125 and 126. As he said, they are all about making the local growth plan consistent with the spatial development strategy. I will not go through that in some detail, but we have now seen the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework. While it says, for example, that the spatial development strategy should give spatial expression to the strategic elements of the local growth plan, that plan, as set out in the Bill, does not make it clear that it should identify which employment, commercial, industrial and logistical projects are integral to the growth projections for a strategic authority area. It needs to do that so that those strategic elements will necessarily be reflected into the spatial development strategy; exactly the same is true for infrastructure as well. That is why those two additions to the content of the local growth plan are so important in being reflected into what then, in due course, should be incorporated in the spatial development strategy, which is already legislated for.
I finish merely by saying to the Minister that I hope she and her colleagues will look carefully at the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework, in so far as it relates to the spatial development strategies. It should say more by way of the content of a spatial development strategy, along the lines of what we have already discussed. Many noble Lords will recall that we debated at length whether the spatial development strategy and the Planning and Infrastructure Act should deal with both the amount and distribution of housing and, specifically, the amount and distribution of affordable housing, but the National Planning Policy Framework does not refer to the latter.
It is really important that the NPPF, to which the equivalent of statutory weight is to be given in planning policy decisions, should reflect the statutory requirements mandated in legislation by this House. I very much support my noble friend’s amendments, which would have that effect.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 124 and 127 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and Amendment 246, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to all of which I have added my name. A common thread runs through all four.
Culture, as we have heard, does not function in isolation. It depends on an ecosystem of different venues and activities that sustain one another. Amendments 124 and 127 would ensure that cultural considerations are genuinely embedded in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 186 asks authorities to consider the cultural sector as an interconnected whole, rather than a collection of separate parts.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Briefly, my Lords, this has been another important group of amendments. The response by the Minister will be important, because a lot of very good and important issues have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for remembering what I said in Committee. Like him, I have concluded that I was right on that occasion, but I will not repeat it now.
I want to say something about Amendment 307, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, because I have signed it. This really matters: if you are devolving power over planning, including infrastructure planning, if you are serious about driving growth and want to improve local infrastructure, and if you want good-quality key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer. This is not new. I have raised this matter on several Bills in recent years and still think it needs to be done, because it is about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it is also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said. He is absolutely right: it needs to be a statutory role. This is not a complex issue. The Government should just do it, and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success—and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, who recommends the right answers to politicians. With that, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to agree Amendment 307, at the very least.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for amendments relating to planning, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125 and 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved or spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published, and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan.
We set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should give
“spatial expression to strategic elements of Local Growth Plans”,
as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Further, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth. We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. I hope the noble Lord contributed to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made.
I turn to Amendments 124, 127 and 186. As I have set out, the Government want arts and culture to thrive across the country. That is why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities. It is also why we have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector.
As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asks mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth. It must be up to local areas, working with relevant stakeholders, to determine which projects fit this requirement. That is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. The additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already under way in many places.
I turn to Amendment 120. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities, rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work.
The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments that may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further. The consultation on a new framework, which closed on 10 March, proposed that
“Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards”
introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.
The consultation also included a proposed plan-making policy expecting early engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity constraints and any additional infrastructure requirements, with particular regard to the impacts of planned growth and relevant infrastructure plans. We have recently laid regulations for the new plan-making system. These regulations prescribe water and sewerage companies under the new requirement to assist. They will be obliged to assist with plan-making where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary, given the actions I have set out.
I turn to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us again; it is an important issue. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities and the sector to understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act works in practice and to get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.
As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding which applications should go to planning committees. We hope to publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance shortly. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring.
Turning to Amendment 246, I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business. However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme-specific, requiring case-by-case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.
Moreover, the new planning policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider that a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.
Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises that different areas face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach. A full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.
Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level and frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across the planning and licensing systems.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.
Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.
Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.
Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.
The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and valuable debate where noble Lords have sought to improve the system. I thank noble Lords who have made contributions to the debate and am grateful for the apparent support from across the House for many of these amendments.
However, while I thank the Minister for her comments, I am somewhat disappointed that she was unable to make any commitments on the co-ordination between spatial strategies and local growth plans, and on neighbourhood priorities statements—all of which would be very valuable. Similarly, it is disappointing that there were limited commitments on sustainable drainage, fire and rescue consultees, agent of change, cultural infrastructure, and the potential benefits of appointing statutory planners. Noble Lords made a compelling case for many of these. Indeed, this House has shown its expertise and unique value to the legislative process. These are practical proposals, and I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a CCA may appoint from 7 to 10.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by thanking noble Lords for their rigorous and detailed representations on the mayoral commissioners model that the Bill introduces. I think it is fair to say that there is a plurality of views on this important area, evidenced by the substance of the amendments tabled and the hours of considered debate in both Houses. The government amendments that I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring that we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny—issues that have been raised repeatedly in this House.
I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government Amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from seven to 10. Secondly, government Amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64 allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Thirdly, government Amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than only the area as a whole. Fourthly, government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that a commissioner must not carry out work in cases where a mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government Amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.
These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence, and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and local infrastructure area of competence, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I emphasise that the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners recognises that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand. It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know that mayors want high-calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. Therefore, to bring in people with a track record of success, these appointments should be on merit.
While combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners, that does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.
To be clear, no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined authorities and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine that a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes. Part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority’s board.
Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government Amendment 42, and I commend government Amendments 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65. I reserve my right to speak later in response to other noble Lords’ amendments.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, this is going to be the shortest speech I have ever made in the Chamber, but it is really meant. I thank the Government and the Minister for the three amendments that I moved at an earlier stage, which are now tabled as government Amendments 42, 46, 51 and 62. These make three excellent changes that will very much assist the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. Again, I thank the Minister very much for her and the department’s assistance with these three very good amendments—I think that is now probably the unanimous view—that will add to the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I can see that this is a very important group. We have moved on, and I am happy for us to have moved on. So, while in Committee I said that I wanted to see the abolition of the principle of unelected commissioners—it is the unelected bit that has really bothered me—they will not have powers to vote or make decisions. You can therefore make the case for the expertise that is required—certainly in some of the areas of competence that the Government are proposing. We can debate whether there should be five, seven, 10, or some other number, but I would devolve it and let people make their own decisions at a more local level.
I got concerned last week as I began thinking about the Government’s changes to overview and scrutiny. I welcome them very much: a lot of progress is being made. The question for me was: who appoints a commissioner, and to what test and what level? If a mayor can appoint a commissioner, what criteria are used for that appointment? I thought that the overview and scrutiny committee could be used, before somebody was appointed, to assess whether the person being appointed would be satisfactory in the role. I have come to the conclusion that Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is a better amendment.
We need an appointments process that is public: a fair and open selection process where the criteria and the process are publicly understood, as are levels of remuneration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, have said, this will be in order to ensure transparency and accountability. This really matters: the public will not have confidence in some of these appointments if they think that someone has been appointed without the right qualifications or experience to undertake the job. When you give power that is too great to an individual—a mayor—there is a danger that, in some places, at some times and on some occasions, that could happen, and we do not want it to. I want the Bill to succeed; we are in favour of driving the devolution agenda.
I am not planning to move Amendments 48, 66, 57 and 58 in this group, but I hope very much that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, decides to press Amendment 45, she will have our support.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and I again join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his criticism of Clause 9. Again, I ask the Minister: do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? To make matters worse, they now propose to increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10—why? What possible reason could the Government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more?
In Committee, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles, and we have not had a satisfactory answer. This is a perfect example of how, if you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this does not happen, because it is all paid for by the taxpayer and we need to ensure value for money. That is why I, along with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, tabled my Amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners who can be appointed from seven to five. Reducing the costs of local government to taxpayers should be a priority. Amendment 45 would require the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials are transparent. The Local Government Association has expressed concern about the role of commissioners and wants assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I am doubtful that the Government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability, so, when Amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said earlier, I recognise that this is an important issue, and we want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering those places and communities that are personal to all of us.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to reduce the number of commissioners a mayor can appoint to a maximum of five. I remind noble Lords that ensuring that mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of a mayor’s toolbox. Reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits the flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean that a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to. We have had much discussion, both in the Chamber today and during Committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competence, including rural and cultural areas. We do not want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lack the support they need.
I must reiterate that these are optional appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently, based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes.
To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why council leaders cannot do this work, commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts, which means that they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, such as canvassing on behalf of a political party. It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(1A) Appointments under this section must be made following a fair and open selection process.(1B) The mayor must publish the criteria and process for appointment.(1C) The mayor must publish the agreed remuneration for the appointed commissioner.(1D) The mayor must publish details of appointments made under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process, and that the criteria and process for appointment are published, as well as their remuneration, in order to ensure transparency and accountability.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a combined authority may appoint from 7 to 10.
Youth Unemployment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making it very clear that we on these Benches believe it is vital that young people are supported into work. We wholeheartedly support the announcement about the new opportunities for young people, and we want to see them succeed. The evidence is clear that periods of unemployment at the start of a working life can have long-lasting and deeply damaging consequences. That makes early intervention not just desirable but essential. It is therefore welcome that the Department for Work and Pensions recognises the importance of this issue, but recognition alone is not enough.
The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics give us all, across this House, cause for concern. Youth unemployment among those aged 18 to 24 has risen to 14.5%, the highest level in nearly a decade. That represents a generation being denied opportunity: young people unable to take their first step on the ladder, to build skills or to contribute to the economy. It is no surprise that Helen Dickinson, chief executive at the British Retail Consortium, has said that
“the UK faces the prospect of a jobless generation ... this vital step on the career ladder is cracking under the high costs of employment”.
To be helpful to the noble Baroness, who I know shares my obsession with getting people, especially young people, into work, I just ask that when we turn to the past 14 years, she will not say that we had 14 years to sort this, because our record was not all that bad. Look at the facts. In 2010, the NEET rate stood at 16%, and by 2019 it had fallen to 10.7%. In turn, youth unemployment fell from around 20% in 2010 to 10.7% in 2022. We acknowledge that Covid created immense challenges and that the rates went up, but it was not all that bad on our watch. We did a lot of good, but we undoubtedly could and should have done more. However, youth unemployment has risen in each year under this Government, now reaching nearly 15% among 16 to 24 year-olds. It is against this deeply troubling backdrop that the Government bring forward this policy, with which we are pleased.
What we see from the Government here is part of a worrying pattern. When the economy fails to deliver the outcomes we all desire, the Government do not seem to pause, reflect or correct the course; instead they reach instinctively for an intervention to compel the private sector to behave as they wish. I have no doubt that the private sector would love to be creating jobs and getting young people into their workforce. This is the return of an interventionist doctrine that places political direction above market judgment. Many believed that this approach had been left behind, but it is now clearly back at the heart of government thinking. We see it in attempts to direct pension fund investment, allocating other people’s savings in line with political priorities rather than saver outcomes. We see it again here. Having failed to create the conditions for a strong labour market, the Government’s answer is not to enable growth but to intervene, to manage and to control.
We on these Benches are not merely supporters of employment, we are the party of work. Before the pandemic, employment reached a record high of 76.5%, while economic inactivity fell to a record low of 20.5%. That was not by chance; it was the result of a deliberate approach, one that trusted enterprise, rewarded effort and created the conditions for businesses to grow and hire. Opportunity should not be manufactured by the state, it should be generated by growth, and that is the approach we would like to see from the Government, but it is one that, sadly, they seem to have rejected.
I have several questions off the back of this Statement which I hope the Minister will address. If there are too many, I am very happy for her to write to me. How will participants be selected for these roles? There is always a tendency to go for those people who are easy to help. How will the Government ensure that those furthest from the labour market and in the most difficulty get help? Have private sector employers been driving the development of this policy, or has it come from Whitehall? How are the Government ensuring that employers are at the heart of this intervention? How will the Government measure the success of this policy, and over what timeframe? Will the performance be communicated to the whole House?
What will happen to young people at the end of the six-month placement? Are employers expected to absorb the full costs thereafter, and if so, on what basis? Do the Government already intend to extend the timeline? Does the Minister genuinely believe that short-term placements, particularly ones concentrated in sectors such as hospitality, will address the deep-rooted productivity and skills challenges in our economy? Crucially, what does the Minister believe is driving the current rise in youth unemployment? Is not the uncomfortable truth that the Government have taxed jobs and discouraged hiring, and are now asking taxpayers to subsidise the very employment opportunities that their policies have undermined? The British Retail Consortium is unequivocal, saying that in 2025 alone, the cost of employing a full-time entry-level worker has risen by 10%.
If the Minister is seeking the root cause of today’s labour market difficulties, I suggest that the Government need look no further than their own political record and policies. Businesses across the country point to the same pressures: burdensome employment regulation such as the Employment Rights Act, a sharp increase in wage and minimum wage costs, higher and inflexible business rates and ever-growing compliance obligations.
This debate comes down to a fundamental choice: do we continue down the path of higher taxes, heavier regulation and greater state intervention, or return to a model that genuinely creates opportunity, backs enterprise, rewards work and enables business to grow? That is the model that we used to deliver high, record employment. I am sure that the Minister and the Government are serious about tackling youth unemployment, but they must move beyond treating the symptoms and begin to address the causes. They must stop trying to control outcomes and instead create the conditions in which those outcomes can be achieved. That means easing the burden on those who create jobs, restoring confidence and recognising that sustainable employment is built not by government decree but by economic growth. Until they confront that reality, these policies will do little more than mask failure, at great cost to the taxpayer and even greater cost to the prospects of the next generation.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much—she did not repeat the Statement, but we have read it—and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for raising so many questions the answers to which I look forward to hearing.
We have 739,000 young people aged 16 to 24—nearly 100,000 more than last year—unemployed and sitting on benefits of £338 per month. I make no apologies for repeating this figure, but I give it in numbers and not as a percentage, because percentages are misleading and you cannot really understand what they mean. These unemployed 16 to 24 year-olds are, on average, searching and applying over five months for hundreds of roles, with less than 1% success—so they give up entirely. Yet employers report millions of vacancies remaining unfilled. This is not a shortage of jobs but a failure of matching: the right opportunities for the right candidates remain unsurfaced and undiscovered.
Given that the DWP is already piloting matching technologies at some jobcentres, for which I congratulate it—I know about the one in Leicester—can the Minister set out the department’s timeline for scaling these tools nationally across all jobcentres? Critically, what measurable improvement in time to employment does the department expect from this rollout? Additionally, can the Government explain why they are removing the funding for apprenticeships for management? Will they rethink the impact of the national insurance contribution hike on hospitality, retail and tourism? If we dealt with that, it could substantially help with youth unemployment. This is a big problem and I hope the Minister can answer the few questions I have raised and those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the questions from both noble Lords. I will come to them in a moment, but I think it is worth reiterating why we are expanding our support for young people now. While the UK’s overall employment levels are historically high, it has been a tough picture for young people in the labour market for some years. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, remembers that, in the three years running up to the election, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000, up to almost 1 million. This has not been helped by the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts in the space of a decade. The trends we have seen with young people in the labour market are long-term, deep-rooted and worrying. They did not start on 4 July 2024 and they are not confined to the UK, but we all have to address them.
As the noble Baroness said, and knows very well from her experience, if young people start their adult lives on the wrong foot, it has consequences for decades to come, both for them and for our country as a whole. Sir Charlie Mayfield highlighted in Keep Britain Working that, if a young person goes on to benefits in their 20s, they could lose out on £1 million of lifetime earnings and it could cost the state £1 million to support them. Tackling these trends is in all our interests and there should be good cross-party support for this, especially at the moment. At a time of rapid technological change, young people need our support.
We have already set out our reforms to refocus the apprenticeship system back on young people. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we have made some difficult decisions to focus apprenticeships on the young people who need this start early in their life, so we have focused our priority in that space. We had already announced a youth guarantee to help the young unemployed, including 300,000 work experience and training places and a jobs guarantee of subsidised work for 18 to 21 year-olds who have been long-term unemployed. Last week, my honourable friend the Secretary of State set out how we will go even further.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the timing. From this summer, we will introduce hiring bonuses of £3,000 if a business hires a young person who has been on universal credit for six months and there will be bonuses of £2,000 for small and medium-sized businesses hiring young apprentices. These bonuses can be combined if the young person hired has been out of work for six months. On top of that, we are introducing new foundation apprenticeships in retail and hospitality, as well as new short courses in AI, electrical vehicle charging point installation, electrical fitting and assembly, mechanical fitting and assembly and solar PV installation welding. We are also extending the jobs guarantee to those aged 22 to 24. Altogether, this will create 200,000 job and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years. This represents £1 billion of new investment on top of the funding announced at the Budget, so our package of support for young people now comes to around £2.5 billion.
I am proud of the efforts we are making to ensure that young people can flourish. The noble Baroness must have got mixed up between this policy and something else, because there is no compulsion here. We are not making employers take on young people, but offering incentives for them to do so. We are offering subsidies for jobs. We are doing all the things to help make sure that the young people who are struggling most have a chance to get those jobs out there. That is not compulsion or controlling outcomes: it is giving young people opportunity, and I am proud that we are doing it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, pointed to some of the policy choices this Government have made. As I pointed out, youth unemployment has been rising since 2022 and the OBR predicts that overall unemployment will peak this year and fall in every year of the forecast. She mentioned tax rises, I am guessing in reference to national insurance contributions. She will remember that employers are exempt from paying employers’ national insurance contributions for workers under 21 and apprentices under 25, unless they are earning over £50,000 a year. She mentioned the Employment Rights Act and the reaction of employers. The problems young people are facing in the labour market go back rather further than that. They are not new. What is new is this package of support, which has been welcomed by large businesses such as Amazon, PwC and the Kier Group, and the Federation of Small Businesses, which called it a game-changer. In terms of hospitality, the chef and businessperson Tom Kerridge said that
“these incentives will give our industry a great boost”.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made the important point that there are vacancies in the economy. There are 700,000, including 50,000 in manufacturing. There are jobs out there. Our job is to help young people get the support, skills, training and experience to get them and—I completely agree with him—we need to match the young people with them. He made a really important point. That is why we are setting out this package today and why it matters so much.
We have already started to reform the system, but we have to do all the things that will make the difference to help them get those jobs. The noble Lord asked about timing. The £2,000 apprenticeship incentive for small and medium-sized enterprises will take effect for those starting apprenticeships from 1 October, as long as they have joined their employer within the last three months. The £3,000 hiring incentive, the youth jobs grant, will be delivered from June this year. The expansion of the jobs guarantee to include 22 to 24 year-olds will be from this autumn, and the first set of new short apprenticeship units is launching from next month. We are not hanging around; we are getting out there to do the work.
I was really grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging what jobcentres can do in supporting young people. We all know there are young people out there who want these jobs, but they often need the help. They may not have the skills or the work experience.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, different things are obviously open to different people. What I think she was asking was what would happen after somebody was put specifically into a guaranteed job. If they have been out there looking for work for 18 months and they have not got a job, we will guarantee them six months of a job. We would hope that, by the end of that, the employer would see their potential, with all the support they had getting up to that point, and would want to keep them on. If for any reason they did not keep them on, such as if it is not a good fit, or if they did not feel they had the right skills, then all the support will be there from jobcentres and the range of our youth offer, to make sure that, with their new work experience, we can get them out there and get them a new job. Or maybe they would want an apprenticeship to acquire more skills so they can build a career.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but perhaps at this point she could tackle the point I raised, which she touched upon, which is the matching of vacancies with jobs. I gave the example of the Leicester jobcentre, which is doing this. My question, which I hope she answers, is: how are we going to spread that out?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is already happening in lots of different places and in lots of different ways. Jobcentres are doing it. For example, we are setting up youth hubs in 360 locations across the country, where we can bring together employers and young people, as well as lots of other services, so they can meet them. We also have jobs fairs, which my colleagues have been visiting, where employers are brought in to meet with potential jobseekers. This is the everyday work of jobcentres, of going out there and matching people together. But I would be very interested to talk to the noble Lord about what he saw in Leicester and what he found particularly helpful about that, because it is really good to learn what is out there.
I have very little time left, but I will just say two other things very quickly. First, even though there are jobs out there, the challenge is always going to be that the young people who are farthest from the labour market are going to find it hard to get them. That is why we have to give particular support to them. I know these are tough times generally, but we have to try to do all we can to give those young people a chance to get those jobs. If they can get the experience at this crucial moment, it could be transformative down the line.
Secondly, we will evaluate this very carefully. We are already evaluating what is out there and we are using the evidence base. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, pushed me on wage subsidies, for example. We have looked at the evidence from Kickstart, introduced by her Government, and from the future jobs fund, introduced by our Government, and the evidence is really quite strong. In trying to shape incentives, we are working on what we know works. The development of the youth guarantee was underpinned by that kind of evaluation and evidence. A DWP evaluation of work experience shows its high impact on employment prospects. For example, we have assessed the sector-based work programmes, which were found to be a really effective intervention.
Finally, we are evaluating the eight youth guarantee trailblazers and will use the learning from the different things happening around the country in different mayoral authorities to work out and inform the design of the youth guarantee as it goes forward. We are using evidence from the past, evidence we are gathering now and all that we are learning to make this the best it can be. This should be a national mission, and I am proud that we are doing something for it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we now have 20 minutes for Back-Bench contributions. I just want to give a brief reminder that this is an opportunity for Back-Benchers only, not Front-Benchers, to ask short, succinct questions of my noble friend the Minister, so we can maximise contributions.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I first welcome this Statement. It is not only important but long overdue in the face of the facts the Minister gave, including the fact she confirmed that take-up of apprenticeships has fallen by 40% over the last decade. If we are going to address that issue, I urge her to avoid what has been suggested is a binary choice between government assistance and the market. A modern economy requires both. Yes, they have to be balanced, but it is a nonsense to argue that somehow, if we left everything up to the market, then that would solve the problems. That is patently not true; there is about 300 years of evidence to disprove it. I therefore ask the Minister to expand on how the assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises will help them to employ people and thus address the problem of NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training—because that is the kernel of the issue that the country faces.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend; he makes a really important point. It just is not helpful to anyone if we start getting caught in false binaries. We need to work with the grain of what employers need and support them in doing it. They want to hire whoever is best for the job. Our job as a Government in this sort of setting is to work out what it will take to help those young people who most need the help to be the person the employer needs, by getting them the skills they need, getting them in the right place and getting them work experience.
The reason why we have the particular incentive of £2,000 for SMEs to take on 16 to 24 year-old apprentices as new employees is because we know they face additional barriers and costs. We also know that the sector is likely to take on young apprentices. Apprenticeships have spread very wide, and many are prone to taking on young apprentices. We want to lean into the grain of what they naturally do anyway, take away some of the barriers they face in doing that and support them in doing what they want to do anyway, which is good for them, good for the young person and good for the economy.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, like other noble Peers, I warmly welcome this Statement. I notice an emphasis on technical skills in the Written Statement and the Statement the Minister has made. I declare an interest: I have been married to somebody who has been a professional social worker all her life. I am interested in what we are doing to encourage young people into the caring professions, be that youth work, nursing, educative support, or social care, because it seems to me that this serves not only their good but also the good of our society.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. The Government have done quite a bit of work in different sectors. As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, we have done quite a bit of work in social care, looking at how we develop schemes, skills and sector-based work programmes to make sure young people can both be given the skills and also encouraged to go into the sector. This can be a really rich and rewarding career, as his wife has found out, and as I know from people who work in the sector. Initially, people may not immediately see it as an opportunity. Once they get in there, if it is a good fit and if it is right for them, it is astonishingly rewarding. They transform lives. To be given the opportunity not just to change their own life, but in doing so, to change the lives of other people, is wonderful. I therefore assure him that the Government will carry on supporting that.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
The right reverend Prelate’s wife will definitely know that being without education, employment or training has a devastating effect on young people. The consequences for social stability and the fabric of society are incredibly important, and I know the Minister is aware of that. To get a job, individuals need skills, confidence and motivation, and we expect young people to use AI and social media tools to get jobs, apprenticeships and training. But I would like the Minister to look at today’s report from Policy Exchange, which talks about “sickfluencers”: those on social media coaching people on how to make successful claims for disability benefits, mental health, neurodiversity and PIP. A quarter of the population is now classified as disabled, and there is three times the increase in those claiming disability benefits, as the Minister will know. The time has come to work with the health department to make it more stringent to assess whether people really have ADHD, autism and all the other manifold diagnoses people are taking on. There are times when a more bracing message encouraging young people into education, training or employment would be much more constructive —and I do not wish that to sound harsh.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I have never regarded the noble Baroness as being harsh in the way she mentions. She has hit on the underlying question, which is a really important one. The question sometimes, when somebody encounters the state for the first time, is to look at what are the benefits to which they are entitled. That may be very important, but a much more important question is: what would it take to help change your life? What kind of support do you need to change your life? What that will be will depend on the young person’s circumstances. That is really hard, because it is a broader question, but it is a question we have to answer, and my department is on a journey towards looking at what it means to help young people. Of course, if they struggle, anyone who genuinely cannot work needs to get help. I am aware of the “sickfluencers”. This is not new; there have been different ways of doing this for some time. The department is very much focused on that and on making sure our assessment processes are robust.
We also need to get the incentives in the right place. This Government changed the incentives so that, in future, people coming on to the universal credit health journey will not get extra money for that, because we do not want to put people in a position where they have an incentive to persuade us that they can never work. It is why we are making sure that the Timms review looks carefully at PIP to see what has happened, because it has not really been reviewed since it was introduced. We have to get the incentives right and support people who need them, while also making sure that we give people a vision of what life could be in all its fullness.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the Minister referred to evidence that has been looked at to shape this new initiative. What evidence has been taken from the scheme that has existed in Wales for the last decade—the young person’s guarantee in Wales? What lessons have been learned about what did and did not work well with that? In the context of AI, what consideration have the Government given to how AI will or will not affect the graduate job market, particularly entry-level jobs in the services industry?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
They are all excellent questions. We have worked very closely with the Government in Wales to see what they have done—they did not need a youth guarantee because they already had one. We have looked at all the evidence, and we have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations and will carry on doing so. Most aspects of the programmes I have described are GB-wide because apprenticeships are devolved, and so we are working closely to create a localised offer. We are also working with mayoral authorities to make sure that, where appropriate, things are tailored to local areas and the local economy, because what works in Middlesbrough may not be the same as what works in Truro. We are trying to do that as well as working with devolved Administrations.
The noble Baroness asked a very important question about AI. It is already changing the world of work. To stay ahead of the changes, the Government have launched an AI and future of work unit, which is a cross-government function dedicated to ensuring that AI delivers positive outcomes for the economy, jobs and workers. It is designed to help prepare the UK for an AI-driven labour market by looking at what is driving it and what has happened to labour market practices. A key part of that involves recognising that there are lots of different kinds of AI, but, put simply, there is AI that is replacing jobs but, increasingly, there are also jobs that are working with AI. We therefore need to give young people the skills to enable them to go into jobs where they will be expected to use AI and to look at how AI enhances their job rather than simply supplanting it. That will apply to young people as a whole but also specifically to graduates. Graduates will come out with one set of skills, but graduates of the right age are in the same position as anyone else and we are really happy to help them too.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I warmly welcome the Government’s ambitious new youth employment programme. Can my noble friend the Minister say what targeted measures she will take to address the acute challenges faced by boys? They are significantly more likely to be NEET, to underperform at school and to struggle with the transition into employment. How will these proposals ensure that boys, who are at the greatest risk of long-term worklessness, are effectively reached and supported in the transition to work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for an excellent question. We have to tailor this to where an individual is at. One of the real challenges is that different young people have different barriers on the way. There is an issue with boys in some parts of the country and in some communities, about either higher barriers to work, lower levels of skills or, simply, lower levels of work experience. We are aiming to make this available to every young person in this situation. If a young person is in this situation—they have been looking for work and not getting it—we will expect them to engage and we will challenge and support them. We will not simply challenge them; we will give them the help that they need. We will work with them until they get that. Some of them will want to start with motivation, skills and creating a vision of what is possible. Others will need skills—maybe school did not work for them and maybe they will need a foundation apprenticeship or a short apprenticeship course before going into a full apprenticeship. Maybe they will want an employer willing to take a risk on them—and an employer could do that with this support. I thank my noble friend for raising a very important point; I would be very willing to discuss it more with her at some point.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail. These sectors of the economy traditionally provided the first job for young people, but they have been hard hit by changes to the minimum wage and national insurance, and so this is a welcome counterbalance. On 18 November, one of your Lordships’ Select Committees produced a report that focused on youth unemployment. We went to Blackpool and made a number of recommendations. We should have had a government response by 18 January, but four months later, we have still not had one. I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I suggest that it is a discourtesy to the House. One of our recommendations was that there should be a target for reducing the number of young people who are unemployed. There is a target in the post-education and skills White Paper. If there is a target for them, why can we not have a target for NEETs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, although it may not be my responsibility, it is the Government’s responsibility, and I take responsibility for the failure to respond. I apologise on behalf of my department, and I will look into what has happened. The department is aware of the report, and I am certainly very grateful for it. I often think that we do not make enough use of the excellent reports that come out of this House, and this Government are determined to use all evidence, including the work that is already there.
We have not set specific targets, but we have set very clear measurements of the impact of what we do—that is how we will measure ourselves and hold ourselves to account. Our trailblazers are looking at localised approaches to support, including sharing information on and tracking NEET young people, which was picked up in the report. I am very happy to look at that and will take the noble Lord’s message back to my department.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a father of two young adults—an interest I have in common with people across these Houses and homes across the country, as well as a desire to see them get into work. First, will this offer arise only for those already on benefits? Secondly, while we all hope that our children will find a first job, we also hope that they will find themselves in a future of sustainable work. How might this package enable young people to find that kind of flourishing future, as well as that first step into the workplace?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
On the first question, we are not working only with those who are on benefits. Some of the specific elements of the programme are for those who are on universal credit, either for six months or 18 months, and looking for work. However, we are really concerned about those young people who are not in education, employment or training, who are not appearing in the benefits system and who are not on the radar—they are sometimes called “hidden NEETs”. They may not be in the system and may be living with parents or elsewhere—none the less, they are out there. The youth guarantee is about reaching all NEETs, including those not on benefits. That was a key element of the youth guarantee trailblazers, backed by £90 million-worth of funding, which sought to find innovative ways to reach young people outside the benefits system whom we do not already have on our radar. Mayoral strategic authorities are looking into ways that work in their locality. We are trying to make sure that we reach those people too.
The point about the future is very important: nobody wants to be the person who takes an apprenticeship in gas lights just at the point when electricity comes to town. We need to find a way to make sure that young people go into jobs with a future. While one can never be sure, we are developing new apprenticeship units that are aligned specifically with the priorities of the industrial strategy, and we hope that that will help. That includes AI, construction and engineering, and we will develop future units as it goes forward by going with the grain—to echo my noble friend Lord Reid’s comment—of where the economy is going and what employers need. We have to create a future for young people.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, preparing young people for work should start within the school system—that was touched on in questions from the Benches opposite. Can the Minister say what efforts are being made, working with the DfE, to include career management and education? Surely the earlier the young are set on the right path, the better.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes a very important point. We have the great advantage now that my noble friend Lady Smith is the Minister for Skills both in the Department for Education and in the Department for Work and Pensions. That synergy is already proving very helpful, and so we are able to have very good conversations with our colleagues in the DfE. As he knows, in the DWP, by creating the new jobs and careers service, we are trying to make sure that we bring these things together at the outset so that we help people to get not just a single job but the opportunity to develop a career that will carry them forward. He makes an important point, and we will keep looking at this.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend the Minister talked about those who are not “sitting on benefits”—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—because the assumption is that all those young people are just sitting on benefits. In fact, I was shocked to find that 44% of the young people we are talking about are not on universal credit or even the health element of universal credit. Can my noble friend say a bit more about what the Government can do to reach these “hidden NEETs”, as she called them? I suspect they do not have contact with job centres, and it is important that we know more about their circumstances and that we can help them in the way that she said.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful—that is a really great question. One of the challenges across government is that if we carry on doing things in silos, we will engage only with those who are already engaged with us, and that does not solve the problem here. We are doing a couple of things. Earlier on I mentioned the work that is going on in the youth trailblazers, working with local mayoral authorities to find innovative ways of identifying such people locally. We are also trying to strengthen early identification through better data sharing and better monitoring of attendance at further education; and a range of new “risk of NEET” tools—a terrible technical term—have been developed to try to identify those who may be at risk of becoming NEET before they get to that point. So we are working with that, trying to spot disengagement earlier and target support before young people become long-term NEET.
One of the other things we are doing, for example, is creating youth hubs—360 across the country—where we can work with partners in community spaces and bring together different kinds of support in a way that will not feel like it is simply engaging with the benefits system or a jobcentre. A jobcentre may be great for some but not for others, so by trying to find innovative ways of reaching people, identifying them before they become long-term NEET, and through good collaboration when people reach it, we hope that will make a difference.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, what a disaster it is that under this Government we have 1 million young people in Britain who are not in education, employment or training—one in eight who cannot access the life opportunities which we in this Chamber all enjoyed. Will the Minister acknowledge this reality about that generation: that they want to work and to participate in education, employment and training? The Government need to think through this problem from that starting point. It is a generation full of promise—the one most conversant with the kind of technology we have been talking about in this debate.
Secondly, does the Minister acknowledge that with this intervention, which is effectively a state subsidy to employers to try to incentivise entry-level job creation, all the Government are really doing is trying to rebalance the negative effects of the harmful policies they have introduced, be it national insurance contributions for employers, the national living wage, or other measures that have depressed entry-level job creation? That is the change that has happened in the past two years.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I can only assume the noble Lord did not hear what I said in my opening speech. If he wants to talk about having a million people who are NEET, I point out again that in the three years running up to the last election, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000, up to almost a million.
I am not trying to make this anybody else’s problem; I am trying to make this a problem for us as a country. We were the people who stood up and said, “This is not acceptable”. One in eight is not acceptable; it is not in the interests of our country. Where I absolutely agree with the noble Lord is that young people want a future. Our job is to persuade them that they can have it, to show them that they can have it, to give them the skills to get it, and to give them the chance to get the jobs that will give them a foot in the door to go out there and do it. This Government are investing in that because we believe in and care about our young people. Even if the country did not—and we really do—the country needs them. We are an ageing society, and we need our young people. Without their gifts, talents and future, we all suffer. So we are doing this for them and for the country, and I am proud that we are.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:53 - Division on Amendment 79 - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 132 - Amendment 79 disagreed.
Lord Shipley
“Scrutiny of mayoral commissioners(1) The mayor of a combined county authority must establish, for each commissioner appointed by the mayor, a scrutiny committee composed of elected members of the constituent local authorities.(2) The purpose of each scrutiny committee is to review, assess and report on the exercise of the policy responsibilities of the commissioner to whom it relates.(3) Each scrutiny committee must have the following powers—(a) to require the mayor, the relevant commissioner, or any member of their staff to attend before the committee to give evidence;(b) to require the production of any documents relevant to the exercise of the commissioner’s functions;(c) to publish reports on the committee’s findings and recommendations.(4) The mayor and the relevant commissioner must have regard to any report or recommendation made by the corresponding scrutiny committee under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a mayor of a combined county authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the mayor’s exercise of functions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendments 49, 95 and 96, and I have signed Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard.
In speaking to Amendment 49, I want to thank the Minister for having written to us last week—she proposed a whole raft of new amendments on the scrutiny functions. My amendment, which would require the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a scrutiny committee of elected members with powers of summons to examine and report on the mayor’s exercise of functions, is therefore rather out of date now, so I will not be pressing that.
However, I want to raise a broader question, because at times the rest of England seems to be following London, and at other times it is not. On this occasion—this relates to Amendment 95—in London, the mayor of London is required to hold a public meeting known as a People’s Question Time twice per financial year to answer questions from the public; that is in Section 48 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I would like that to be replicated across all mayors in England so that something similar happens. I think that mayors are going to need—and I hope that they will want—to be held accountable for policy decisions they make. But the Minister might look at that issue of a people’s question time. We shall not reach it tonight for voting purposes, so I can consider what to do as a consequence of the Minister’s reply.
I feel very strongly about Amendment 96. I was a member of a regional development agency a number of years ago, and the RDA was required to turn up to every local council in its area once a year to answer questions from elected members, so that seems an entirely appropriate thing to do. I am suggesting only that a combined authority mayor should
“appear annually before each constituent local authority to answer questions from elected councillors”,
which would strengthen
“democratic accountability within devolved areas”.
I find it difficult to know what would be wrong with that, so I hope very much that the Minister will indicate her approval.
I will not speak about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, as that would steal his thunder, but he has hit on a very important issue around local public accounts committees. I have similar concerns to those that I think he has, but I will leave it to him. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak on cue to my Amendment 182, declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for supporting my amendment.
I welcome the Government’s amendment to establish overview and scrutiny committees. Why then have I persisted in my amendment for what I have called local public accounts committees? It is because the overview and scrutiny committees will focus only on scrutinising strategic authorities. I believe that we need to extend the focus of scrutiny from a single institution—the strategic authority—to the wider scrutiny of the place. The crucial difference between my amendment and the Government’s proposal is that my scrutiny committee would have the power to report not just on strategic authorities but on how effectively all local public service partners were collaborating in a place for the benefit of the public and the wider community.
Why is this so important? I will not go through the points that I made at length in Committee, but over the last four decades our public services have become increasingly fragmented, with the establishment of a myriad of disconnected, sometimes single-purpose agencies whose objectives and targets have on occasions overlapped and even conflicted. As we all know, those agencies have worked too often in silos. As a result, the public have struggled to access or even make sense of the disjointed services that are on offer. Money has been wasted because the silos do not work together to deliver the best value for money. At worst, people, sometimes children, have died because data and intelligence were not shared quickly enough to protect them.
In many places public service partners have worked very hard to break down these silos, but that is not uniformly the case. The prevailing culture in our public services has too often been one of competition rather than collaboration. I am convinced that for that to change we need in every local area a body with the power to scrutinise and report on how all public sector partners co-operate or do not co-operate for the good of citizens. If instead we establish overview and scrutiny and scrutiny committees which address only the performance of a single institution, we will reinforce the silo-based mentality that we have created for another generation—all for the want of adding a simple power for the overview and scrutiny committees to report on how the wider system is working.
If we do give those committees that additional power, we will also demonstrate that in a devolved system, accountability does not always have to be to the centre. Accountability can be local, should be local and can be done more effectively if it is. Extended scrutiny committees and local Public Accounts Committees of this sort would be very visible. They could involve local business communities and the voluntary sector, perhaps with an independent chair. They would become a very visible local body.
I promoted this idea when I was chief executive of Gloucestershire County Council. Your Lordships must suspend your disbelief—that was in the 1980s. Therefore, I was delighted when the English devolution White Paper committed government to explore the local public accounts committee model. The problem is that this Bill and the Government’s amendment do not follow that through. However, my conversations with the Minister since Committee—which I am grateful that she was prepared to be involved in—suggest that she remains supportive of the concept but wants to see more policy development and more stakeholder consultation before progressing further. I understand that.
If the Minister can confirm this from the Dispatch Box tonight, that will take us quite a long way further forward and I will not press this to a vote. If, for example, we could set up a working party to produce a fully formed proposal for local public accounts committees, we would have taken a big, decisive step in changing the very culture of our local public services—from competition to collaboration.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues concerning accountability and transparency within our evolving system of devolved governance. Amendments 49, 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, engage with the central principle that, where power is exercised, it should be subject to effective and visible scrutiny. I am sure that all noble Lords agree with that principle. These amendments would ensure that it extends directly to elected mayors.
Amendment 49 proposes dedicated scrutiny committees with powers to summons and to report. This reflects a desire to ensure that mayoral commissioners are properly held to account. Amendments 95 and 96 similarly seek to strengthen direct lines of accountability, whether through public-facing forums such as the People’s Question Time in London, which we have heard about, or through structured engagement with elected members of constituent authorities. We recognise the intent behind these proposals, particularly the effort to align arrangements more closely with established practices, as we have heard about on the Mayor of London.
Government Amendments 67 and 68 introduce substantial new schedules at a very late stage in the Bill. They set out an extensive and detailed framework for overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined county authorities. While the aim to strengthen scrutiny is clearly welcome, the scale and complexity of these provisions inevitably raise a number of questions that merit careful consideration. It is regrettable that this has been tabled at such a late stage in the parliamentary process of the Bill’s passage.
The proposed role for independent or external experts on scrutiny committees is notable. It would be helpful to understand more clearly who these individuals might be, how they are to be appointed and how their independence will be defined and safeguarded. Questions also arise as to whether there is sufficient capacity and expertise available across the country to support this model in practice. I look to the Minister for a response on these matters.
Further, there are important practical considerations about how members of these committees are to be appointed, the role of elected councillors within them and the extent to which their proceedings and findings will be made publicly accessible. The mechanisms by which members of the public can raise issues and engage with the scrutiny process are also of clear importance. There is perhaps a broader question as to whether lessons might be drawn from existing models, including the arrangements that have been in place for some time in Greater London for the scrutiny of directly elected mayors.
Finally, Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raises the interesting proposal of local public accounts committees. We believe that the principles of strengthening financial oversight and cross-agency accountability are important, although the precise design and implications of such bodies, as we heard from the noble Lord, would clearly require careful thought and planning. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this proposition.
This group highlights the central importance of scrutiny within any system of devolved governance. I look forward to the Minister addressing how the Government intend to ensure that these new structures are both effective in practice and clearly understood by those they are intended to serve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on scrutiny and accountability. These have been recurring themes during debates on the Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Wallace, for their contributions to these discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Bassam, for their very constructive engagement and the insights they have shared with me on this issue. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the late introduction of these amendments, I felt that our discussions on scrutiny in Committee were too important for us not to respond as a Government.
In the English devolution White Paper, we committed to exploring a local public accounts committee model to provide a vehicle to scrutinise local public spending. This recognised that the powers afforded for local scrutiny were not commensurate to the increased scale of powers and responsibilities devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. Local scrutiny committees will replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities, providing an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities, with greater teeth to hold mayors to account.
To answer the points about some of the detail raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as with the existing system, the chair of the committee must be from a different party from the mayor or be an independent person appointed through an open and fair competition. At least 60% of committee members must be councillors from constituent local authorities, rather than the current requirement that at least half of members must be local councillors. These committees must also reflect the political make-up of the area. They will be able to shape early decision-making and undertake value-for-money assessments across the full scope of a mayoral strategic authority’s work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was particularly interested in that ability to shape decision-making before things came before the boards for decision.
The committees will have the power to make recommendations on the quality of decisions and on the use of public funds. They will have the authority to challenge decisions taken by the mayor, commissioners and senior officials and to require attendance and information at evidence sessions. This will also extend to key stakeholders outside the mayoral strategic authority, who will be defined in regulations. Those who fail to comply without reasonable excuse will face a civil penalty, on which further details will be established in regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
(a) one or more aspects of that area of competence, or(b) that area of competence generally.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that a person’s work as commissioner can relate to aspects of an area of competence or the area of competence as a whole.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).
“(aa) the commissioner must not carry out any work as commissioner, except work in preparation for the ending of the appointment in accordance with paragraph (b); and”Member’s explanatory statement
This would apply where a mayor ceases to hold office early (eg. because of resignation or death) and any commissioners appointed by the mayor also leave office. The amendment would stop the commissioners from carrying out work until they leave office, unless it is work in preparation for the ending of the appointment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 2A that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that (for example) instant dismissal where allowed by contract law is within this provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
(a) one or more aspects of that area of competence, or(b) that area of competence generally.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that a person’s work as commissioner can relate to aspects of an area of competence or the area of competence as a whole.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable more than one commissioner to operate in a particular area of competence (by leaving out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill).
“(aa) the commissioner must not carry out any work as commissioner, except work in preparation for the ending of the appointment in accordance with paragraph (b); and”Member’s explanatory statement
This would apply where a mayor ceases to hold office early (eg. because of resignation or death) and any commissioners appointed by the mayor also leave office. The amendment would stop the commissioners from carrying out work until they leave office, unless it is work in preparation for the ending of the appointment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment to leave out paragraph 5 of the new Schedule 5BA that is inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that (for example) instant dismissal where allowed by contract law is within this provision.
“ScheduleMayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committeesPart 1New scrutiny regime for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authoritiesIntroduction
1 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.The new scrutiny regime
2 After Schedule 1 insert—“Schedule 1AMayoral CCAs that are EMSAs: overview and scrutiny committees and audit committeeApplication of this Schedule
1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following paragraphs of this Schedule— (a) “CCA” means a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of other CCAs, see Schedule 1.Functions of overview and scrutiny committee
2 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of one or more committees of the authority (referred to in this Schedule as overview and scrutiny committees).(2) The arrangements must ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to investigate matters of local interest;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA or mayor on matters of local interest.(3) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to make reports or recommendations to the CCA with respect to the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the mayor with respect to the discharge of any general functions.(4) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the CCA’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the CCA;(b) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions;(c) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the CCA, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(d) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(5) The arrangements made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) must (in particular) ensure that—(a) where a decision or other action involves expenditure of the CCA, the review or scrutiny of it includes an assessment of value for money;(b) where the discharge of a function involves expenditure of the CCA—(i) any report includes a report on value for money;(ii) where appropriate, recommendations are made in relation to value for money.(6) When assessing value for money, an overview and scrutiny committee must have regard to any guidance issued by a public authority. (7) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) to make reports or recommendations with respect to the discharge of any functions includes power to make recommendations about the way that a function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(8) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (4)(b) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes—(a) power to direct that a decision is not to be implemented while it is under review or scrutiny by the overview and scrutiny committee, and(b) power—(i) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered, or(ii) to make recommendations about the way that the function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(9) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of decisions made but not yet implemented and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.(10) Before complying with sub-paragraph (9) an overview and scrutiny committee must obtain the consent of the CCA to the proposals and arrangements.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee makes a recommendation to the CCA or mayor under sub-paragraph (7) or (8)(b), and(b) the CCA or mayor does not intend to give effect to the recommendation (at all or in part),the CCA or mayor must give the committee a written notice of that intention and of the reasons for not giving effect to the recommendation.(12) An overview and scrutiny committee may send a copy of any report or recommendations made by it to any public authority (including the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown, or any government department).(13) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not discharge any functions other than the functions conferred by or under this Schedule.(14) Any reference in this Schedule to the discharge of any functions includes a reference to the doing of anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions.Overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision
3 (1) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.(2) A sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee may not discharge any functions other than those conferred on it under sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA may not include a member of the CCA (including the mayor for the CCA’s area or deputy mayor).(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA is to be treated as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees).(5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA as they apply to a committee appointed under that section. (6) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to attend before it to answer questions, and(b) may invite other persons to attend meetings of the committee.(7) An overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA—(a) may require a key person to provide it with information or documents, and(b) may invite other persons to provide it with information or documents.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about—(a) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, required under sub-paragraph (7)(a);(b) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, invited under sub-paragraph (7)(b).(9) A requirement under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) can only be imposed on a person by written notice given to the person; and the period between the notice being given and the date when the requirement must be complied with must be—(a) 10 working days, or(b) if that period of notice is unreasonably short, such longer period as is reasonable.(10) A person on whom a requirement is imposed under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) is required to comply with the requirement.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required a person to attend a meeting of the committee,(b) the person does not attend the meeting in compliance with the requirement, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting,the committee must publish notice of the non-attendance in such manner as the committee thinks appropriate and a scrutiny officer of the committee (appointed in accordance with regulations made under 4(2)(d)) must give a copy of the notice to the person who did not attend.(12) For provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (6) or (7), see paragraphs 7 and 8.(13) A person is not obliged—(a) by sub-paragraph (6) to answer any question which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or(b) by sub-paragraph (7) to provide any information which the person would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.(14) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.(15) Guidance under sub-paragraph (14) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee.(16) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (14) references to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees of a CCA. (2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may in particular include provision—(a) about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee and the voting rights of such members;(b) about the payment of allowances to the members of an overview and scrutiny committee;(c) about the person who is to be chair of an overview and scrutiny committee;(d) for the appointment of persons to act as scrutiny officers of an overview and scrutiny committee;(e) about how and by whom matters may be referred to an overview and scrutiny committee;(f) requiring persons (whether members of the CCA or other persons) to respond to reports or recommendations made by an overview and scrutiny committee;(g) about the publication of reports, recommendations or responses;(h) about information which must, or must not, be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee (whether by members of the CCA or by other persons);(i) as to the minimum or maximum period for which a direction under paragraph 2(8)(a) may have effect.(3) Provision of the following kinds must be made under sub-paragraph (1)—(a) provision about when and how an overview and scrutiny committee must involve independent experts in its activities;(b) provision about how an overview and scrutiny committee must take account of the work undertaken by the independent experts involved in its activities;(c) provision for the remuneration of independent experts.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) so as to ensure that at least 60% of members of an overview and scrutiny committee are members of the CCA’s constituent councils.(5) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) so as to ensure that all the members of an overview and scrutiny committee are entitled to be paid allowances in respect of activities of the descriptions specified in regulations under this paragraph.(6) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) so as to ensure that the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee is—(a) an independent person (as defined by the regulations), or(b) an appropriate person who is a member of one of the CCA’s constituent councils.(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of a registered political party of which the mayor is a member.(8) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a “scrutiny officer” of an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to a person appointed with the function of—(a) promoting the role of the committee, and(b) providing support and guidance—(i) to the committee and its members, and(ii) to members of the CCA (so far as relating to the functions of the committee).(9) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(d) so as to ensure that an overview and scrutiny committee has at least two scrutiny officers. (10) Provision under sub-paragraph (2)(g) may include provision for descriptions of confidential or exempt information to be excluded from the publication of reports, recommendations or responses.(11) In this paragraph “registered political party” means a party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(12) In this paragraph references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Style by which committees to be known
5 (1) The overview and scrutiny committees are to have—(a) the style “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) any other style that is specified in regulations under paragraph 4(1).(2) The specified style may (in particular) be—(a) a variant of “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) “overview and scrutiny committee” or a variant of it.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to overview and scrutiny committees of different descriptions of CCAs.Petitions
6 (1) A CCA must make arrangements (“petition arrangements”) in relation to its overview and scrutiny committee, or each such committee, under which—(a) a local elector is able to start a petition calling upon the committee to exercise its functions in relation to a matter of local interest that is specified in the petition, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate their support for the petition within a period specified in the petition arrangements.(2) Petition arrangements must secure that—(a) a local elector is able to start any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate support for any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means.(3) An overview and scrutiny committee must reject a petition in any of the following cases—(a) the petition is explicitly seeking new or increased expenditure of the CCA;(b) the specified matter is not a matter of local interest;(c) the committee could not exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter without prejudicing civil proceedings or criminal proceedings which have been brought or which, in the view of the committee, are likely to be brought reasonably soon (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere);(d) the petition is offensive, abusive or vexatious.(4) In a case where the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors, an overview and scrutiny committee must decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the matter of concern to which the petition relates.(5) In any other case, an overview and scrutiny committee may decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates. (6) In deciding whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates, an overview and scrutiny committee must (in particular) take into account the effective use of the committee’s time and resources.(7) Within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which an overview and scrutiny committee makes a relevant decision about a petition, the committee must—(a) publish written notice of the following matters—(i) the relevant decision;(ii) the reasons for making the relevant decision;(iii) how the committee proposes to exercise its functions (in the case of a relevant decision to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates); and(b) give written notice of those matters to the person who started the petition.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about petition arrangements and petitions, including—(a) provision about grounds on which an overview and scrutiny committee must or may make a relevant decision about a petition;(b) provision about matters which must or may be taken into account in making a relevant decision about a petition;(c) provision for an overview and scrutiny committee to be able to combine petitions relating to similar specified matters;(d) provision about verifying whether persons are local electors;(e) provision about whether the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors;(9) In this paragraph—“local elector” , in relation to a petition, means a person who would be entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of a mayor for the area of the CCA concerned;“petitioner” means a local elector who has—(a) started a petition, or(b) indicated support for a petition,in accordance with the petition arrangements;“relevant decision about a petition” means—(a) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee to reject a petition, or(b) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates;“specified matter” means the matter that is specified in a petition in accordance with the petition arrangements.Financial penalties for failure to attend committee meetings, answer questions or provide information etc
7 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, give overview and scrutiny committees the power to impose a civil penalty on—(a) a person who fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(b) a person who fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(c) a person who fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee with information or a document;(d) a person who misleads an overview and scrutiny committee. (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the person does not attend the meeting, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the question is properly put to the person at the meeting,(c) the person does not answer the question, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not answering the question.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee meeting with information or a document if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide the information or document,(b) the person does not provide the information or document, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not providing the information or document.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person misleads an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide information or a document, and(b) the person intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys the information or document.(6) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) must provide for the amount or maximum amount of a civil penalty — and such an amount or maximum must not exceed £5,000;(b) may provide for the power to impose a civil penalty to be exercisable only in relation to persons of a description specified in the regulations; and such a description of person may (in particular) consist of all or any of the following—(i) mayors for the areas of CCAs;(ii) deputy mayors appointed by such mayors;(iii) commissioners appointed by such mayors;(c) must make provision for appeals against the imposition of civil penalties (which may include provision enabling a civil penalty to be confirmed, withdrawn or varied in its amount on an appeal).(7) In order to take account of changes in the value of money, the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (6)(a).Termination of office for failure to attend committee meetings
8 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who holds one of the following offices in relation to a CCA (the “relevant CCA”)—(a) mayor for the area of the relevant CCA;(b) deputy mayor appointed by such a mayor;(c) commissioner appointed by such a mayor. (2) The person ceases to hold the office if—(a) the person fails to attend six overview and scrutiny committee meetings (the “six missed meetings”), and(b) there is the required link between the six missed meetings.(3) The person who holds the office fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee is a committee of the relevant CCA,(b) the meeting is a compulsory meeting for the person as holder of that office,(c) the person does not attend the meeting, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(4) There is the required link between the six missed meetings if—(a) the six missed meetings are consecutive overview and scrutiny committee meetings that are compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office, or(b) the period between the first and last of those six missed meetings is 12 months or shorter.(5) In determining whether there is the required link by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b)—(a) it does not matter if the six missed meetings are meetings of the same committee, or different committees, of the CCA;(b) it does not matter if there are any meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee that—(i) fall between the first and last of the six missed meetings, and(ii) are not compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office.(6) If a person ceases to hold office by virtue of this section—(a) the CCA’s monitoring officer (within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) must—(i) publish notice that the person has ceased to hold office in such manner as the monitoring officer thinks appropriate, and(ii) give a copy of the notice to the person who has ceased to hold office;(b) the person ceases to hold office at the end of the day of the last of the six missed meetings.(7) If a notice given under paragraph 3(11) of a person’s non-attendance at a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee relates to the last of the six missed meetings that result in the person’s loss of office by virtue of this paragraph, the notice must include a statement of that fact.(8) If a person ceases to hold an office by virtue of this section, that loss of office does not prevent that person from subsequently—(a) taking that office again, or(b) taking any other office referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(9) An overview and scrutiny committee meeting is a “compulsory meeting” for a person if the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required that person to attend the meeting.(10) This paragraph applies to a commissioner whether appointed—(a) under a worker’s contract,(b) under a contract other than a worker’s contract, or(c) otherwise than under a contract; and references to the office of commissioner (including holding office) are to be read accordingly in the case of a commissioner appointed under a contract.Audit committees
9 (1) A CCA must arrange for the appointment by the CCA of an audit committee.(2) The functions of the audit committee are to include—(a) reviewing and scrutinising the CCA’s financial affairs,(b) reviewing and assessing the CCA’s risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements,(c) reviewing and assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used in discharging the CCA’s functions, and(d) making reports and recommendations to the CCA in relation to reviews conducted under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) the membership of a CCA’s audit committee;(b) the appointment of the members;(c) the payment of allowances to members of the committee who are members of a constituent council.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (3) so as to ensure that at least one member of an audit committee is an independent person (as defined by the regulations).Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“commissioner” means a commissioner appointed under section 29A;“key person” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means—(a) the mayor for the area of the CCA;(b) the deputy mayor for that area;(c) a commissioner appointed by the mayor for that area;(d) the officers of the CCA;(e) a member of the CCA who has responsibilities in relation to a particular area of policy;(f) a person of any other description that is specified in regulations;“matter of local interest” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a CCA, means a matter which both—(a) relates to the area of the CCA, and(b) relates—(i) to functions that are the responsibility of the CCA (whether exercisable by the CCA or the mayor), or(ii) otherwise to any aspect of any area of competence set out in section 2 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;but it does not include any matters which relate to the functions of police and crime commissioners;“value for money” means the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of the CCA.”Part 2Amendments consequential on Part 1 of this ScheduleIntroduction
3 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Section 15: overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) Section 15 is amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In subsection (1), after“CCAs”insert“that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Schedule 1A makes provision for CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities to have overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees.”(4) In subsection (2), for “that Schedule” substitute “those Schedules”.(5) After subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section and Schedules 1 and 1A “established mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (see section 1(6)(b) of that Act).”Section 29: deputy mayors
5 In section 29(3)—(a) in paragraph (b), omit “or”;(b) in paragraph (c), at the end insert“, or(d) the person ceases to be deputy mayor by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A.”Schedule 1: overview and scrutiny committees
6 (1) Schedule 1 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, after “Authorities” insert “except EMSAs”.(3) Before paragraph 1 (and the italic heading preceding it) insert—“Application of this Schedule
A1 (1) This Schedule applies to a CCA if it is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a CCA that is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities, see Schedule 1A.”(4) After paragraph 3 insert—“Style by which committees to be known
3A (1) Regulations under paragraph 3(1) may (in particular) specify the style which the overview and scrutiny committees of CCAs are to have.(2) The specified style may (in particular) be a variant of “overview and scrutiny committee”.(3) The power under section 252(1) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to different descriptions of CCAs.”Schedule 2: election of Mayors of CCAs etc
7 In Schedule 2, after paragraph 11 insert—“Failure to attend meetings of overview and scrutiny committee: loss of office
11A Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A makes provision for a person’s term of office as mayor to end because of repeated failure to attend meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee.” Schedule 2A: commissioners
8 In Schedule 2A (inserted by Schedule 3 to this Act), in paragraph 9—(a) in paragraph (d), omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (d) insert“, or(da) the person ceases to be a commissioner by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1A, or”Part 3Extension of new scrutiny regime to all mayoral CCAsIntroduction
9 LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Amendment of section 15
10 (1) Section 15 (as amended by paragraph 4 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for“CCAs that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“non-mayoral CCAs”.(3) In subsection (1A), for“CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“mayoral CCAs”.(4) Omit subsection (3).Exclusion of all mayoral CCAs from scrutiny regime in Schedule 1 LURA 2023
11 (1) Schedule 1 (as amended by paragraph 6 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “Combined County Authorities except EMSAs” substitute “Non-mayoral Combined County Authorities”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a non-mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in this Schedule “CCA” means only a non-mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1A.”(4) In paragraph 1 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (3);(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit “and (3)(a)”.(5) In paragraph 2 (overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision)—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area or deputy mayor)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (6)(a), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral CCA, the mayor for the CCA's area and deputy mayor)”.(6) In paragraph 3 (power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees), for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of the registered political party which has the most representatives among the members of the constituent councils (or, if there is no such party because two or more parties have the same number of representatives, is not a member of any of those parties).” Inclusion of all mayoral CCAs in the new scrutiny regime
12 (1) Schedule 1A (as inserted by paragraph 2 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “CCAs that are established mayoral strategic authorities” substitute “Mayoral CCAs”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a mayoral CCA.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “CCA” means a mayoral CCA;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a mayoral CCA.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of non-mayoral CCAs, see Schedule 1.””
“ScheduleMayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committeesPart 1New scrutiny regime for combined authorities that are established mayoral strategic authoritiesIntroduction
1 LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.The new scrutiny regime
2 After Schedule 5A insert—“Schedule 5AAMayoral combined authorities that are EMSAs: overview and scrutiny committees and audit committeeApplication of this Schedule
1 (1) This Schedule applies to a combined authority if it is an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following paragraphs of this Schedule—(a) “combined authority” means a combined authority that is an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a combined authority that is an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of other combined authorities, see Schedule 5A.Functions of overview and scrutiny committee
2 (1) A combined authority must arrange for the appointment by the combined authority of one or more committees of the authority (referred to in this Schedule as overview and scrutiny committees).(2) The arrangements must ensure that the combined authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to investigate matters of local interest;(b) to make reports or recommendations to the combined authority or mayor on matters of local interest.(3) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the combined authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to make reports or recommendations to the combined authority with respect to the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the combined authority; (b) to make reports or recommendations to the mayor with respect to the discharge of any general functions.(4) The arrangements must (in particular) ensure that the combined authority’s overview and scrutiny committee has power (or its overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the combined authority;(b) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions;(c) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge of any functions that are the responsibility of the combined authority, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(d) to review—(i) the policy outcomes which were intended to result from action taken in connection with the discharge by the mayor of any general functions, and(ii) the effectiveness of that action in achieving those outcomes;(5) The arrangements made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) must (in particular) ensure that—(a) where a decision or other action involves expenditure of the combined authority, the review or scrutiny of it includes an assessment of value for money;(b) where the discharge of a function involves expenditure of the combined authority—(i) any report includes a report on value for money;(ii) where appropriate, recommendations are made in relation to value for money.(6) When assessing value for money, an overview and scrutiny committee must have regard to any guidance issued by a public authority.(7) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (3)(a) or (3)(b) to make reports or recommendations with respect to the discharge of any functions includes power to make recommendations about the way that a function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(8) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (4)(b) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes—(a) power to direct that a decision is not to be implemented while it is under review or scrutiny by the overview and scrutiny committee, and(b) power—(i) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered, or(ii) to make recommendations about the way that the function is, or is proposed to be, discharged.(9) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of decisions made but not yet implemented and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.(10) Before complying with sub-paragraph (9) an overview and scrutiny committee must obtain the consent of the combined authority to the proposals and arrangements. (11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee makes a recommendation to the combined authority or mayor under sub-paragraph (7) or (8)(b), and(b) the combined authority or mayor does not intend to give effect to the recommendation (at all or in part),the combined authority or mayor must give the committee a written notice of that intention and of the reasons for not giving effect to the recommendation.(12) An overview and scrutiny committee may send a copy of any report or recommendations made by it to any public authority (including the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown, or any government department).(13) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority may not discharge any functions other than the functions conferred by or under this Schedule.(14) Any reference in this Schedule to the discharge of any functions includes a reference to the doing of anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions.Overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision
3 (1) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority—(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.(2) A sub-committee of an overview and scrutiny committee may not discharge any functions other than those conferred on it under sub-paragraph (1)(b).(3) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority may not include a member of the combined authority (including the mayor for the combined authority’s area or deputy mayor).(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority is to be treated as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees).(5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to an overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority as they apply to a committee appointed under that section.(6) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority—(a) may require a key person to attend before it to answer questions, and(b) may invite other persons to attend meetings of the committee.(7) An overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority—(a) may require a key person to provide it with information or documents, and(b) may invite other persons to provide it with information or documents.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about—(a) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, required under sub-paragraph (7)(a);(b) information or documents whose provision may, or may not be, invited under sub-paragraph (7)(b).(9) A requirement under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) can only be imposed on a person by written notice given to the person; and the period between the notice being given and the date when the requirement must be complied with must be— (a) 10 working days, or(b) if that period of notice is unreasonably short, such longer period as is reasonable.(10) A person on whom a requirement is imposed under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (7)(a) is required to comply with the requirement.(11) If—(a) an overview and scrutiny committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required a person to attend a meeting of the committee,(b) the person does not attend the meeting in compliance with the requirement, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting,the committee must publish notice of the non-attendance in such manner as the committee thinks appropriate and a scrutiny officer of the committee (appointed in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 4(2)(d)) must give a copy of the notice to the person who did not attend.(12) For provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed under sub-paragraph (6) or (7), see paragraphs 7 and 8.(13) A person is not obliged—(a) by sub-paragraph (6) to answer any question which the person would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or(b) by sub-paragraph (7) to provide any information which the person would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.(14) In exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its functions an overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.(15) Guidance under sub-paragraph (14) may make different provision for different cases or for different descriptions of committee.(16) In sub-paragraphs (3) to (14) references to an overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees of a combined authority.(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may in particular include provision—(a) about the membership of an overview and scrutiny committee and the voting rights of such members;(b) about the payment of allowances to the members of an overview and scrutiny committee;(c) about the person who is to be chair of an overview and scrutiny committee;(d) for the appointment of persons to act as scrutiny officers of an overview and scrutiny committee;(e) about how and by whom matters may be referred to an overview and scrutiny committee;(f) requiring persons (whether members of the combined authority or other persons) to respond to reports or recommendations made by an overview and scrutiny committee;(g) about the publication of reports, recommendations or responses; (h) about information which must, or must not, be disclosed to an overview and scrutiny committee (whether by members of the combined authority or by other persons);(i) as to the minimum or maximum period for which a direction under paragraph 2(8)(a) may have effect.(3) Provision of the following kinds must be made under sub-paragraph (1)—(a) provision about when and how an overview and scrutiny committee must involve independent experts in its activities;(b) provision about how an overview and scrutiny committee must take account of the work undertaken by the independent experts involved in its activities;(c) provision for the remuneration of independent experts.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) so as to ensure that at least 60% of members of an overview and scrutiny committee are members of the combined authority’s constituent councils.(5) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) so as to ensure that all the members of an overview and scrutiny committee are entitled to be paid allowances in respect of activities of the descriptions specified in regulations under this paragraph.(6) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(c) so as to ensure that the chair of an overview and scrutiny committee is—(a) an independent person (as defined by the regulations), or(b) an appropriate person who is a member of one of the combined authority’s constituent councils.(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of a registered political party of which the mayor is a member.(8) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to a “scrutiny officer” of an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to a person appointed with the function of—(a) promoting the role of the committee, and(b) providing support and guidance—(i) to the committee and its members, and(ii) to members of the combined authority (so far as relating to the functions of the committee).(9) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (2)(d) so as to ensure that an overview and scrutiny committee has at least two scrutiny officers.(10) Provision under sub-paragraph (2)(g) may include provision for descriptions of confidential or exempt information to be excluded from the publication of reports, recommendations or responses.(11) In this paragraph “registered political party” means a party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(12) In this paragraph references to an overview and scrutiny committee include references to any sub-committee of such a committee.Style by which committees to be known
5 (1) The overview and scrutiny committees are to have—(a) the style “local scrutiny committee”, or(b) any other style that is specified in regulations under paragraph 4(1).(2) The specified style may (in particular) be—(a) a variant of “local scrutiny committee”, or (b) “overview and scrutiny committee” or a variant of it.(3) The power under section 117(1A) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to overview and scrutiny committees of different descriptions of combined authorities.Petitions
6 (1) A combined authority must make arrangements (“petition arrangements”) in relation to its overview and scrutiny committee, or each such committee, under which—(a) a local elector is able to start a petition calling upon the committee to exercise its functions in relation to a matter of local interest that is specified in the petition, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate their support for the petition within a period specified in the petition arrangements.(2) Petition arrangements must secure that—(a) a local elector is able to start any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means, and(b) other local electors are able to indicate support for any petition by electronic means or non-electronic means.(3) An overview and scrutiny committee must reject a petition in any of the following cases—(a) the petition is explicitly seeking new or increased expenditure of the combined authority;(b) the specified matter is not a matter of local interest;(c) the committee could not exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter without prejudicing civil proceedings or criminal proceedings which have been brought or which, in the view of the committee, are likely to be brought reasonably soon (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere);(d) the petition is offensive, abusive or vexatious.(4) In a case where the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors, an overview and scrutiny committee must decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the matter of concern to which the petition relates.(5) In any other case, an overview and scrutiny committee may decide whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates.(6) In deciding whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates, an overview and scrutiny committee must (in particular) take into account the effective use of the committee’s time and resources.(7) Within the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which an overview and scrutiny committee makes a relevant decision about a petition, the committee must—(a) publish written notice of the following matters—(i) the relevant decision;(ii) the reasons for making the relevant decision;(iii) how the committee proposes to exercise its functions (in the case of a relevant decision to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which the petition relates); and(b) give written notice of those matters to the person who started the petition.(8) Regulations under paragraph 4(1) may make provision about petition arrangements and petitions, including— (a) provision about grounds on which an overview and scrutiny committee must or may make a relevant decision about a petition;(b) provision about matters which must or may be taken into account in making a relevant decision about a petition;(c) provision for an overview and scrutiny committee to be able to combine petitions relating to similar specified matters;(d) provision about verifying whether persons are local electors;(e) provision about whether the number of local electors who are petitioners is at least 0.1% of the total number of local electors;(9) In this paragraph—“local elector” , in relation to a petition, means a person who would be entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of a mayor for the area of the combined authority concerned;“petitioner” means a local elector who has—(a) started a petition, or(b) indicated support for a petition,in accordance with the petition arrangements;“relevant decision about a petition” means—(a) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee to reject a petition, or(b) a decision by an overview and scrutiny committee whether or not to exercise its functions in relation to the specified matter to which a petition relates;“specific matter” means the matter that is specified in a petition in accordance with the petition arrangements.Financial penalties for failure to attend committee meetings, answer questions or provide information etc
7 (1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, give overview and scrutiny committees the power to impose a civil penalty on—(a) a person who fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(b) a person who fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting;(c) a person who fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee with information or a document;(d) a person who misleads an overview and scrutiny committee.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the person does not attend the meeting, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to answer a question put at an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required the person to attend the meeting,(b) the question is properly put to the person at the meeting,(c) the person does not answer the question, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not answering the question.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person fails to provide an overview and scrutiny committee meeting with information or a document if— (a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide the information or document,(b) the person does not provide the information or document, and(c) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not providing the information or document.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person misleads an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(7)(a), required the person to provide information or a document, and(b) the person intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys the information or document.(6) Regulations under this paragraph—(a) must provide for the amount or maximum amount of a civil penalty—and such an amount or maximum must not exceed £5,000;(b) may provide for the power to impose a civil penalty to be exercisable only in relation to persons of a description specified in the regulations; and such a description of person may (in particular) consist of all or any of the following—(i) mayors for the areas of combined authorities;(ii) deputy mayors appointed by such mayors;(iii) commissioners appointed by such mayors;(c) must make provision for appeals against the imposition of civil penalties (which may include provision enabling a civil penalty to be confirmed, withdrawn or varied in its amount on an appeal).(7) In order to take account of changes in the value of money, the Secretary of State may by regulations substitute another sum for the sum for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (6)(a).Termination of office for failure to attend committee meetings
8 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who holds one of the following offices in relation to a combined authority (the “relevant combined authority”)—(a) mayor for the area of the relevant combined authority;(b) deputy mayor appointed by such a mayor;(c) commissioner appointed by such a mayor.(2) The person ceases to hold the office if—(a) the person fails to attend six overview and scrutiny committee meetings (the “six missed meetings”), and(b) there is the required link between the six missed meetings.(3) The person who holds the office fails to attend an overview and scrutiny committee meeting if—(a) the committee is a committee of the relevant combined authority,(b) the meeting is a compulsory meeting for the person as holder of that office,(c) the person does not attend the meeting, and(d) the person does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending the meeting.(4) There is the required link between the six missed meetings if—(a) the six missed meetings are consecutive overview and scrutiny committee meetings that are compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office, or(b) the period between the first and last of those six missed meetings is 12 months or shorter.(5) In determining whether there is the required link by virtue of sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b)— (a) it does not matter if the six missed meetings are meetings of the same committee, or different committees, of the combined authority;(b) it does not matter if there are any meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee that—(i) fall between the first and last of the six missed meetings, and(ii) are not compulsory meetings for the person as holder of the office.(6) If a person ceases to hold office by virtue of this section—(a) the combined authority’s monitoring officer (within the meaning of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) must—(i) publish notice that the person has ceased to hold office in such manner as the monitoring officer thinks appropriate, and(ii) give a copy of the notice to the person who has ceased to hold office;(b) the person ceases to hold office at the end of the day of the last of the six missed meetings.(7) If a notice given under paragraph 3(11) of a person’s non-attendance at a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee relates to the last of the six missed meetings that result in the person’s loss of office by virtue of this paragraph, the notice must include a statement of that fact.(8) If a person ceases to hold an office by virtue of this section, that loss of office does not prevent that person from subsequently—(a) taking that office again, or(b) taking any other office referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(9) An overview and scrutiny committee meeting is a “compulsory meeting” for a person if the committee has, in accordance with paragraph 3(6)(a), required that person to attend the meeting.(10) This paragraph applies to a commissioner whether appointed—(a) under a worker’s contract,(b) under a contract other than a worker’s contract, or(c) otherwise than under a contract;and references to the office of commissioner (including holding office) are to be read accordingly in the case of a commissioner appointed under a contract.Audit committees
9 (1) A combined authority must arrange for the appointment by the combined authority of an audit committee.(2) The functions of the audit committee are to include—(a) reviewing and scrutinising the combined authority’s financial affairs,(b) reviewing and assessing the combined authority’s risk management, internal control and corporate governance arrangements,(c) reviewing and assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used in discharging the combined authority’s functions, and(d) making reports and recommendations to the combined authority in relation to reviews conducted under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) the membership of a combined authority’s audit committee;(b) the appointment of the members; (c) the payment of allowances to members of the committee who are members of a constituent council.(4) Provision must be made under sub-paragraph (3) so as to ensure that at least one member of an audit committee is an independent person (as defined by the regulations).Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“commissioner” means a commissioner appointed under section 107CA;“key person” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority, means—(a) the mayor for the area of the combined authority;(b) the deputy mayor for that area;(c) a commissioner appointed by the mayor for that area;(d) the officers of the combined authority;(e) a member of the combined authority who has responsibilities in relation to a particular area of policy;(f) a person of any other description that is specified in regulations.“matter of local interest” , in relation to an overview and scrutiny committee of a combined authority, means a matter which both—(a) relates to the area of the combined authority, and(b) relates—(i) to functions that are the responsibility of the combined authority (whether exercisable by the combined authority or the mayor), or(ii) otherwise to any aspect of any area of competence set out in section 2 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026;but it does not include any matters which relate to the functions of police and crime commissioners;“value for money” means the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of the combined authority.”Part 2Amendments consequential on Part 1 of this ScheduleIntroduction
3 LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Section 104: overview and scrutiny committees
4 (1) Section 104 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (9), after“combined authorities”insert“that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”.(3) After subsection (9) insert—“(9A) Schedule 5AA makes provision for combined authorities that are established mayoral strategic authorities to have overview and scrutiny committees and audit committees; and provision made in an order under subsection (1) is subject to that Schedule.”(4) After subsection (9A) insert—“(9B) In this section and Schedules 5A and 5AA “established mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (see section 1(6)(a) of that Act).” Section 107C: deputy mayors
5 In section 107C(3), after paragraph (c) insert—(a) (d) the person ceases to be deputy mayor by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 5AA.”Schedule 5A: overview and scrutiny committees
6 (1) Schedule 5A is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, after “Authorities” insert “except EMSAs”.(3) Before paragraph 1 (and the italic heading preceding it) insert—“Application of this Schedule
A1 (1) This Schedule applies to a combined authority if it is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “combined authority” means a combined authority that is not an established mayoral strategic authority;(b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a combined authority that is not an established mayoral strategic authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of combined authorities that are established mayoral strategic authorities, see Schedule 5AA.”(4) After paragraph 3 insert—“Style by which committees to be known
3A (1) Regulations under paragraph 3(1) may (in particular) specify the style which the overview and scrutiny committees of combined authorities are to have.(2) The specified style may (in particular) be a variant of “overview and scrutiny committee”.(3) The power under section 117(1A) to make different provision for different purposes includes power to specify different styles under this paragraph in relation to different descriptions of combined authorities.”Schedule 5B: election of Mayors of combined authorities etc
7 In Schedule 5B, after paragraph 11 insert—“Failure to attend meetings of overview and scrutiny committee: loss of office
11A Paragraph 8 of Schedule 5AA makes provision for a person’s term of office as mayor to end because of repeated failure to attend meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee.”Schedule 5BA: commissioners
8 In Schedule 5BA (inserted by Schedule 3 to this Act), in paragraph 9—(a) in paragraph (d), omit “or”;(b) after paragraph (d) insert“, or(da) the person ceases to be a commissioner by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 5AA, or”Part 3Extension of new scrutiny regime to all mayoral combined authoritiesIntroduction
9 LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Amendment of section 104
10 (1) Section 104 (as amended by paragraph 4 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph. (2) In subsection (9), for“combined authorities that are not established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“non-mayoral combined authorities”.(3) In subsection (9A), for“combined authorities that are established mayoral strategic authorities”substitute“mayoral combined authorities”.(4) Omit subsection (9B).Exclusion of all mayoral combined authorities from scrutiny regime in Schedule 5A LDEDCA 2009
11 (1) Schedule 5A (as amended by paragraph 6 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “Combined Authorities except EMSAs” substitute “Non-mayoral Combined Authorities”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a non-mayoral combined authority.(2) Accordingly, in this Schedule “combined authority” means only a non-mayoral combined authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, see Schedule 5AA .”(4) In paragraph 1 (functions of overview and scrutiny committees)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (3);(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit “and (3)(a)”.(5) In paragraph 2 (overview and scrutiny committees: supplementary provision)—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral combined authority, the mayor for the combined authority's area or deputy mayor)”;(b) in sub-paragraph (6)(a), omit “(including, in the case of a mayoral combined authority, the mayor for the combined authority's area and deputy mayor)”.(6) In paragraph 3 (power to make further provision about overview and scrutiny committees), for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) “appropriate person” means a person who is not a member of the registered political party which has the most representatives among the members of the constituent councils (or, if there is no such party because two or more parties have the same number of representatives, is not a member of any of those parties).”Inclusion of all mayoral combined authorities in the new scrutiny regime
12 (1) Schedule 5AA (as inserted by paragraph 2 of this Schedule) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In the heading, for “combined authorities that are established mayoral strategic authorities” substitute “Mayoral combined authorities”.(3) For paragraph A1 substitute—A1 “(1) This Schedule applies to a mayoral combined authority.(2) Accordingly, in the following provisions of this Schedule—(a) “combined authority” means a mayoral combined authority; (b) a reference to an overview and scrutiny committee is a reference to such a committee of a mayoral combined authority.(3) For provision about the scrutiny of non-mayoral combined authorities, see Schedule 5A.””
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that reports on allowances are published quarterly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, all of which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, relate to Clause 10 and the reporting of allowances within combined county authorities. These amendments are straightforward but they address an important principle: transparency and the use of public money.
The amendments seek to do three things: first, to ensure that reports on allowances are published on a quarterly basis; secondly, to require that those reports include not only the amounts paid but the evidence submitted by members, particularly those with special responsibilities; and, thirdly, to ensure that such reports are published online and are readily accessible to the public. None of these proposals is onerous; nor do they seek to disrupt the functioning of combined authorities. Rather, they aim to strengthen public confidence by ensuring that decisions about remuneration are open, visible and properly evidenced.
Public trust in local institutions depends not only on decisions that they are taking but on how transparently those decisions are made. If allowances are justified, why should the evidence supporting them not be published alongside the figures? Indeed, why should such information not be in the public domain as a matter of course? These amendments also reflect the evolving role of combined authorities. As they take on greater responsibilities and greater public funding, so too must they meet higher expectations of accountability. With increased power must come increased transparency. Is it not reasonable to expect that information on the use of public funds is not published routinely rather than intermittently? Should that information not include the justification for payments made by those in positions of additional responsibility?
I anticipate that it may be argued that existing arrangements are sufficient or that flexibility is required, but if the current system already delivers transparency, what objection can there be to making it clearer, more regular and more accessible? If it does not already do this, should we not take this opportunity to strengthen it?
These amendments go to the heart of accountability. If we are to entrust combined authorities with significant powers and resources, we must also ensure that they are subject to consistent, visible and robust scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it seems to me that all the amendments in this group would amount to good practice; this is what should happen. I hope the Minister will confirm that the amendments are agreeable.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 69 to 74. While I recognise her commitment to accountability in local government, the Bill provides that combined and combined county authorities and independent remuneration panels must take account of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for this clause.
That guidance will be issued in due course and will provide further details on the matters raised in these amendments. None the less, on the principles raised, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about transparency. We will seek to be pragmatic, ensuring that we balance clear accountability and transparency against overburdening the authorities in their reporting arrangements. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 69.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have heard from the Minister that the functions may already exist to provide a degree of oversight. However, the question before us is not simply whether information is recorded; rather, it is whether that information is made very visible, accessible and consistently available to the public.
These amendments do not seek to impose unnecessary burdens. They set out a reasonable expectation that reporting should be regular, transparent and accessible; in short, that it should meet the standards that the public are entitled to expect. This is not about questioning the integrity of those involved. It is about ensuring that the systems within which they operate command public confidence, and that confidence rests on transparency.
I listened to the Minister. We will wait until the guidance comes out to ensure that it reflects what we think the public deserve. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.
“Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees(1) Schedule (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral CCAs. (2) Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) changes the system of overview and scrutiny committees for mayoral combined authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce the new Schedules about overview and scrutiny committees of mayoral CCAs and combined authorities (which would be inserted after Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name).
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove amendments to the precept arrangements set out in section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook regarding the changes proposed in this Bill to the mayoral precept arrangements. As we raised in Committee, it is important to ensure value for money and that a mayoral precept is used not to compensate for cuts in government funding but to support delivery for an area. Additional responsibilities should not be placed on local authorities without adequate funding.
On Amendment 77, as was said in Committee, these precept arrangements were only recently and carefully set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 as a result of many long hours of debate in this House. The Minister has explained that these changes will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions. However, stability is important to long-term confidence in local government finance, so we oppose revisiting this framework before the recent changes have had a chance to bed in.
Amendment 78 seeks to bring the precept arrangements in line with the amounts permitted for county councils and unitary authorities. While we accept that a mayoral authority is different from other authorities, this in itself does not justify an exemption from well-understood precept arrangements. In Committee, the Minister said the limit would make the value of a precept insignificant. Does that mean that the Government envisage yet more tax increases?
This brings me to Amendment 79, requiring mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept. This would apply whenever the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept higher than the one set for the previous financial year. When people are asked to pay more, they deserve to know why, particularly given the current cost of living. To ensure full transparency and that this information is accessible, our amendment requires that a statement be published on the authority’s website, detailing the amount of the increase and explaining the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used. This cannot be done in hindsight. The statement must be published before or at the same time as the precept is set. Again, engagement with the local community should not be treated as an afterthought. Unless we hear convincing arguments against this amendment, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 79.
There is a broader concern that this Bill would enable, intentionally or not, excessive tax increases on local people at a time when they can least afford them. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for the amendments on precepts. The precept reforms which Amendment 77 seeks to prevent will enable mayors to levy a precept across the full range of an authority’s functions, giving them greater freedom in how they resource and deliver their priorities. I remind noble Lords that mayors have had the statutory ability to issue a precept since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Importantly, it remains entirely for each mayor to decide whether to make use of it.
Under the current framework, any precept that is raised can be spent only on designated mayoral functions, rather than on the full suite of an authority’s responsibilities. This restriction is both arbitrary and unhelpful in practice. It could, for instance, allow investment in transport but not in skills related initiatives. Our intention is to equip mayors with the means to address barriers to growth and improve outcomes for their communities. To do this effectively, they must be able to allocate resources across all functions of the authority, not just a narrow subset.
Amendment 78 would automatically apply council tax referendum principles to strategic authorities. This would unnecessarily restrict mayors’ ability to determine how best to deliver for their residents and local economies. The Secretary of State already has the power to set referendum principles for strategic authorities, if needed. In practice, mayoral precepts are relatively small. If their increases were capped in the same way as council tax, the sums involved would be minimal in most areas, limiting their usefulness for supporting local priorities.
The Government have been clear that any rises in the mayoral precept should remain fair and proportionate. However, imposing the same limits as on councils would reduce local flexibility. This approach cuts across the spirit of the Bill and of devolution more broadly. Our aim is to empower mayors to invest in their communities, strengthen public services and support economic growth. The Government already consult annually on the local government finance settlement, which is the proper mechanism for considering these issues for authorities and taxpayers.
Turning to Amendment 79, as I have noted, the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Whether to introduce a precept is a local decision and would need to be approved through the budget voting process within each combined authority or combined county authority. This includes setting out the precept amount and what it is intended to fund.
It is also worth pointing to the council tax billing requirements. Under the Council Tax (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2011, the information supplied with bills must include details of each local authority’s gross expenditure and its council tax requirement. It must also include an explanation of the reasons for the difference between the amounts. Where a mayoral combined or combined county authority issues a precept, it is covered by these provisions. This ensures residents can see both the amount of the mayoral precept and what it is funding. This information is also published on websites and if the taxpayer requires it, they can have it in a hard copy. As such, the system already builds in a statutory requirement for transparency and justification.
For the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group, and I ask noble Lords not to press them.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. However, we believe that there needs to be greater transparency in the approach to local taxation, to encourage not just accountability for financial decisions but also public trust. Therefore, if the Government do not wish to press ahead with their changes to their precept arrangements, I will focus on Amendment 79. This amendment is not asking for much. It reflects the simple expectation that any increases to taxation by the mayor are explained transparently and are accessible to the members of the public they serve. This requirement will support, not obstruct, good decision-making and management of local government finance. Therefore, on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.
Lord Jamieson
“Duty to publish statement on increase of mayoral precept(1) Where the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept which is higher than the precept set for the previous financial year, the mayor must publish a statement explaining the reasons for the increase.(2) A statement under subsection (1) must—(a) be published on the authority’s website,(b) set out the amount of the increase, and(c) explain the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used.(3) The statement must be published before, or at the same time as, the precept is set.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept.
Lord Jamieson
“Report on the exercise of powers to borrow(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities.(2) This report must include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet the debts incurred.(3) Copies of that report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by strategic authorities and their ability to repay the debts incurred. I thank the Minister for her correspondence on powers to borrow after this was debated in Committee. As the previous group focused on precepts, we felt it worth discussing powers to borrow in isolation.
In Committee, we asked one key question: who, in effect, is the guarantor in the event that an authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I appreciate the Minister’s clarification that constituent councils will not be held liable for debts incurred by the authority. However, this is an important area that requires thorough oversight, which is why we tabled Amendment 80 to require the Secretary of State to report on the exercise of powers to borrow money by the strategic authorities and their ability to repay debts incurred. Surely one of the aims of the Government’s plans is to put local government on a stable and sustainable financial footing.
To be clear, we do not object to the ability of authorities to borrow money, but we do think that the Secretary of State and, crucially, Parliament should be aware of the facts. This report would be published, copies would be placed before both Houses of Parliament annually, and it would include an assessment of the ability of specific authorities to meet the debts incurred. This would give Parliament oversight of how much debt has been incurred by specific authorities across the country, as well as their ability to repay that debt. The information could then inform future debates and decision-making about the health of local government finances, and it would no doubt be of use to Secretaries of State themselves. I hope the Government will give this amendment their consideration.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on this matter, which I have raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House because I have never been clear about who will actually pick up an overspend when one exists. So this partly about the ability to repay debts incurred and partly about who is actually responsible. In other words, are council tax payers of the constituent authorities liable to help to repay debt?
My understanding is that the scrutiny function can now stop this happening in the first place. In other words, one of my concerns about the failure of the scrutiny system has been that it would not be certain that a scrutiny committee would prevent bad financial investment decisions. But what the Government have done by introducing further amendments makes it possible for the overview and scrutiny function to work effectively in that respect.
So I hope the Minister will clarify those matters. I am worried about who is liable for debt and about who is able to authorise substantial expenditure without certainty that a debt can be repaid. But, in the end, will the scrutiny function the Government have now introduced actually prevent the problems the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has identified?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to report on strategic authorities’ exercise of powers to borrow money. I recognise that this is a well-intentioned and well-reasoned amendment, but I do not believe the provision is necessary. Like the rest of local government, combined authorities and combined county authorities must operate within the prudential framework. This comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. The framework already provides robust oversight and accountability. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that pre-scrutiny of key decisions by local accounts committees will also help.
In addition, this amendment contradicts the Bill’s aim of furthering devolution and increasing financial autonomy for these authorities, because it would shift reporting requirements up to central government. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is burdensome and duplicative, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I just have a quick question before I make my closing speech. Local authorities are required to have a Section 151 officer. Will the strategic authority be required to have one?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not want to give a definitive answer to that from the Dispatch Box, but I think the answer is yes—it would certainly be in accordance with local government accounting procedures and practice for anybody involved in spending local government finance to have the professional assistance of a Section 151 officer. I will reply in further detail to the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response on this matter and her continued engagement since Committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments.
We will not push this further beyond reminding the House that this is an aspect of local government finance that deserves continued scrutiny and oversight to ensure that authorities can repay the debts incurred through their powers to borrow. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this first day on Report and thank the Minister for her responses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.