(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:14 - Division on Amendment 82 - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 82 disagreed.
13:25 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
13:38 - Division on Amendment 84 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 84 agreed.
16:13 - Division on Amendment 121 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 121 agreed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure functions can be removed as well as added to the GLA.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this first group of amendments concerns the Greater London Authority and the London councils. We expressed concern regarding Clause 15 in Committee as we do not see why conferring more powers on the Mayor of London should be such a priority in a Bill supposedly concerned with devolution to the rest of England. Although we recognise that London’s governance is unique, we do not believe that this alone shields its governance arrangements from scrutiny.
Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would expand the London Assembly’s existing powers to require the attendance not only of the mayor but of experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services. It is clear that further democratic oversight of London’s services is needed, and not from the mayor alone.
Amendment 84, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would alter the voting requirement for the assembly to change the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority. The two-thirds majority requirement has proved to be a barrier to effective scrutiny, particularly over taxation. This is especially pertinent amid the rising cost of living for households in London and has our full support.
All these concerns and proposed changes can be deliberated further through Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to whom I am very grateful. This amendment would initiate a full review of London’s governance model within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, giving Parliament the opportunity to look at the GLA’s effectiveness, accountability and outcomes. This amendment also has our full support.
The amendments in my name seek to give the Government the flexibility to respond to such a review or to any changes Parliament decides on in the future. By amending Clause 15, our amendments would ensure that functions can be both removed and added to the GLA without requiring more and more primary legislation. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ valuable contributions and I hope the Government will consider our constructive proposals to allow the Government flexibility in the future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me so that I could explain more about my amendment, in particular the need for the wider power of summons for the London Assembly. Amendment 82 is about the need for a greater power of summons. The London Assembly has a limited power of summons over individuals and documents, but it can currently summons the Mayor of London only in very limited circumstances. The assembly is also prevented from summonsing those delivering services in London. At times, organisations refuse to attend hearings, including London councils. That cannot be right. Organisations that are delivering services to Londoners and spending huge amounts of money should be required to attend and answer questions.
When I met the Minister, it was suggested that the assembly should simply ask the mayor to secure guests who were reluctant to attend. That would be rather like the Lords asking the Prime Minister to help with our work—completely inappropriate. This power would strengthen the London Assembly and the scrutiny of services to Londoners. I therefore hope that Members across the House will support this simple amendment, which has always received cross-party support at the London Assembly. Given that there has been a shift between Committee and Report and a clear understanding of a need to increase scrutiny and transparency of mayors across the country, this amendment would help address that issue.
Amendment 84 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend the mayor’s budget at its final stage. This is an anomaly; it does not exist in other parts of local government. This simple amendment would remove it and make it the same as for other levels of government. I am pleased to have received support from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. This is about basic democracy and powers for a scrutiny body. It would mean that any mayor would have to work cross-party to secure his or her budget. Again, I hope all Members will support this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Our Benches do not support Amendments 81, 154 and 156, which go against the devolution agenda by suggesting that powers can just be taken back by the Government from the GLA. Why would you single out London for this? Surely we should be looking at devolving far more services and powers to local and regional government, rather than just trying to recentralise.
Amendment 83, which we will hear about shortly, calls for a review of the London model. I believe that work may already be under way looking at London. I hope the Minister can update us on that but I am sure that this probably should not be in the Bill.
The Government’s Amendment 243, which allows for grants to be paid to joint committees of London councils, rather than the current messy situation where one borough has to take the lead, is a tidying-up exercise and we support it. I look forward to hearing a positive response to my amendments from the Minister in due course.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously Bexley’s longest-serving leader, with associated involvement in London Councils and the Local Government Association. I will speak to my Amendment 83 and to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, as they are interlinked Before I do, I thank the Minister for Amendment 243 and the power to grant funding for distribution via a joint committee, as this will, I hope, resolve some of the issues I raised in Committee.
I raised the suggestion of a review of London governance in Committee, given that the mayoral GLA governance structure in London was the first of its kind and has been in place for about 26 years. The Minister promised me a conversation before this stage, but I suspect she ran out of time. It would still be helpful to have that conversation; it is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, got one.
As I said, the governance arrangement in London has been in place for nearly 26 years. It is interesting that that structure has never been repeated. Indeed, the Bill does not seek to replicate that same arrangement. That appears to be an indication that it is not viewed to be the most successful governance structure, so surely it would be worth considering the learning from mayoral authorities set up since, with a view to improving the arrangements in London. The irony is that I sat here the other night listening to the Minister talking about commissioners, and it occurred to me that a review of London that picks up some of the issues and shows some of the weaknesses could be of benefit to others. That would be an additional benefit.
The main difference with the arrangements post-London is that their governance relationship is between the council leaders and the mayor in pursuit of devolution, we hope to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, the proposal in this Bill suggests overview and scrutiny arrangements, whereas the London arrangement—the GLA—is considered to be for checks and balances.
In London there are 25 elected members of the assembly; 14 are constituency members and 11 are London-wide. They can call people before them, but they cannot instruct or make things happen, which comes back to the earlier point. The only real power over the mayor is to overturn the budget with a two-thirds majority, which in effect has never happened—something that Amendment 84 seeks to address. According to Google, the GLA’s budget for 2026-27 is £22.7 billion; that is an awful lot of money. It includes the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police and London fire. Each council tax payer on a band D property in London pays just under £500 per annum towards that.
It is an awful lot of money and, given the responsibilities, would not it be more effective to have the mayor and boroughs working together for the best outcomes for London? I am talking about outcomes such as tackling crime, making sure that our public transport is effective and efficient, and building the homes that London needs—outcomes that impact every Londoner, as well as those who come to London to work, learn or visit. In fact, in Manchester those outcomes even include health, and it could be beneficial to join up the public health or prevention knowledge in councils to deliver better health outcomes for London.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as co-president of London Councils and, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as a former borough leader. I think I was also the longest-serving leader in my particular borough at various times, and I am a former member of the London Assembly.
I rise particularly to address government Amendment 243, to welcome it and to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for the consultations that she had with me and also with London Councils about the content of it. The amendment that has come forward is a welcome compromise. Obviously, there is a desire from London Councils that perhaps written in somewhere should be a formal requirement to consult. But I am very pleased that the Minister and the department have been able to respond in this way, and I am pleased that it is now going to be in the Bill.
To underpin the comments made by other noble Lords in respect of the other amendments, I think that what is being forgotten is that the basis of the settlement in London was that people should work together. I do not know whether that is a criticism of the three mayors that have been, the various iterations of London Councils or the relationship with government, but I suspect that that could be improved. Whether it requires the sort of review that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has suggested, I do not know. But all I would say is that noble Lords should be careful what they wish for in such a review, because it might produce outcomes that they do not like.
I will sit down by concluding again with my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 243.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, for their amendments on the functions and governance of the Greater London Authority and London boroughs.
I turn first to Amendments 81, 154 and 156. This Government are committed to delivering a permanent transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions. Strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government will be able, on a whim, to easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is, of course, sovereign. The Government will always be able to introduce primary legislation that changes which functions should sit with which level of authority. However, this Bill makes sure that the Government will have to make that argument through the various stages of a parliamentary Bill; it must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this Government and future Governments to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation so that they can be exercised again by central government. It would be wrong to single out the Greater London Authority and allow its functions, and only its functions, to be removed by secondary legislation.
On Amendment 82, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for meeting me to discuss this issue. Her insight into the governance of London was very valuable to me. First, I would note that the Mayor of London is already required to appear before the assembly 10 times a year for Mayor’s Question Time. This affords assembly members an opportunity to question the mayor on a regular basis. It is a tried and tested mechanism for questioning the mayor, and is backed up by a strong incentive for the mayor to attend, in that generally, if they fail to attend six consecutive meetings, they will be removed from office. This amendment would not remove the existing mayor’s Question Time mechanism; rather, it would represent an additional burden on the mayor of London potentially requiring them to appear before the assembly multiple times within a given month.
Secondly, this amendment would enable the assembly to summon witnesses who are not connected to the Greater London Authority or work on its behalf. In using a broad definition, it could allow the assembly to require attendance from virtually any entity linked to activity in, or related to, Greater London. The assembly’s power is backed up by powerful enforcement mechanisms. A person who fails to comply with the assembly’s request can be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for not more than three months. I am sure noble Lords can appreciate that the expansion of a power with such an enforcement mechanism needs to be considered very carefully. In London, the assembly has broadly either the same or similar powers to those being introduced for local scrutiny committees. As London’s devolution settlement continues to evolve, the Government will continue to work with relevant partners, including the noble Baroness.
I turn to Amendment 83, for which I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I recognise her very long and dedicated service to Bexley and to London. The Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities, and it has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny, arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for London and Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, we want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities.
With this ongoing conversation already happening, it is not necessary to impose a formal review of London governance to be reported on at an arbitrary point. Indeed, it would be unusual to put such a requirement into primary legislation. The accountability arrangements for all mayoral strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will also be strengthened by revised guidance, such as new iterations of the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol.
I turn to Amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Simple majority voting in London would make it harder for the mayor to exercise executive authority and deliver for Londoners in areas where other mayors are being empowered. As I have said, London’s devolution settlement has served Londoners well for 25 years, striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the assembly. Mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities can have their budget amended only by a two-thirds majority, and there is no reason why London should be different.
Finally, my Amendment 243 would enable central government to pay grant funding directly to a London joint committee, such as that run by London Councils. This will address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, among others, for bringing this issue to my attention, and I also thank him for his very long service to London government.
Where there are cross-borough initiatives which are outside the remit of the Greater London Authority, the committees established by London Councils are best placed to receive and direct related funding on behalf of boroughs. Among many other examples, this is evident in the Freedom Pass, which the London Councils transport and environment committee negotiates with Transport for London and pays for on behalf of boroughs. At the moment, when central government wishes to pay funding for initiatives co-ordinated by London Councils, it must use cumbersome workarounds, such as paying to a nominated lead borough or routing it through the GLA. This creates additional barriers in time and complexity to getting money where it needs to go. It also lacks transparency, making it hard for citizens to follow who is involved in the spending of their money.
This amendment is a simple yet significant change that will allow money to flow directly from central government to joint committees established by London Councils, speeding up and simplifying delivery for Londoners. It is important that any entity receiving public money has the appropriate governance and oversight in place. Therefore, this amendment enables payment to take place only once the Secretary of State has made regulations setting out eligibility requirements. Those regulations will be approved by resolution of this House and the other place.
I commend my own amendment to the House and ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, could she clarify something? With the new mayors of strategic authorities, I understood that the committees voted using a simple majority. Are we now saying that it is a two-thirds majority, the same as for London, in the new mayoral authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My advice, as I read out, is that it is a two-thirds majority.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I read the Bill yesterday and thought that it was a simple majority, but there we are.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for making the clear and compelling case for the need for change to specific London governance arrangements. These amendments are ultimately intended to help improve services for Londoners and to strengthen democratic scrutiny of the mayor, whoever he or she might be, by elected members.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making the case for a full London governance review. I restate our support from these Benches for her amendments. We feel strongly that this is necessary in London, as is happening across the whole country. The Government may wish to contemplate further the possibility of that review, and therefore consider more seriously at the moment our proposed amendments to Clause 15, which would allow for the removal of functions from, as well as the conferral of functions to, the GLA.
If the London governance arrangements are so unique, as the Minister made plain in Committee, we believe Parliament ought to have further oversight and that democratic scrutiny should be strengthened in London. I hope that the Government will not dismiss these proposals but give them serious consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings(1) Section 61 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or (5)” substitute “, (5), (5A), or (5B)”.(3) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) This subsection applies to the Mayor of London.(5B) This subsection applies to—(a) any person who has professional competence, specialist knowledge or relevant experience connected to the delivery, management or oversight of services provided in or on behalf of Greater London, and (b) any person who is a member of, or a member of staff of, a body which employs individuals with such competence, knowledge or experience.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the London Assembly’s existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to require the attendance of the Mayor, as well as experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, but I think it misses the point. There is a gap in the existing legislation which means that key organisations can simply refuse to attend meetings and to answer questions. That includes organisations such as High Speed 2, London Councils and the Environment Agency. This is about transparency and accountability. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley
“Review of the London governance modelWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness, accountability and outcomes of the Greater London Authority governance model, including lessons applicable to mayoral and combined authority arrangements established under this Act.”
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. There may have been few speakers, but they were fairly powerful. The Minister said that the current structure has served London well, yet she has spoken to a member of the GLA and, with all due respect, she has not spoken to the Official Opposition—she might have had a different view had she done so. This is a pragmatic amendment. It asks for a review within a year of the Bill becoming law. In reality, that would mean that we could look at the good things and the bad things in London and learn from those, which surely has to be beneficial for everybody. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In Schedule 6 (procedure for determining the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement), in paragraph 8(4), for “two-thirds of the Assembly members voting” substitute “a simple majority of the Assembly members voting”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the voting requirement for the Assembly to change the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement by replacing the two-thirds majority currently required under paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 with a simple majority of the Assembly.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I heard her say clearly that it is a two-thirds majority that is required in other authorities when voting on a budget. This particular piece of legislation, however, refers clearly in Part 1, Clause 6(2), to
“a simple majority of the voting Members present and voting”.
I would like to have in-writing clarity on that, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, would it be in order to make a correction in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have double-checked the voting arrangements. It is a two-thirds majority for combined authority and combined county authority budgets. It is a simple majority, including the mayor, for most other things in a combined authority, and a combined county authority. The Bill does not override existing voting arrangements set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, or the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. This has to be done by consequential SI. The existing voting arrangements are set out in Article 8 of the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017, and will continue to stand. I hope that is helpful.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 84?
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the disqualification provisions in Clause 16 to elected members of a local authority.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I hope this group will be very brief, because I seek clarification from the Minister on a matter that has caused me some concern. Clause 16 of the Bill refers to
“Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority”.
There is a whole variety of rules which, in my view, are right.
I want to address the issue of elected local councillors, who do not seem to be part of Clause 16. Clearly, a local authority councillor can stand for election as a mayor, but I would assume—and hope the Minister will confirm—that they must resign if they are elected a mayor. But if they are elected a mayor when they are not a councillor in the first place, can a mayor become a local councillor? In other words, in terms of Clause 16, the issues are understood and well defined for members of legislatures—but a local authority is not, it appears, a legislature. I just wonder whether a mayor can also be a councillor at the same time, either as a member of the combined authority or as a member of a local authority somewhere else. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an interesting point which deserves an answer. On this side of the House, our views were made very clear in Committee: we are on the side of democracy, we believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments relating to disqualification for being a mayor of a strategic authority. These amendments seek to prevent an individual from simultaneously being a councillor of a local authority and holding the office of the mayor of a combined county authority.
The noble Lord will know that existing law already prohibits council members of constituent councils in both combined authorities and combined county authorities from being elected or holding office as the mayor at the same time. This is provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These amendments would have the effect of almost mirroring that prohibition, in relation to combined county authorities only, for councillors of any local authority.
However, the Government are planning to replace all two-tier council areas with unitary authorities and hence replace all combined county authorities with combined authorities before the next planned mayoral elections in two-tier areas. This means that the prohibition would very likely not be required. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation: that as of today, existing legislation holds sway in this respect. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers, and(g) results of any evaluation of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the Secretary of State’s reporting duties to provide a five-yearly assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on economic growth, local service delivery, and value for money for taxpayers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments beginning with Amendments 87 and 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. We have highlighted time and again that we have had no guarantee that the Government’s plans for local government will save money for the taxpayer, deliver economic growth or tangibly improve local services. Today’s announcements put that even more in doubt.
Therefore, our amendments, while they differ slightly, would enable the Secretary of State to review the impact in two ways. Amendment 87 would expand the Secretary of State’s reporting duties under existing Clause 19 to provide an assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, focusing particularly on the impact of newly devolved powers. The report must include the results of any evaluation that has been undertaken of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas. Clause 19 already requires that this report be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable.
Our Amendment 184 would require the Secretary of State to report annually for the first five years after the passage of this Act, this time via a Statement, with copies laid before Parliament. The Statement must assess the performance of strategic authorities established under the Bill, rather than the effects of devolved powers generally, in relation to the quality of service delivery and to the extent to which their functions have been exercised efficiently and represent value for money. I hope that the Government will give these amendments serious consideration.
Amendment 318A from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—of Manchester, I beg your pardon; that was a Freudian slip—would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. In particular, the report must assess effectiveness in relation to land access, green spaces, food production and local decision-making mechanisms. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those asks. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I think I have been cued in. I will speak to my Amendment 318A as—yes, still—the Bishop of Manchester. There is a vacancy in London, but I think I am too old to be considered.
Over the last 18 months, I have been chairing the Manchester Social Housing Commission. Central to our work has been the contributions that local residents and communities representing their neighbourhoods make to our thinking and, eventually, our recommendations. We have seen how empowered communities make a real difference. They are the people who know what it is like to live where they do. They can shape local services for the best results.
Far from being a problem for authorities to manage, communities continually demonstrate how they respond to the cost of living crisis or the epidemic of loneliness. People in communities are vital in driving their own solutions. As I go around my diocese, I see again and again how local people taking the initiative really make a difference.
I admit that, as a bishop, I sometimes get frustrated that my local parishes and clergy do not always do exactly what I want them to do—that would make life simpler for me—but the high degree of autonomy and agency that the parish system gives them means that they are often empowered to exercise the local knowledge that puts them in a much better position than me to know what would work well in their local context.
The community charter that is referenced in my Amendment 318A contains a short number of provisions that would give individuals and communities both protections and positive opportunities to drive change. Some of these rights already have clear legal precedent in other jurisdictions. Some reflect the UK’s obligations and international conventions, but they have not been effectively implemented in England or assessed. They have all been subject to legal advice, which confirms they are capable of legal implementation. Many of the specific concerns, whether about pollution or land ownership, can be dealt with by ensuring that such rights are carefully constructed and balanced with responsibilities.
Upholding many of the rights would require actions by regulators, rather than individuals. I declare an interest in clean air: I live on a major road, the A56, into Manchester, between the city centre and the motorway, and it fails every air quality test that it is ever subjected to. I know how important it is, from all the work I have done in housing—pretty much the whole of my adult life—to ensure that families can live healthy lives.
There are good examples of community empowerment from other jurisdictions: New Zealand’s right to a healthy home, promoted here by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as the Healthy Homes Bill, and New York’s constitutional right to a healthy environment. The rights shown in the community charter are perfectly possible in England.
When His Majesty’s Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last summer, I was very much looking forward to the changes it would propose, but the content of the Bill is overwhelmingly focused on the creation of strategic-scale local authorities. That is not a bad thing, but what is there that is genuinely about community empowerment at community level? To fulfil the ambition that is there in its title, a devolution and community empowerment Bill needs to enable communities to have a strong, democratic voice and to deliver positive solutions for their area.
Communities need to know the extent to which they have such rights, so they know whether they have a chance of their views being heard and listened to. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to report on progress that is being made in community empowerment in relation to the rights listed in the amendment. I will not take up time listing them all here. It is quite simple, it is quite modest; I am not intending to test the opinion of the House on it. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to a future meeting with me and colleagues to consider how progress towards these community rights could be measured and assessed. With that in place, I think we will have a Bill, eventually an Act, that can live up to the words “community empowerment” that stand so prominently in its name. I also support the other amendments in this group, because I think it is important that we measure what we are doing to know whether it has worked or not.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there are three very important amendments here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I have two caveats. The first is that it is quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million, and to manage that effectively. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has raised a slightly different issue, which is about community empowerment. We talk a lot about English devolution, but community empowerment is a much more locally based, neighbourhood concept. The problem that communities will face is that they will have no money to do the work that they would like to do.
I am very supportive of anything that can be done to assess how community empowerment is working, but my second caveat is that overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas. There are people who have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening—having an overview of what is happening. It seems to me that we should go to those people first to assess the success of the Bill when it becomes an Act, rather than going straight to central government and expecting it to do it all.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.
As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.
On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.
At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.
The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.
The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.
On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.
I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.
As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.
Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.
On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.
Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered, in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? These are all questions that the Government should answer and be held accountable for. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local councils and strategic authorities in the future will also have to be doing this work. But it is for the Government to look at the system as a whole and to ensure that it is delivering what it is intended to deliver in this Bill.
Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not be done just for the sake of it or to make life simpler for Whitehall. It should be done to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose, as we made clear on the very first day in Committee. Our amendments would allow just that and help to inform Parliament of how to move forward in the future. I hope that the Government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real-world outcomes of their efforts.
I thank the Minister for explaining how some of these challenges will be implemented. I need to read Hansard tomorrow to see whether we still have concerns. My overall concern remains—that there is still a lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first years after this big reorganisation of local government in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ravensdale, for amendments on collaboration. I will start with the government amendments in this group, which are minor and technical in nature. Their purpose is to align relevant definitions across the Bill. Taken together, they update wording in Clauses 21, 22 and 51. In doing so, they make the wording consistent with that used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 in the definition of “eligible function”.
The effect is to clarify that mayors may convene local partners, collaborate with neighbouring mayors or request an additional function in relation to any aspect of any area of competence. This reflects the Government’s clear policy intention to provide mayors with the flexibility that they need to use these powers effectively in addressing local priorities. For example, the health, well-being and public service reform area of competence should be read as covering its individual component parts of health and well-being and public service reform, rather than as a single inseparable policy heading. These amendments therefore promote consistency across the Bill, avoiding ambiguity or an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of how these powers relate to the areas of competence.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will support these amendments. I will listen to the noble Lords introducing their amendments before I respond to them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I rise to talk to Amendment 181, which is grouped with this. Britain has an unwritten constitution, which gives us flexibility but also lacks constraint on changing Prime Ministers or Governments beyond trust in their behaving like good chaps. As we have discovered in recent years, not all Prime Ministers do behave like good chaps or chapesses. The Minister herself earlier today referred to the question of whether a future Government might “on a whim” change the way they operate in crucial ways. The purpose of this amendment is to entrench the role of the mayoral council in the future governance of England and to make sure that a future Government cannot simply muck things up on a whim.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 309 in this group seeks to impose a duty to co-operate on local public service partners. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for adding his name in support.
I will not repeat at length the arguments I rehearsed in Committee in support of the amendment, many of which are equally relevant to my Amendment 182, which we debated on Tuesday. Suffice it to say that the recent fragmentation of our public services has resulted in disjointed services that do not align with the perceived needs of ordinary citizens, in wasted resources and in a damaging culture of competition rather than collaboration between providers. Ordinary folk just want to see collaboration and partnership working to improve the quality of the services they receive.
Many attempts have been made to address this problem. Noble Lords will recall initiatives such as the joining up central government initiative—a work in progress—health and well-being boards, integrated care boards and the troubled families programme. In all honesty, none of these has resolved the problem. Perhaps only Total Place, in which I played a part, was enthusiastically embraced by all sectors.
The Bill takes a different approach and includes a provision for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will be required to attend, but I am really not convinced that the power to convene meetings will resolve the deep-seated problems that have beset multi-agency working.
To succeed, we need to be more radical. Rather than setting up yet more working groups, liaison committees and joint boards, we should attack the problem at its root and place on public sector agencies a duty to co-operate with the strategic authority, principal councils and each other when they are formulating policies and plans or delivering services. If such a duty were imposed, the responsibility for ensuring that it was met would rest with the agencies themselves, which is exactly where it should be.
There is nothing new in this proposal. After all, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act. Under the Children Act 2004, a local authority must co-operate with relevant partners, bodies and individuals to improve the well-being of children in the local authority’s care. In doing so, it must consider the role of parents and others who play a part in caring for children.
So there is no reason why an overarching duty to collaborate should be difficult, and the advantages of it are immense—I think it would be a complete game-changer. For a start, it would send a very clear and necessary message that this Government expect to see collaboration between agencies, not competition. It would change the culture of our public sector entirely. It would show that the primary driver of public services must be to meet the needs of clients, citizens, customers or whatever you want to call them, not to serve for their own convenience or to enhance their own profile.
This amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, and I am given to understand that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to explore it further. I entirely understand that: there is probably more policy development to do, and there is a need to consult all the players in this sector. That is why I will not push this to a vote, although there is probably a majority in this House in support of the proposal. At the end of the day, this is a decision not for the providers themselves, some of which may find this inconvenient, but for the Government, to decide what kind of local public service they need. I think they need this duty.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments on collaboration. I will not comment on the government amendments, other than to say that we consider them to be technical and will not stand in the way of the Government. I must declare my interest as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 181 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raises a number of serious points that the Government need to respond to. However, we have some concerns that a mayoral council risks duplication of work that is already happening in other forums, such as with the Local Government Association, and therefore risks increased bureaucracy.
On Amendment 309 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, we share his ambition for joined-up public services that co-operate effectively. That will be important to deliver the high-quality services we would all like to see locally. The Government need to consider how best this can be achieved. However, we have some concerns about how this amendment would work in practice as regards the legal duty to attend meetings and the interpretation of “reasonable”. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment as set out is the right way forward, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the Government need to think about how this can be made to work in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this group. I will start with Amendment 181. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the overcentralisation of decision-making in England, and that is part of the whole rationale for bringing the Bill forward. I must be clear that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the mayoral council has done since this Government established it.
I will say just a little bit about the mayoral council: the existing mayoral council, and the Leaders Council of local authority leaders, are non-decision-making bodies so do not need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayoral council has run a shadow right to request process, ahead of that process being made statutory through the Bill, without needing to be a statutory decision-making body. As a statutory process, the right to request provides certainty that engagement will take place.
The mayoral council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they have already adapted to respond to feedback from members and the Government. As more devolution is delivered across the country and we get more mayors with more powers, their needs and best use may change. Retaining flexibility by not having forums set in statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums.
The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen that devolution through the mayoral right to request process, so it is not necessary for the mayoral council to create a framework for further devolution. Funding is discussed regularly at the mayoral council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs-based funding are done fairly across the country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she clarify one point? We are heading towards a model of English governance in which there will be roughly 35 elected mayors. Do the Government envisage that the Council of the Nations and Regions will then have the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government and, on the same basis, 35 English mayors?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those bodies are new bodies, and they will be evolving and changing as we evolve and change the model. They are not decision-making bodies. That is the main reason for saying we do not want to put them in statute, particularly in view of the fact that they will change fairly rapidly as we increase the mayoral model across the country.
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Lord Ravensdale
“103F Regional collaboration(1) Two or more elected mayors may collaborate across mayoral combined authorities and create convening bodies whose purpose, priorities and membership are decided at a regional level. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), convening bodies must work with existing regional organisations, and may—(a) convene regional, public and private sector partners to promote a region internationally,(b) develop investable propositions in key sectors and align trade, investment, major infrastructure and land use issues,(c) coordinate arts, heritage, cultural and sporting activities, and(d) ensure coherence across transport, skills, energy, social mobility and other areas of competence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for partnerships at a pan-regional level (eg. the North or the Midlands) to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities relating to economic growth, infrastructure and other areas of competence.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93, 119 and 183. I thank all noble Lords who supported these amendments across Committee and now on Report, including the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Shipley and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I thank the Minister for her engagement between Committee and Report. I hope she will be able to offer a substantive proposal in response to these amendments in her summing up, particularly Amendments 119 and 183.
Starting with those amendments, I will add to what I said in Committee. Social mobility is a long-standing problem in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, said yesterday in the Chamber, around the Government’s aspirations, that where you come from should not determine where you are going. We know that relative income mobility—the strength of the link between a parent’s income and that of their child—is poor, when we look at that internationally, ranking near the USA as one of the least mobile developed nations.
That echoes my personal experience growing up in inner-city Nottingham. I saw too many young people who did not meet their potential because of where they were from. The tragedy of lost potential that that represents led me to put forward a proposal for a special inquiry committee to look into this, which has now delivered, although we await the Government’s response on that. One of the things that that committee report highlighted, along with lots of recent work by the Social Mobility Commission, is the regional nature of the problem. We know that in places such as London and the south-east, social mobility is relatively good, but in the regions, such as the north and the Midlands, it is relatively poor, which highlights the importance of specific place-based approaches to address this issue of social mobility.
We now have a Bill in front of us to do with getting more power into strategic authorities in the regions. We have a good opportunity here to make some progress on this long-standing issue of social mobility and youth unemployment. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these amendments.
My Amendment 93 on pan-regional partnerships, which I have brought back from Committee with some minor changes, is informed by the work I have done in many areas on pan-regional issues across the Midlands over the past four or five years, and seeing the benefits of working at scale on a pan-regional basis and taking advantage of that larger scale.
In Committee, the Minister said that strategic authorities were enabled to do this already. Indeed, there are some successful examples of pan-regional partnerships—for example, the Great North partnership. The issue here is fragmentation. If the Government do not push this approach more widely, it simply will not happen more broadly across the country. The reason this is so important touches on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in the last group on economic development—another long-standing problem of the concentration of wealth and economic activity in the south-east of the country, with the Midlands and the north being left behind. Getting the regions together at that larger scale is key to helping to increase the prosperity of the regions in areas such as inward investments, large-scale infrastructure and cultural events, and to linking up cross-cutting issues such as social mobility, energy, and many other areas.
The Government have already committed to this. In the devolution White Paper, they recognised the benefits of a pan-regional approach, and the Minister talked about enabling co-operation with neighbouring strategic authorities. This is about going beyond that, enabling wider collaboration between groups of strategic authorities at a pan-regional level across larger geographies. My question for the Government is this: how will they provide support for the formation of those pan-regional partnerships, which are so important for the regions to develop economically, to tackle cross-cutting issues and to enable broader economic growth across the country? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response when she comes to sum up.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As we have heard, this Bill aims to put English devolution on to a stronger footing so that local leaders can drive economic growth and close the persistent and deep gaps between regions. But at the same time as we legislate to empower those places, the Government have decided to withdraw core support from the pan-regional partnerships that operate at the real economic scale of labour markets, transport corridors and investment decisions.
In my own region of the south-west, we saw partnerships such as the Western Gateway and Great South West show what can be done when local leaders come together across traditional boundaries. For example, Great South West set out a vision which would lift the region’s GVA by as much as £45 billion and create 190,000 additional jobs, if fully realised. The Government have chosen to end core funding for those pan-regional partnerships, and are offering only a short, time-limited extension in the case of the south-west, despite the scale of the prize. That risks hollowing out the strategic capacity that has been built up with relatively modest sums of public money but considerable voluntary effort from councils, businesses and universities across the peninsula.
As we have heard, this amendment does not seek to create a new tier of government or impose any kind of uniform model from the centre. It seeks simply to ensure that, where there is a clear economic geography, there is an enabling framework in statute so that collaboration can be sustained over the long term and is not vulnerable to short-term funding decisions or changes of ministerial fashion and that we at least have a fighting chance of delivering those tens of billions in extra output and hundreds and thousands of better jobs. I know that Ministers have said that they remain committed to pan-regional collaboration, they want it to be flexible and locally led, and that scarce resources must be concentrated on mayoral institutions. I agree absolutely with the Government that collaboration should be bottom up, and I recognise the fiscal pressures, but the sums involved in supporting these pan-regional partnerships are tiny compared with the potential returns of unlocking major investment in areas with so much underemployment.
As Jim O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and others have argued in their work on regional growth, those returns depend critically on raising education and skills and giving every young person and adult access to training that matches the needs of the local economy. Pan-regional frameworks are precisely the scale at which universities, colleges, employers and mayors can align skills, from apprenticeships to advanced manufacturing to reskilling programmes in digital and creative industries and others, so the projected jobs in these fields become real opportunities for local people. If we are serious, as all of us in this House want, about spreading high-quality jobs beyond London and the south-east, our regions need both the strong leadership and the ability to act together at scale.
Our amendment is modest and permissive and is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims, but it would help to turn those headline ambitions into tangible outcomes for jobs and growth and for people across our country to benefit from.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As he said, this has its genesis in the Select Committee which we both sat on—the Social Mobility Policy Committee. The noble Lord referred to the fact that we reported on 18 November. I just say in passing that the Government are meant to reply to Select Committee reports within two months; in other words, by 18 January, we should have had a response. It is not the responsibility of the Minister—it is another department—but when I tabled a Question about this, I discovered that on 29 occasions the Government have failed to reply to Select Committee reports on time. I just put on record what I think is a discourtesy to the House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk about the south-west, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and about how well the greater south-west grouping is working. To give noble Lords an example, they have come together and commissioned a successful system of getting wifi continuously on intercity trains. Some noble Lords may think that a complete waste of time, but when you have a five-hour journey, like I do, it is quite nice to have a bit of wifi. All the five counties, I think, have got together and done this. They are about to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to say, “We’ve proved that it works, even in tunnels and things like that. Will you give a small amount of funding to make it cover the whole of the network?” So co-operation works.
I have a question for my noble friend that relates to the relationship between Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. There is a certain occasional antipathy between the two. Size is one thing: one is very much bigger than the other. The smaller one, the Isles of Scilly, feels that it has been “done down” and that Cornwall has not given it the share of the money that it was due for the last co-operative project. Co-operation sounds very good and I fully support it, but what can be done when it goes wrong?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I see group 5 on social mobility as one of the most important that we have to consider on this second day on Report. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his commitment to increasing social mobility and his work to promote that and to promote pan-regional working. These are very important. The Government are determined to reduce youth unemployment and among the ways they will do that is the promotion of growth and devolving power to mayoral authorities. I think all these things can work.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his contribution on the previous group, said that we need a duty on local service partners to co-operate, because we have to promote co-operation rather than competition. I think the same rule applies to Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on pan-regional working.
One of the history lessons of the regional development agencies, which were ended in 2012, was that they competed against each other far too much. One of my fears in this English devolution Bill is that what could well happen is that mayors will compete with each other for funding, rather than trying to work together to increase the outputs from the money that they have. I have found this a very useful discussion, because if we are to have partnerships at a pan-regional level—let us say the north of England or the Midlands—then to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities would be very helpful, rather than having mayoral authorities within, say, the Midlands or the north of England competing with each other to earn the favours of the Treasury through their mayoral structure.
I have said previously that I think there has to be a system of assessment of the success of devolution to mayoral authorities. How do we know if they are working? We discussed that on a previous group, in one sense. I think that mayors should be targeted far more than we currently seem prepared to do. I think mayors should have a duty to reduce youth unemployment, unless they can demonstrate that central government has done something that prevents them from achieving that objective. I think that that would give a focus on the reason why mayors exist in a local area, which is to ensure that training gets better and that fewer young people, 16 to 24, are not in education, employment or training. Young people must be helped more and we have to invest more in their futures.
Finally, on Amendment 183, to which my name is attached, I think that consulting with the Social Mobility Commission on how we collect the data, and on how the evidence of social mobility outcomes is assessed, will matter. It is about achieving real outcomes, and those outcomes will depend on having the data to assess them. The Social Mobility Commission may have ways in which it can assist us. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something that I thought was very important: the cost is tiny in terms of the potential gains that can be made. I think that is absolutely right, so I find the three amendments in this group, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to be particularly helpful and appropriate, and I hope the Government will agree when the Minister sums up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing forward Amendments 93, 119 and 183, which address regional collaboration and the vital issue of social mobility, as we have heard.
Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord and supported by my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is a very sensible amendment that will encourage and enable collaboration between strategic authorities. We believe that this can only be a good thing for regional economic development, to the benefit of local residents. I will not repeat all the points so ably set out in support of this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, decides to press this amendment to a Division, he will have our full support.
Amendments 119 and 183 go to the heart of what devolution is ultimately for. It is not simply about shifting powers between tiers of government; it is about improving life chances, particularly, in these amendments, for young people who are not in education, employment or training. Amendment 119 was ably supported and explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and it highlights the importance of the partnership approach in tackling youth unemployment. This is an area where local knowledge and collaboration between authorities, employers, education providers and community organisations can make a real and lasting difference. Devolution should enable that kind of joined-up working, and it is right that the Bill reflects that ambition. Again, we will support this amendment if pressed to a Division.
Amendment 183 raises an equally important point about measurement and accountability. Taken together, these amendments remind us that economic growth alone is not enough. We must ensure that opportunity is shared and that devolution contributes to widening access to education, skills and employment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues before the House, and we look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to embed social mobility considerations into the delivery of devolved powers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for these amendments, and for taking a great deal of time and trouble to discuss them with me in recent weeks. The amendments relate to pan-regional collaboration, tackling youth unemployment and gathering social mobility data. I agree with the words of my noble friend Lady Blake: where you come from should not determine where you get to. I am a living example of that myself, and I know that there are many around your Lordships’ House. That should apply to anybody, wherever they start out—they should be able to get as far as their aspirations and their ability take them.
Amendment 93 is about pan-regional collaboration, which we have debated in Committee. I recognise the spirit of this amendment and its aim of empowering our strategic authorities to collaborate across administrative boundaries, to tackle shared challenges and to seize regional opportunities. As your Lordships will know, there is already significant pan-regional co-operation taking place between authorities, with mayors encouraged to collaborate across their regions, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. To give one example, the Great North was established last year by northern mayors as a mayor-led partnership to unlock jobs, opportunity and prosperity across the north.
I appreciate the intentions of the amendment before us, but it largely mirrors what has already been provided for in Clause 21, which gives mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners, and Clause 22, which provides a formal process for mayors to collaborate. These clauses establish a more formal framework for local engagement and partnership working, while allowing strategic authorities to determine their own methods and priorities for collaboration.
We will be publishing statutory guidance on the operation of the duty on mayors to collaborate. This guidance, to which mayors of strategic authorities must have regard, will elaborate on the importance of cross-boundary working and the benefits it can deliver for those who live and work across functional economic areas.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am grateful for her words, which really encapsulated some of what we are trying to do. However, on pan-regional partnerships, we had to take very tough decisions on funding because of the legacy we were left. As she indicated, we believe that these functions should now fall into the mayoral remit and it should be for mayors to build up those clear partnerships. I know that some of the pan-regional partnerships continue to exist because they had moved themselves to self-funding, and I am sure our mayors will want to work with them.
In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, regarding Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, he and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I have been to the Isles of Scilly with him. The Isles of Scilly are a sui generis authority, so they are not covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, we expect all areas to co-operate across boundaries, and I know there are useful discussions taking place between our friends in Cornwall and in the Isles of Scilly.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response and for the collaborative approach she has taken in response to these amendments and in all the various letters that have been flying back and forth over the past couple of days on this matter. I appreciate the commitments she has made on the guidance on local growth plans; the socioeconomic duty statutory guidance, which will really help drive forward that approach on data; and the strategic authority guidance. There is a comprehensive response there which will help to meet the intent of my amendments on social mobility, and I appreciate that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say on Amendment 93. She mentioned the collaboration clauses in the Bill, but we are of course talking about broader, pan-regional collaboration here, which is not yet adequately covered in the Bill. I ask her whether she would perhaps be willing to meet me and other stakeholders on this matter to look at that guidance and how we can move forward on this issue.
I can see the Minister nodding. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this Schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 97, I will speak also to the many others in my name in this group. I apologise for that, although they fall into four distinct subject areas, so that partly explains the number of them. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to related amendments in Committee. My noble friend was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.
I will start with Amendments 97 and 98, about non-passenger micromobility vehicles. We have others in this group, but I will focus on the ones in my name. As my noble friend said in Committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here. The intention of these amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micromobility vehicles.
Right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol. From this month, there are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol’s Gloucester Road. Anyone who knows Bristol’s Gloucester Road—as I do quite well, having campaigned there often—will know it is a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. One of these little autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road while one of the Green councillors was walking their dog, which I believe is a very small dog. These micromobility vehicles will have to deal with everything, from very small and very large dogs to children of different ages, and all kinds of different obstacles.
The interesting thing is that in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these Just Eat small-wheeled micromobility robots, and it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots. As I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. There is also the issue of these small delivery robots and people with mobility issues. Even if they do not actually cause a problem for them, it is about how frightening they are going to be.
My noble friend Lady Jones and other Peers expressed concerns in Committee that if the opportunity is not taken in the Bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens. The example given was of just how long it has taken to deal with the pedicab issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but he did not give us any way forward or an immediate course of action.
This amendment would allow for secondary legislation. We are well aware of the issues around Henry VIII clauses. It is not my intention to push the amendment, or any in this group, to a vote, but I hope the Government are thinking very hard and are prepared to take action with this Bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions. This relates to an amendment to Clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would tweak existing powers to allow such a vehicle to be seized if it is causing a problem in the local area. That is the first group of amendments.
Amendments 107 to 113 are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of the local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of its effective transport plans. Again, the response in Committee did not engage with the reality of the effects of the Bill in making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority-level data in addition to what is already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. I note that on 12 February, MHCLG published guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included there. There seems to be a real lack of joined-up thinking between the frameworks and the spirit of the Bill.
Amendments 114 to 116 are about local travel plans. Since we last discussed this, the issue of fuel usage has, of course, become much more pressing and of much more concern. I note the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased by 8% since 2020. We talk and hear a lot about modal shift, but we are just not seeing it happen. The Bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.
I move to the parking levies element of this—Amendments 117 and 118. We need a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities. That would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purposes of parking that a levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority, and therefore responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that the plan, forming the policies of any constituent authority, must be the purpose of this part.
Finally, to put that in an overall context, the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report to Parliament called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that is in the target by 2035. We have so many pressing needs here, and the incredible Parkulator tool shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking—space that could potentially be used for much better purposes including, in many cases, the housing we so often talk about. In a rather complex set of amendments, I beg to move Amendment 97.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.
I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 100 in this group but congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on opening this group of interesting amendments. I thank the Minister for meeting us prior to Report and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility vehicles. It was an interesting and successful meeting, and elucidated that currently there is no definition covering this area.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my task is very simple this afternoon, and that is to thank the Government and congratulate them on bringing forward Amendments 245 and 265, which will ensure that proper enforcement action can now be taken against those who breach parking conditions and park on pavements. This has long been a problem in local government; I can remember it back when I was a local authority leader in the 1980s and 1990s. London has benefited from enforcement greatly and now this is to be shared across the rest of England. The Government should be congratulated on that. The Minister was extremely generous when we were in Committee and said that he would look at this favourably. He has done so, along with his colleague Lillian Greenwood, who I also thank for the time that she has given to this issue.
Local authorities up and down the country will be enormously grateful, but the most grateful will be those who must use wheelchairs, buggies and any other form of transportation to move along our pavements unimpeded and to make those pavements more useful to us as pedestrians. I was happy to put my name to the amendments and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, asked me to record his thanks to the Government as well.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in congratulating the Government on this pavement parking issue.
I will speak in a bit more detail to Amendment 100 and focus on insurance, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been speaking about. She was talking about things that she does not remember in the Highway Code. I suppose that I do not remember things in the Highway Code that were published 50 years ago, when I had a driving licence. The issue is: what are we trying to achieve? Surely the most important thing is safety on the roads. That safety covers not just fast cars, large trucks, fire engines and ambulances but ordinary people trying to get around, often on equipment which has wheels. Are we looking at a series of amendments in this group which say that anything with wheels is, by definition, bad? I hope that this is not the case, because wheels are an essential part of mobility.
Occasionally, the use of this equipment needs to be separated. We spend a lot of time talking about scooters, freight bikes and other related things in between, some of which need insurance and some of which probably do not. You could widen this to a situation where if you are a pedestrian in London and cause an accident which is demonstrated to be your fault, you get the blame. Should you therefore, as a pedestrian, have insurance? It is a very wide subject and I am not sure that it is covered in this amendment.
As it stands, I cannot see why we should have special regulations
“to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance”.
Surely it is for the user to decide whether they should have insurance and what the insurance is for. The alternative is to lock it. I cannot support Amendment 100 and hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears in two or three places in this grouping. I join the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in saying how important Amendment 245 and the consequential amendment are. I have campaigned for many years on pavement parking. I finally feel that action is being taken, so I thank the Government and congratulate them on the step that they have taken.
I began being concerned about some of the transport issues when I was advised that there was doubt about who, between a mayor and a local authority, would be responsible for traffic calming measures in residential areas. In some parts of the country, it was being alleged that mayors would control the decisions on where traffic calming would take place, rather than the local council. I had a concern about that, and I wanted it clarified.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to feel slightly left out. I have not been the beneficiary of a large amount of correspondence from the Minister in the way other noble Lords scattered around the Chamber appear to have been. I do not have the advantage of his support and the wording that he might have supplied to help me make my speech.
I was very interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to them. I also had a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I will just pause for a personal recollection about the Highway Code. Back in, I think, 1973 or 1974, I was part of the team representing my school, which was triumphant in the West Midlands competition on mastery of the Highway Code. It was a sort of quiz and we had to train for it, but it was sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. To this day, I still have a very detailed recollection of the contents of the Highway Code as it stood in 1974. The most devastating consequence of this afternoon’s debate is that I have learned only today, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that it has become a very much larger document and that it is available only online. I have been living by the 1974 version very satisfactorily ever since.
But my noble friend makes a very serious point and she illustrates a degree of confusion and delay on the part of the Government. The uninsured losses that have been accumulating in the motor insurance system have fallen to the expense of responsible motorists, who pay their insurance. They are paying for all these uninsured losses and the Government will have to deal with that. If the Minister is not in a position to do so today, I agree with my noble friend that the Government will need to return to it urgently—certainly in the next parliamentary Session.
I do not object to the government amendments on pavement parking; I broadly welcome them. I find most attractive that they very properly make it a local decision, including on the exemptions required. It is very unlikely that there will be a blanket ban on pavement parking in any part of the country—there will have to be some exemptions in certain areas—but these matters should be decided locally and sensitively in consultation with residents.
That brings me to my Amendments 104 and 105, where I am motivated by a similar consideration of the sensitivities of local residents. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for indicating his support for these two amendments. Through this Bill, the Government are creating a key route network that I imagine is not unlike the red route network in London, but applied to other great conurbations. Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the roads in which that network could be created.
The purpose of my amendment, which we debated in Committee, is to prevent that network being created on residential and minor roads, in essence. The way that I have done that—and it is a slightly rough measure—is to confine the key route network to
“classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic”.
I realise that some of those roads may also be residential in character, but at least they are major roads at the moment, so the residents know where they stand. People need to be protected from the thought that their possibly quiet residential road could become an extension to an urban motorway, with very little say on their own part. The purpose here is to protect those people, and I think the Government could easily agree to this, because it is most unlikely that they would want those consequences to arise, and this would be a way of protecting from them. I give the Minister notice that, unless he is very accommodating on this point, I will test the opinion of the House.
Finally, my Amendment 103—again debated in Committee—would leave out Clause 27. The history of this clause is that, when the Greater London Authority was created, the Mayor of London was given the power to dispose of non-operational land belonging to TfL, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. There would have to be permission from the Secretary of State before the disposal should take place. The effect of the Bill is to remove that requirement and to leave it entirely to the Mayor of London.
I emphasise that the comments I am making have no relationship to the current, or any other, incumbent. The remarks I am making arise because, since the Greater London Authority Act was passed, the mayor has had housing responsibilities added to his portfolio. Those responsibilities did not exist in 1999; I think it was the Localism Act 2011 that added them, but it was around that time that housing responsibilities were added. There is now, irrespective of the personality of the incumbent, an institutional conflict built into the mayoralty about the best use of land under his disposal: would it be for transport purposes or housing purposes? Depending on the political pressures on him at a particular time, poor judgment might be exercised in deciding on the disposal of that land.
The effect of my amendment in removing Clause 27 would be simply to maintain the status quo: the mayor may order to TfL to, or may on behalf of TfL, dispose of TfL land, as currently, but he would require, as currently, the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important point for ensuring the proper integrity and responsibility over any decisions to do with the disposal of land given the potentially conflicting roles that the Mayor of London has in this regard.
I think this has been a very useful debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, since, at least in my case, it will be for the first time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Shipley and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his contribution. I say in response to him that this Government are very much in favour of mobility, but it has to be subject to appropriate regulation. I would also be delighted to supply the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with scripts for his future speeches in response to Bills such as this; my only condition is that he reads them as I give them to him. I will try not to shower him with more correspondence than he needs.
Government Amendments 245 and 265, on pavement parking, will enable the safe use of the pavement by all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments and those with prams, pushchairs or luggage. On 8 January, my department published the response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling an amendment in Committee on this subject, and I am sorry that he is unable to be in his place today, but I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Bassam has so clearly echoed his views.
Amendment 265 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a coherent and adaptable framework under which English local transport authorities could prohibit parking motor vehicles on pavements and verges in their areas. The prohibition introduced by regulations will be subject to civil enforcement. The regulations under the new clause will address matters including how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded, permissible exemptions for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area, and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition, among others.
These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can examine and approve the detailed regulatory framework before it takes effect. In the meantime, we plan to give local authorities powers later this year to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the footway. This can be achieved through secondary legislation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It was not my suggestion that the mayor needed to be supervised: it was the suggestion of the Labour Party drafters of the 1999 GLA Act, which I am simply standing up for. So reject it by all means, but do not cast that upon me.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that the successors of those people have changed their minds, so it is about time that he did, too. We have had the experience of three mayors, over 25 years, and there is no evidence that they have been incapable of taking these decisions. In 1999, there had not been a mayor, but the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful.
We discussed Amendments 104 and 105 in Committee and I said that the powers in the Bill were based on the principle of devolution: that is, it should be for places to consider what is right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act to provide concise guidance on the designation of key route networks, as well as on the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport—especially buses—and links to key employment or development sites. That balance will help places in their consideration of important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution and the fact that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly.
There are strong reasons why roads that are not classified numbered roads could be key routes under certain circumstances. They might well be roads with high levels of bus and public transport use, or linked to locally important employment or development sites. In both cases, the number of people carried, as well as numbers of vehicles, might be important in the designation. I hope that the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction will reassure the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his helpful intervention on that and for our recent discussions.
Amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to align duties with others in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans. Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in this schedule to give mayors of combined and combined county authorities powers to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non-key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them. As was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in Committee, this proposal is duplicative. Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area and, as the highway authority with the relevant powers, are best placed to influence traffic levels on those roads.
Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning. Close working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 supports this close working by requiring the constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s policies set out in the local transport plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement rather than have regard to proposals in a local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.
Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for non-mayoral strategic authorities. For existing non-mayoral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the Government’s commitment in the English devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions for non-mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils. Under existing legislation, it is up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amend them to reflect local transport circumstances. The Government will produce updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice about when authorities should review and update their plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed.
Amendment 117 would remove the word “workplace” from the framework. Extending the levy-introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension, and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is greatest at peak commuting times. Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment would also add strategic authorities to the list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy.
I touched on this in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. As I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities and their mayors. The Nottingham scheme has been a success, and it is understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans.
Finally, this amendment would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, which a workplace parking levy must support, under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 Act already defines local transport policies with reference to the local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.
Amendment 118 would have no effect, I am afraid. Local authorities outside London already have powers under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of Section 62 of the Highways Act 1980.
I turn to the environmental improvement element of the amendment. Adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the Act. Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within a highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. The definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments, and I beg to move the amendments in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating this group. I also join other noble Lords in celebrating government Amendments 245 and 265. I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years and I have heard much talk of doing something about pavement parking. At the weekend I happened to be in Chorley, where people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. I know from Sheffield that there was quite a phase of social media having daily “awful piece of pavement parking” posts, so I think this is really encouraging.
“(3) The regulations must make provision for a licence to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I would like to clarify something on the Highway Code. The Minister was absolutely right that the Highway Code is available in hard copy. It is when it is updated more than once in quick succession that the changes are available only on the internet.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the other amendment of Schedule 7 in my name.
“(5A) But the mayor for the area of a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral CCA is not the appropriate authority in relation to an approval order if the application for that approval order is made on or before the day on which the first mayor for that area takes office; and accordingly—(a) the Secretary of State is (by virtue of subsection (2)(b)) the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order (and continues to be the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order after the first mayor takes office);(b) the application for that approval order must be made to the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that an approval order can be requested and made where the appropriate authority would normally be the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA, but the first mayor for that area has not yet taken office.
Lord Moylan
“(1C) The key route network must consist only of classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the highways or proposed highways that constitute the KRN are genuinely strategic.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I heard the comments of the Minister in relation to guidance to be issued and, with that, I will not move the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.
Lord Jamieson
“Brownfield land priority(1) A mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority may not designate greenfield land for development unless it is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area.(2) In determining suitability under subsection (1), regard must be had to—(a) the availability of land, and(b) the viability and environmental impact of development.”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. There is near universal agreement that a “brownfield first” strategy is the right one. Not only does it save green fields but new developments benefit from existing infrastructure, homes are delivered where they are needed most, it supports regeneration and, finally, it is better for the environment. However, greenfield sites offer the potential to landowners and promoters of huge planning gain, from a few thousand pounds an acre as agricultural land to hundreds of thousands once planning permission is received—hence their willingness to push and challenge the system. Once planning permission is received, building on it is so much easier for developers. As a result, in effect we have a default “greenfield first” approach, losing precious green belt and productive farmland.
If the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that we cannot be dependent on imports; we need to grow our own. Yesterday’s announcement on local government reorganisation, with urban areas expanding into their rural hinterland, will only encourage building on green fields rather than focusing on the urban footprint. For years, Governments of all colours have tried to prioritise brownfield first, but guidance alone is simply not enough; we need something more forceful. We need it in legislation. If we make this a requirement of strategic plans, mayors and combined authorities will need to address the issues facing brownfield in their areas up front, to make it easier to speed up and deliver brownfield development. Without it, greenfield will continue to be the default, the environment will suffer, more money will need to be spent on infrastructure and we will continue to lose valuable agricultural land. We will also fail to deliver the homes we need where they are most needed, continuing the housing crisis, with young people unable to afford their own home and increased homelessness.
In Committee the Minister raised a concern that this would be used as an excuse to delay development of sites. In fact, the very opposite is the case: this is all about getting more sites and more homes faster and where they are needed most. When we are facing a housing crisis and we are failing to build, and that failure is biggest in urban areas such as London with the greatest need, it can only be right that we build more in urban areas through gentle densification and repurposing of redundant sites. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will say a few words in general support of the principle of this amendment. We supported it during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so it would make sense to do so here.
It was good old John Prescott who first promoted “brownfield first” and, ever since then, councils have been encouraged to promote it, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs, and that is the real issue I have with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Decontamination and development costs alone make it much more costly. There is a fear of lopsiding development, and I would be interested in further discussion—but clearly not here now—about how we square the very emotional debates we have had over the last day on Report with rural issues, the lack of housing in rural areas and how people need it, for all the reasons given. This amendment squarely says, “Leave the green areas alone”, so I have a little problem with it, although we on these Benches absolutely support the overriding principle.
Given the large area of combined authorities, there will clearly be a massive range of sites, covering all sorts of greenfield and brownfield sites, so I will leave the Minister with the thought that perhaps the Government need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first. There are lots of ideas that I am sure she is aware of that would encourage that more, but the key thing is that brownfield alone will not meet housing needs. Rural areas need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections for our green belt and our countryside.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 121 about brownfield land. I agree that we should always use brownfield land wherever possible. As succinctly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, one reason for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there is more brownfield land there. We are trying to promote that kind of development as part of the reorganisation process, but there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We have a rural housing crisis that we must tackle, and there are other uses, such as data centres, for which it might also be appropriate.
Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities, but they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy.
The effective use or reuse of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, mentioned earlier, goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development outside of settlements.
Mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through mayoral development orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types in line with their ambitions for growth. It is right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth that this country needs. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is for these reasons that I do not consider it to be necessary or proportionate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments and the Minister for hers. Let us be clear: this is about doing what everyone has said that we need to do, which is developing on brownfield first. It is not about preventing development anywhere else. This is about creating more sites, it is about getting more building done, but it is also about regenerating cities and providing the homes that we need. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister. This is not about blocking; it is about enabling. I therefore wish to test the opinion of this House.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment of clause 2 in my name would add culture as an “area of competence” in the Bill, and it would appear as the last in the list of areas. Clause 41 falls more readily in the new “culture” competence and so this amendment would mean that its position in the Bill reflects the order in which the areas of competence appear.
Lord Fuller
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments from Lord Fuller in Clause 42, seeks to make clear the separation of duties between Mayor and Local Government Pension Scheme to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the mayor and pension scheme.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I will speak briefly to this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with me on the narrow point. These three amendments, which are mostly the same, are supportive of what the Government are trying to achieve.
In Clause 42, there is a requirement for mayors to co-operate with the LGPS to finance infrastructure. I have no problem with that—in fact, it is to be welcomed. My amendments are based on the simple truth that if they are to grow the economy, mayors need to have a complete understanding of how money is raised, deals are put together and bright ideas are turned into investible opportunities.
In essence, mayors need to understand the difference between funding and financing. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. Of course, they are completely different disciplines. My amendments simply substitute “develop” with “promote”. This recognises that it is the role of mayors to produce investible opportunities but not necessarily that of the LGPS to buy them. This is not purely semantics; it is a simple word change that stops accusations of a degree of connivance or collusion between the mayor and funds, which could lead to conflicts of interest.
This group ensures that there is a proper separation of duties between the mayor and the funds. The word “promote” helps everybody be clear: it is the mayor’s job to punt the opportunity, but the scheme is not necessarily mandated to accept it. Promotion makes it clear that the mayor needs to work harder to be clearer about what the market and investors require, to turn that idea into a proposition. In so doing, the important point is that this encourages the wider uptake of good opportunities, not just by the home fund but by the wider pool of investments in the LGPS and beyond.
There would be fewer accusations of connivance, a greater clarity of roles, greater professionalism and understanding of how financing works, and a better separation of duties, which would allow other pools to jump on the bandwagon of good ideas, rather than just being a closed shop. Words matter. This substitution would strengthen the clause and make actual investments more likely. Two minutes—I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue: the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the Local Government Pension Scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interest, as we have heard.
Under the Bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development. That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions and on whose behalf. Pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is fiduciary: to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries.
There is a distinction here that matters. The mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to directly or indirectly influence the allocation of pension fund assets. In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity and another independently decides whether to write the cheque. As has been noted, there are important differences between funding and financing and between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance.
Co-operation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable, but the co-operation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines. What begins as collaboration must not become, even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision-making and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. For those reasons, I support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for Amendments 129 to 131 and for the time he took to discuss them with me. I recognise his intention to clarify the roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and pension funds in making local investments. I agree that it is very important for roles and responsibilities to be completely clear. We want strategic authorities to play an active role in bringing forward investment and guidance. We will further explain the Government’s expectations.
I just point out that there is in the Pension Schemes Bill a reciprocal requirement for local government pension funds to co-operate with strategic authorities. The wording of “identify and develop” in this context is consistent with that requirement, which makes it a bit late to change that just now. The meaning of “development”, however, can be clarified in guidance. Pensions guidance will confirm that there is no requirement to invest in assets that are not deemed suitable as pension investments. This should provide the noble Lord reassurance.
Schedule 20 includes a requirement for local growth plans to set out key projects for achieving economic growth through private or public investment. The guidance on local growth plans already makes clear the expectations and support available to mayoral combined authorities and to mayoral combined county authorities for developing and taking forward that pipeline of investment opportunities. Further, government guidance for local government pension funds will explain the meaning of this requirement for them. This guidance will further clarify our expectations in this context. I am very happy to discuss this with the noble Lord outside the Chamber as we develop the guidance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I think I laid out that relationships should be close but not cosy between the mayor and the funds. I accept the reciprocity between this Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill, which we debated earlier. I accept the Minister’s assurance and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(a) the availability and standards of housing, transport services or public safety,(b) environmental factors, including air quality, and access to green space and bodies of water,(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity,(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services,(e) the use of, level of use of, tobacco, alcohol or other substances,and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, including physical activity and diet, that are or may be harmful to health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the list of general health detriments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 132 is on the general health determinants listed under Clause 44. Under that clause, combined authorities must have regard to improving the health of people in their area. Our amendments would expand the current list of general health determinants to include the availability, as opposed to just the standards, of housing. In addition,
“matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle”
as referenced in the Bill are specified to include “physical activity and diet”.
On housing, standards are crucial of course, but housing availability should also be considered as it affects housing insecurity and homelessness. On physical activity and diet, it should be clear to all noble Lords that these are major health determinants. This is common knowledge: dietary patterns are a key determinants of chronic disease, and physical activity is a major factor for preventable disease. In 2023, evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance showed that the UK was ranked 11th out of 15 comparable European nations for the levels of physical activity that were undertaken, and that we were the third-highest spender on healthcare costs caused by inactivity. Updating the general health determinants in this Bill would inform fthe health determinants referenced in Amendments 133 and 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.
Evidently, there is scope in this Bill to see what more can be done to make our country healthier, based on common sense. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this very short and very simple amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 133 and 134. As we are aware, the UK’s health is fraying and unequal, with increasing numbers of people unable to work owing to poor health. Compared with other high-income countries, the UK now has one the lowest life expectancies and is among those with deepest health inequalities. This has avoidable and negative consequences for individuals, public services and the economy.
Addressing these inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the powers to shape economic growth, create healthy places and reduce inequalities. This Bill provides a timely opportunity to embed health and health equity at the heart of devolved decision-making, and I warmly welcome Clause 44, which is a crucial lever for improving health and reducing health inequalities.
In Committee, I tabled amendments to strengthen this duty and the proposed local growth plans to ensure that all strategic authorities act consistently to improve health, reduce health inequalities and consider health while growing their local economies. My noble friend the Minister responded that she believes the duty as drafted
“will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 613.]
However, the Government have not yet provided any detail on how this duty should be fulfilled or how strategic authorities will be held accountable for this. Without this detail, there is a real risk that inequalities will be worsened, with some strategic authorities taking significant action to improve health and others seeing the duty as a tick-box exercise.
To ensure that the duty is as successful as we and the Government want it to be, I have tabled amendments which would require the Government to report to Parliament on the implementation of the duty. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Bichard, for their support.
The Government previously said that they will monitor the health duty, with Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, saying that
“we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country, so we can ensure that the intent is aligned with practice and delivery”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 21/10/25; col. 358.]
These amendments would formalise the Government’s commitment, providing a mechanism to identify whether further support, guidance, resources or requirements are needed in the future. It would also provide a mechanism to support shared learning across strategic authorities.
The amendments focus on implementation and process rather than outcomes, given the time it takes to see shifts in health inequalities. Information could be collected with a light-touch approach of returns from strategic authorities covering actions taken, strategies produced, partnerships formed, et cetera, and desk research by civil servants. Without these amendments, there is a risk that the new health duty remains well intentioned but inconsistently applied across regions and will therefore fail to have any real impact on reducing health inequalities. This would be a significant missed opportunity to reverse worrying health trends. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that the Government will agree to guarantee strong guidance on this issue to ensure that the duty is properly implemented across all regions.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I spoke to Amendment 132 in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, but I just want to say that the Minister said in Committee that the reason why the Government want to stick with their own wording on Clause 44—a clause that we all support very strongly—was that they did not want to be too prescriptive regarding what areas should be looking at as health determinants. However, if we do not reflect what is known about the determinants of health, we will not be able to set down what we need to measure to evaluate the success of Clause 44, which is so important and which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, spoke about in connection with her amendments. I therefore urge the Government to look very carefully at these amendments to see whether some adjustments can be made that would make Clause 44 as strong as we all want it to be.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and health inequalities duties. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for her helpful contribution.
On Amendment 132, I stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities, which are the experts in their local areas, to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act. It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.
Setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of “general health determinants.” It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”,
and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall for her Amendments 133 and 134. However, these amendments would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State would be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirement for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the
“consistency of implementation of the duty”
is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally.
Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and have the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard. This would constrain local ambition. More broadly, alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations.
However, I reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities to understand the impact that it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it. With these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendment and my noble friend Lady Royall does not move hers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments. Ensuring that we have a holistic view of housing—not just the quality but the quantity of housing and the role that it plays in health—makes it easier for authorities to respond to this part of the Bill. Explicitly recognising the effects of diet and physical activity on our health is not contentious but will also help authorities to facilitate healthier lifestyles in their communities. I hope that the Minister will give his continued consideration to these amendments.
Lord Rees of Easton
“Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officer for designated mayoral fire and rescue authoritiesPart 3 of Schedule 23 makes further provision in connection with the establishment of the position of Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officers in a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.”
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
Amendments 135 and 138 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I will also speak to Amendment 173. I do not intend to provoke a debate and will withdraw my amendment at the end of this group.
I thank the Minister for her openness and the constructive conversations that we have had on the integration of fire and rescue services into combined authorities in response to questions raised with me by West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Earlier today I got off the phone with Mayor Brabin. It is great to be able to say that we are particularly grateful for the Minister’s commitment to bringing the relevant partners together to ensure that the final shape of these arrangements works for fire services, combined authorities and the communities that they serve. We are also very grateful for the broader ongoing commitment to strengthening the working relationship between government and our metro mayors, which will be critical to meeting the challenge of delivery. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments highlight a real tension in this Bill. While powers are being devolved to mayoral combined authorities and CCAs, there remain serious questions about accountability, scrutiny and operational independence for fire services. The financial provisions brought in through Schedule 23 are necessary to ensure that the mayoral fire and rescue authorities are subject to the appropriate reporting and responsibilities. Yet the practical questions remain: will these arrangements be sufficient to safeguard transparency and maintain public confidence, particularly in emergency planning and the management of major incidents? In short, this group of amendments highlights the wider concern that devolving powers to mayors risks concentrating authority without sufficient checks. We will listen carefully to the Minister, but I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously and ensure that robust scrutiny and accountability for fire and rescue functions is embedded in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for Amendments 135, 138 and 174 and for being available to explain why he has brought this forward from other mayors. He has passed on their views for us.
I will speak first to Amendments 136 and 137 in my name. As I set out in Committee, these are essential amendments to Schedule 23. They would not create a new duty or expand powers, but they would ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority. Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities—I do hope we can call them the same thing at some point, because I am getting fed up with saying it twice every time—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes—that would be my amendment.
Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, maintaining consistency and fairness across England.
Amendment 137 would confirm that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities. This amendment would extend the application of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to mayoral fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It would similarly bring them within Section 155 of that Act for the purposes of emergency financial support.
Furthermore, Amendment 137 would clarify the process for handling Section 114 reports for mayoral fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee. The authority’s response must then be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees.
Turning now to Amendments 135, 138 and 174, I stress that Clause 47 is a key provision, ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors. These amendments would cut across that approach by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. Doing so risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. The amendments could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the Bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment. I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course.
With these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments. I commend the minor and technical amendments in my name to the House.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Matters outside the scope of inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.(A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.”” Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.
“Local Government Finance Act 1988
5A (1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 114 (functions of responsible officer as regards reports), in subsection (4)(b)—(a) in sub-paragraph (iiic), omit the final “and”;(b) after sub-paragraph (iiic) insert—“(iiid) a mayoral FRA, the relevant scrutiny body (and here “mayoral FRA” and “relevant scrutiny body” have the same meanings as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), and”.(3) In section 115 (authority’s duties as regards reports)—(a) after subsection (1BA) insert—“(1BB) In the case of a report made by the chief finance officer of a mayoral FRA (which in this section has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), that mayoral FRA must consider the report and decide whether the mayoral FRA agrees or disagrees with the views contained in the report and what action (if any) the mayoral FRA proposes to take in consequence of it.”;(b) in subsection (1E), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, the mayoral FRA”;(c) after subsection (1FA) insert—“(1FB) As soon as practicable after the mayoral FRA has prepared a report under subsection (1E), the mayoral FRA must arrange for a copy of the report to be sent to—(a) the chief finance officer;(b) the person who at the time the report is made has the duty to audit the authority’s accounts; and (c) each member of the relevant scrutiny body (which has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004).”;(d) in subsection (2), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, a mayoral FRA”.Local Government and Housing Act 1989
5B (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 67(3) (meaning of “local authority” in Part 5), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hb) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.(3) In section 155(4) (local authorities that can receive emergency financial assistance), after paragraph (ha) insert— “(hb) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hc) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would bring mayoral combined authorities or CCAs that are fire and rescue authorities within sections 114 and 155 of the Local Government Finance Act 1989 and Part 5 and section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the seriousness with which our new proposed strategic licensing measures were considered during Committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been valuable.
I begin by stating clearly that this Government recognise the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority—for example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London-wide strategic licensing policy. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds in regulations of what is meant by “potential strategic importance” to Greater London.
London licensing authorities remain the default licensing decision-makers in Greater London, and the mayor will be able to “call in” decisions made by a London licensing authority only on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London and in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London licensing authority.
The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London-wide strategic licensing policy. I am pleased to hear that many London licensing authorities have responded. This will help to inform the criteria by which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what “potential strategic importance” to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other statutory instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call-in process.
Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor encroaching on local licensing authorities’ decision-making unnecessarily. This includes preventing the mayor rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by a London licensing authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London-wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London’s sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call-in power is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances—effective as much in its existence as in its use—to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to licensing across the capital.
I turn to some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, in Committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I am acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous—least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and local policing capacities. There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions—including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies—as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency. New rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call-in power. The Government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force.
I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgments. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion, rather than arriving at a binary outcome. Through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London’s hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people’s local concerns are protected.
I commend to noble Lords the amendments in my name, and I will listen to other noble Lords before I comment on theirs.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.
Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?
The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.
We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, these provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and, ultimately, the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be of strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision-making.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils, rooted in local knowledge and expertise, and accountable to their local communities. The introduction of a mayoral call-in power therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise.
This raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I am grateful that the Minister said that that will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on the time scale. What assurance will the Minister give that strategic importance will mean what the man on the street would determine to be genuinely of strategic importance, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations?
The Minister also commented that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been accepted. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which, in effect, could make that licence inoperable in any event. Could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed, and that these would be fair and reasonable and would not be, in effect, an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local borough had already approved? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendments 140 and 148. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing measures in London is clear: to enable a more strategic approach to licensing to boost London’s nightlife and hospitality industries. These industries are essential to London’s economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and generating £46 billion in economic activity annually. They also play a vital role in shaping the capital’s global reputation as a vibrant, diverse and welcoming city.
However, there is evidence of unmet potential, particularly when it comes to London’s night-time economy. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022 to 2025. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they might have ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wishing to stay out later. Of course, the reasons for this are multifaceted, and licensing is not by any means the sole factor at play. Nevertheless, the Government believe that licensing in London should operate as more of an enabling framework—one that allows responsible businesses to thrive, while continuing to protect residents and public safety. That is very important.
London operates across 32 boroughs and the City of London, with each rightly rooted in its local context and responsive to the needs of its communities. However, when licensing decisions are made in isolation within each of those authorities, the cumulative effect can be a fragmented and inconsistent approach to issues that may have consequences across the capital. For example, a venue of regional or international significance, such as the ones that noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, a major cultural destination or a late-night operation tied closely to transport hubs and visitor economies, does not serve one borough alone. Yet, at present, the licensing system often means that proposals are assessed solely through a local lens, even where their impacts and benefits are distributed far more widely.
It is precisely to address this gap that a carefully constrained strategic role for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority is justified. Other major cities, such as Amsterdam and New York, have shown what is possible when licensing is approached not solely as a reactive regulatory tool but as part of a broader strategic framework for nurturing culture, hospitality and the night-time economy.
Our underlying aim is to enable London to be the best version of itself: vibrant, safe, inclusive and globally competitive. The measures before us are a necessary and proportionate step towards that end. I hope that my reassurance about the consultation we intend to carry out relating to the meaning of “potential strategic importance” to London will have helped reassure the noble Baroness. I ask her therefore not to press her amendments.
Baroness Pidgeon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the London licensing provisions to probe the Government’s rationale behind their inclusion.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have put on record our clear concerns here and I hear what the Minister has said about a carefully constrained strategic role. The consultation on “strategic importance” will be key, but we will watch this space and see how this develops. I wanted our clear concerns on record. There is a lot of work to do to get all the London boroughs on board. With that, I will not move my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“1A In section 3 (licensing authorities), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In this Act, “London licensing authority” means each of the following licensing authorities—(a) the council of a London borough,(b) the Common Council of the City of London,(c) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, or(d) the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers of the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“4A In section 13 (authorised persons and responsible authorities), in subsection (4), after paragraph (ha), insert—“(hb) where the premises are situated in Greater London, the Greater London Authority,”.4B After section 17 insert—“17A Licence applications of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 17 that is a relevant licence application.(2) A “relevant licence application” is an application for a premises licence in Greater London which would authorise the premises to be used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant licence application is an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) is to be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3),“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4C In section 18 (determination of application for premises licence), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period; (b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9B) In subsection (9A)—“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4DIn section 22 (prohibited conditions: plays), in subsection (2)—(a) the words from “a licensing authority” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) after that paragraph, insert“or,(b) the Mayor of London directing a London licensing authority under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or section 41ZB(1)(a) or (c) to impose conditions which the Mayor considers appropriate on the grounds of public safety.”4E In section 23 (grant or rejection of application)—(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London is granted with no steps taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to the Greater London Authority.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply if the Greater London Authority made relevant representations in respect of the application.”;(b) in subsection (4), after “this section” insert—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;”.4F In section 24 (form of licence and summary), after subsection (2)(f), insert—“(g) if it is issued on a direction from the Mayor of London, specify this.”4G After section 25A insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine licence applications
25B Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications(1) This section applies where on an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London a London licensing authority—(a) grants a premises licence having taken one or more of the steps under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, or(b) rejects the application to grant a premises licence under section 18(4)(d).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the premises licence and the steps, and reasons for the steps, taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence (including the detail of any modifications made to conditions under section 18(4)(a)), or(b) its decision to reject the application under section 18(4)(d) and the reasons for doing so. (3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (6) of a decision under subsection (5)(b).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including giving notice under section 23) unless and until such a notice is given.(5) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 25C), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application is to have effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(6) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (5) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18.(7) On receipt of a notice under subsection (6), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor.(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (7) is to be made.(9) In this section—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“ interested party” has the same meaning as in section 17A (see subsection (7) of that section);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.25C Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 25B(5)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the licence in accordance with the application subject only to—(i) such conditions specified in the direction as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, and(ii) any conditions which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(b) to grant the licence subject to—(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) with such permitted modifications as may be specified in the direction, and(ii) any condition which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(c) to grant the licence in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b), but to also do one or both of the following—(i) exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities which were excluded by the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application under section 18(4)(b);(ii) refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor where the London licensing authority refused to specify that person in their decision in relation to the application under section 18(4)(c), or(d) to reject the application. (2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(d) to reject the application if the application was rejected by the authority under section 18(4)(d).(3) The London licensing authority must grant the licence or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(5) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be granted subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(6) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction.(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(8) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the licence under section 18(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or(ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (9)), or(b) the condition relates to an application that was rejected by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(d).(9) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (8)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(a).25D Issue of licence etc by licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants a licence on a direction under section 25C(1)(a) to (c) must as soon as possible—(a) give notice that the licence is granted to—(i) the applicant,(ii) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(iii) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(iv) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated, and(b) issue the applicant with the licence and a summary of it.(2) A London licensing authority that rejects an application on a direction under section 25C(1)(d) must as soon as possible give notice that the application is rejected to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates, (c) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 25C(6).”4H After section 34 insert—“34A Applications to vary of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 34 that is a relevant application.(2) A “relevant application” is an application to vary a premises licence in Greater London where the premises are, or would after the variation be, used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant application is an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) must be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) “application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4I In section 35 (determination of application under section 34), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period;(b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9) In this section—“application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4J After section 41 insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine applications to vary
41ZA Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications to vary(1) This section applies where, on an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, a London licensing authority—(a) grants an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35 and modifies the conditions of the licence under subsection (4)(a) of that section,(b) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35(4)(b), or(c) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in part under section 35(4)(b) and grants the other part (whether with or without modifying the conditions of the licence).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the application in whole and modify the conditions of the licence and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of the modifications made),(b) its decision to reject the application in whole and the reasons for doing so, or(c) its decision to reject part of the application and to grant the other part with or without modifying the conditions of the licence, and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of any modifications made).(3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until—(a) the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (8) of a decision under subsection (7)(b), or(b) the obligations on the Mayor of London under subsection (7) of this section or section 41ZB cease to apply (see section 41ZC).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including taking steps under section 56) unless and until the circumstances in subsection (3)(a) or (b) apply.(5) Where the decision of the London licensing authority has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b), that decision is to take effect as subject to the intervening decision made by the authority in relation to the licence (see section 41ZC(2)(a)).(6) For the purpose of supplementing subsection (5), the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision modifying any provision of this Act as it applies to a decision of the London licensing authority that has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b).(7) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 41ZB), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application has effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(8) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (7) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35.(9) On receipt of a notice under subsection (8), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor. (10) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (9) must be made.(11) In this section—“ application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“interested party” has the same meaning as in section 34A;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.41ZB Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 41ZA(7)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the application in whole with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction,(b) to reject the application in whole, or(c) to grant part of the application with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction (and to reject the other part of the application).(2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(b) or (c) to reject the application in whole or in part if the application, or that part of the application, was rejected by the authority under section 35(4)(b).(3) The London licensing authority must grant or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) Subsection (1)(a) and (c) are subject to sections 19 to 21 (which require certain conditions to be included in premises licences).(5) A direction under this section may not require a licence to be varied so as—(a) to extend the period for which the licence has effect, or(b) to vary substantially the premises to which it relates.(6) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (c) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be varied so as to have effect subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(7) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(8) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving that direction.(9) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (c), the conditions are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(10) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (c), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the application in whole or in part under section 35(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or (ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (11)), or(b) the condition relates to an application, or part of an application, that was rejected by the London licensing authority under subsection 35(4)(b).(11) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (10)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 35(4)(a).41ZC Intervening decision by a London licensing authority(1) The obligations on the Mayor of London under section 41ZA(7) or 41ZB in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London cease to apply if the conditions in subsection (2) are met in relation to the obligation in question.(2) The conditions in this subsection are met if—(a) the London licensing authority that made the decision under section 35 in relation to the application to vary the premises licence has, before the relevant time, made an intervening decision in relation to the licence, and(b) the authority has given notice of that decision to the Mayor of London.(3) In this section, an “intervening decision” means a decision—(a) to take any of the steps under section 52(4) on an application for review of the licence;(b) to take any of the steps under section 53C(3) on an application by a senior police officer for review of the licence;(c) to take any of the steps under section 167(6) on a review of the licence following a closure order.(4) The “relevant time” for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)—(a) in relation to the obligation to make a decision under section 41ZA(7), is the time at which the Mayor makes the decision,(b) in relation to an obligation to give a direction under section 41ZB, is the time at which the direction is given.41ZD Notification by the London licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(2) The notice under subsection (1) must—(a) specify the time when any variation takes effect, and(b) specify any modifications to conditions of the licence.(3) The time for the purposes of subsection (2) is the time specified in the application or, if that time is before the applicant is given notice under this section, such later time as the London licensing authority specifies in the notice. (4) A London licensing authority that rejects an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(5) A notice under subsection (1) or (4) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 41ZB(8).”4K In section 54 (form of applications and notices)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “form” insert “or content”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the period within which it is to be made or given;”.4L In section 56 (licensing authority’s duty to update licence document), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a London licensing authority, in relation to a premises licence, is subject to a direction under section 41ZB (directions by Mayor of London),”.4M In section 181 (appeals against decisions of licensing authorities)—(a) in the heading, after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(b) in subsection (1), after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(c) in subsection (2), in the opening words, after “licensing authority” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”;(e) in subsection (2)(c), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”.4N In section 185 (provision of information)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) the words from “information which” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) after that paragraph insert“, and(b) information which is held by or on behalf of the Mayor of London in connection with the Mayor’s functions under this Act.”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “or”;(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“or(c) to the Mayor of London,”;(iii) in the closing words, after “functions” insert “or the Mayor’s functions”;(c) in subsection (3), for “or responsible authority” substitute “, responsible authority or the Mayor of London”.4P In Schedule 5 (appeals)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—“1A Where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority—(a) to reject an application for a premises licence under section 25C, or (b) to reject (in whole or in part) an application to vary a premises licence under section 41ZB,the applicant may appeal against the direction.”;(b) after paragraph 2 insert—2A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 25C to grant a premises licence.(2) The holder of the licence may appeal against the following aspects of any such direction—(a) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(a)(i) of that section;(b) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section;(c) to exclude licensable activities from the scope of the licence under subsection (1)(c)(i) of that section;(d) to refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of that section.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the licence on the following basis—(a) that the licence ought not to have been granted, or(b) that the direction ought to have imposed different or additional conditions under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or to have taken a step mentioned in section 25C(1)(c)(i) or (ii).”;(c) in the heading of paragraph 4, after “35” insert “or 41ZB”;(d) after paragraph 4 insert—4A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 41ZB to grant an application to vary a premises licence (in whole or in part).(2) The applicant may appeal against any direction under that section to make permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the application on the following basis—(a) that any variation made ought not to have been made, or(b) that, when directing the licence to be varied, the Mayor ought not to have directed that permitted modifications be made to the conditions of the licence, or ought to have directed that different permitted modifications be made to the conditions.(4) In sub-paragraph (3), “permitted modifications” has the meaning given in section 41ZB(10).”;(e) in paragraph 9—(i) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from “the day” to the end substitute—“(a) on an appeal under paragraph 1A, 2A or 4A, the day on which the appellant was notified by the London licensing authority of the outcome of the direction appealed against, and(b) on any other appeal under this Part, the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.”;(ii) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) On an appeal under paragraph 2A(3) or 4A(3), the holder of the premises licence is to be the respondent in addition to the Mayor of London.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to give the Mayor of London the power to make a new determination on applications to grant or vary premises licences in Greater London if the Mayor considers that the application is of potential strategic importance to Greater London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all concern Schedule 25, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe that the schedule, as drafted, lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards.
The current test in the Bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that regulations can be made is “appropriate”. That threshold is notably low and subjective for the exercise of very wide powers. These provisions allow for conferral, modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard.
We on these Benches believe that replacing “appropriate” with “necessary and proportionate” would align the exercise of these powers with well-established public law principles. The amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued but to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed. The amendments do not prevent action but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and transparent.
I turn to the issue of consent. Amendments 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors before they exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As drafted, the duty is limited to consultation, which does not guarantee that local views will meaningfully shape an outcome. Given that these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures, it is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent.
A consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than being imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.
Amendments 158, 160, 164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In Part 1, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, despite later parts conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied. This risks creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government could be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment would ensure that all uses of these powers were guided by consistent and principled frameworks.
I turn finally to the amendments on pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes. As drafted, the Bill confers very broad discretion on the Secretary of State, with limited external scrutiny. Pilot schemes are by their nature experimental. It is therefore essential that they are subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements. The amendments would ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents were made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how the schemes are operating in practice.
The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely on the views of those involved in its delivery. Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of the requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but effective in practice.
Finally—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—the proposal would require all regulations under this schedule to be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, which would reinforce parliamentary oversight and ensure that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and transparent. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for all these amendments. I think that there are 26, so it might take a little time to reply with a depth of understanding.
Amendments 150, 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer a function on a strategic authority or to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. The statutory test as currently drafted in the Bill is already sufficiently robust. The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function. Introducing a more restrictive statutory test which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate could lead to central government being too cautious in using Schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in future.
Amendments 158, 160, 163, 164, 166 and 168 seek to apply the amended statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use Schedule 25 to make regulations to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary, as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The Bill introduces the statutory test in Part 1 of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule provide more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to Parts 2, 3 and 4.
I turn to Amendments 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the Bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people which the Secretary of State must consult before a decision is taken on the conferral or modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes affected mayors, strategic authorities, local authorities and any bodies or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function. In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by a decision on the conferral or modification of functions.
Schedule 25 allows the Government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time-consuming and complicated to implement, and allows us to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country. Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively have a veto which prevented the Secretary of State conferring or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic authority.
If individual authorities or mayors had a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, Amendment 161 appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and the London Assembly to provide their consent to the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside London.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That will help me get to sleep, will it not?
I know that the amendments in my name are long and slightly complicated, but they are not intended to frustrate the Government’s objectives or to frustrate Schedule 25. We on these Benches might not agree about the objectives of the Bill—we probably do not—but we think it is important to ensure that the framework in which these regulatory powers are exercised is properly balanced, and from what I heard from the Minister, I have doubts about that in some cases. These amendments are intended to embed the principles that we should have across the whole Bill about transparency and consent, particularly local consent. They would also ensure that there are necessary safeguards in place so that Parliament can scrutinise any use of these significant delegated powers in an effective and simple way. I hope the Government reflect carefully on these amendments, and perhaps the noble Lord will also read Hansard tomorrow, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move to the next amendment, I need to tell the House that there has been a slight revision to the voting figures on the last vote, on Amendment 121. The figures as announced were Contents 152; Not-Contents 126. The latter figure has been revised to 128. The outcome is not affected, but the figures are slightly different.
Amendment 171
“Exercise of functions may begin at different times etc
16A (1) This paragraph applies to a power under this Schedule to confer a function on, or provide for a function to be exercisable by, a class of strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”).(2) The power includes—(a) the power to provide for the function to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class at different times or in different circumstances;(b) the power to make further regulations which specify the times at which, or circumstances in which, the function is to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class.(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(b) may be made in relation to different members of the relevant class at different times.(4) In this paragraph “different members” of the relevant class includes members of the relevant class that are of different descriptions specified in regulations made under the power.”Member's explanatory statement
This would make clear that regulations under Schedule 25 can provide for a function conferred on a class to become exercisable (a) by different members of the class at different times; and (b) by virtue of regulations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two more votes: that always makes you feel better. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Government Amendments 171 and 180 are technical amendments that provide greater clarity on how Schedule 25 will allow the functions of strategic authorities to be updated and modified over time. Amendment 180 clarifies that Schedule 25 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to modify and confer functions on new mayoral strategic authorities during the period between their establishment and the inaugural mayor taking office. This amendment ensures that the functions of mayoral strategic authorities can be modified if needed ahead of the mayor being elected, ensuring that the authority is able to operate effectively during this period. A good example is the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to devolution priority programme areas whose mayoral elections will take place in May 2028. Where local government reorganisation will see the abolition of current fire and rescue authorities in April 2028, the amendment will ensure that we have a mechanism to provide for the new mayoral strategic authorities to become the fire and rescue authorities, thereby ensuring the continuity of service provision critical for public safety.
Amendment 171 clarifies that Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to specify whether a function which has been conferred on a particular class of strategic authority is to be exercisable by different strategic authorities within that class at different times. This flexibility will, for example, be important in enabling the appropriate transfer of fire and rescue functions from existing fire and rescue authorities to strategic authorities at the right time for each area. In some areas, strategic authorities may be established in advance of local government reorganisation being completed, and it may not be appropriate to transfer those functions until the reorganisation is concluded. The amendment therefore ensures that such functions can be commenced at a point when an individual area is ready to exercise them.
I turn to Government Amendments 192 and 193. I am grateful to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their consideration of the Henry VIII power in Schedule 26, concerning the conversion of a combined county authority to a combined authority following local government reorganisation. The Government have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation to remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend primary legislation made in future Sessions as it relates to this power. We have concluded that any necessary transition of a combined county authority to a combined authority can be delivered without taking a delegated power. I am therefore able to confirm that the Government not only accept the committee’s recommendation in relation to this specific power but intend to go further, by removing the delegated power to alter any existing primary legislation when undertaking conversion, save for amendments to the 2007 Act that may be necessary. I beg to move.
I know that the House will sit tomorrow on the terminally ill adults Bill, but as I am not likely to participate in those debates, I wish all noble Lords a restful and relaxing recess, and we will continue our deliberations on this Bill on 13 April.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for these amendments. They help to clarify certain things and are tidying-up amendments. We fully support them. I also wish the House a very happy Recess.
“Mayoral strategic authorities: period before first mayor takes office
26 (1) The fact that a mayoral strategic authority is in the preparatory phase—(a) does not prevent regulations under this Schedule from making provision which applies to—(i) the mayor for its area, or(ii) the mayoral strategic authority; and(b) where a provision of this Schedule requires consultation with the members of a class which includes the mayoral strategic authority or the mayor for its area, does not—(i) prevent that requirement from being complied with by a consultation that does not involve the mayor, or(ii) require further consultation with the mayor after the first mayor has taken office. (2) Any power under this Schedule to make provision in relation to mayoral strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”) must be read as enabling regulations to make provision in relation to the relevant class which applies only to—(a) those of the mayoral strategic authorities in the relevant class which are in the preparatory phase, or(b) those of the mayors in the relevant class that are mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in the preparatory phase.(3) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision which applies only to—(a) mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations, or(b) mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a mayoral strategic authority is in the “preparatory phase”—(a) after the authority has been established, but(b) before the first mayor for the authority’s area has taken office.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that the powers under Schedule 25 are not affected by a mayoral strategic authority being in the “preparatory phase” (the phase before the first mayor has taken office).
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Mayoral Council for England(1) Elected mayors for combined and strategic authorities shall constitute a Mayoral Council for England. (2) The Council shall meet with the Secretary of State at least four times a year.(3) The functions of the Council are—(a) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power within England,(b) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(c) to choose representatives of the Mayoral Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
This time on a Thursday afternoon, just before the Recess, is not the ideal time to call a Division, much as many of us on these Benches would have liked to do so. We do not resile from the view that this Bill is constitutionally deficient and democratically damaging, but the Labour Party, so long as it remains in government, will have to take responsibility for the consequences of the reorganisation of the governance of England as it develops. The Minister has made it clear that she wants it to develop flexibly, and perhaps, so long as we have a single-party government, it may continue to do so.