English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsThursday 26th March 2026
(5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (26 Mar 2026)
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.
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.
“(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.
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.
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 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.
“(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.
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.
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.
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.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Mar 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments raises important issues concerning accountability and transparency within our evolving system of devolved governance. Amendments 49, 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, engage with the central principle that, where power is exercised, it should be subject to effective and visible scrutiny. I am sure that all noble Lords agree with that principle. These amendments would ensure that it extends directly to elected mayors.
Amendment 49 proposes dedicated scrutiny committees with powers to summons and to report. This reflects a desire to ensure that mayoral commissioners are properly held to account. Amendments 95 and 96 similarly seek to strengthen direct lines of accountability, whether through public-facing forums such as the People’s Question Time in London, which we have heard about, or through structured engagement with elected members of constituent authorities. We recognise the intent behind these proposals, particularly the effort to align arrangements more closely with established practices, as we have heard about on the Mayor of London.
Government Amendments 67 and 68 introduce substantial new schedules at a very late stage in the Bill. They set out an extensive and detailed framework for overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined county authorities. While the aim to strengthen scrutiny is clearly welcome, the scale and complexity of these provisions inevitably raise a number of questions that merit careful consideration. It is regrettable that this has been tabled at such a late stage in the parliamentary process of the Bill’s passage.
The proposed role for independent or external experts on scrutiny committees is notable. It would be helpful to understand more clearly who these individuals might be, how they are to be appointed and how their independence will be defined and safeguarded. Questions also arise as to whether there is sufficient capacity and expertise available across the country to support this model in practice. I look to the Minister for a response on these matters.
Further, there are important practical considerations about how members of these committees are to be appointed, the role of elected councillors within them and the extent to which their proceedings and findings will be made publicly accessible. The mechanisms by which members of the public can raise issues and engage with the scrutiny process are also of clear importance. There is perhaps a broader question as to whether lessons might be drawn from existing models, including the arrangements that have been in place for some time in Greater London for the scrutiny of directly elected mayors.
Finally, Amendment 182 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raises the interesting proposal of local public accounts committees. We believe that the principles of strengthening financial oversight and cross-agency accountability are important, although the precise design and implications of such bodies, as we heard from the noble Lord, would clearly require careful thought and planning. Therefore, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this proposition.
This group highlights the central importance of scrutiny within any system of devolved governance. I look forward to the Minister addressing how the Government intend to ensure that these new structures are both effective in practice and clearly understood by those they are intended to serve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on scrutiny and accountability. These have been recurring themes during debates on the Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Wallace, for their contributions to these discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Bassam, for their very constructive engagement and the insights they have shared with me on this issue. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the late introduction of these amendments, I felt that our discussions on scrutiny in Committee were too important for us not to respond as a Government.
In the English devolution White Paper, we committed to exploring a local public accounts committee model to provide a vehicle to scrutinise local public spending. This recognised that the powers afforded for local scrutiny were not commensurate to the increased scale of powers and responsibilities devolved to mayoral strategic authorities. Local scrutiny committees will replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities, providing an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight and a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities, with greater teeth to hold mayors to account.
To answer the points about some of the detail raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as with the existing system, the chair of the committee must be from a different party from the mayor or be an independent person appointed through an open and fair competition. At least 60% of committee members must be councillors from constituent local authorities, rather than the current requirement that at least half of members must be local councillors. These committees must also reflect the political make-up of the area. They will be able to shape early decision-making and undertake value-for-money assessments across the full scope of a mayoral strategic authority’s work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was particularly interested in that ability to shape decision-making before things came before the boards for decision.
The committees will have the power to make recommendations on the quality of decisions and on the use of public funds. They will have the authority to challenge decisions taken by the mayor, commissioners and senior officials and to require attendance and information at evidence sessions. This will also extend to key stakeholders outside the mayoral strategic authority, who will be defined in regulations. Those who fail to comply without reasonable excuse will face a civil penalty, on which further details will be established in regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that reports on allowances are published quarterly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, all of which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, relate to Clause 10 and the reporting of allowances within combined county authorities. These amendments are straightforward but they address an important principle: transparency and the use of public money.
The amendments seek to do three things: first, to ensure that reports on allowances are published on a quarterly basis; secondly, to require that those reports include not only the amounts paid but the evidence submitted by members, particularly those with special responsibilities; and, thirdly, to ensure that such reports are published online and are readily accessible to the public. None of these proposals is onerous; nor do they seek to disrupt the functioning of combined authorities. Rather, they aim to strengthen public confidence by ensuring that decisions about remuneration are open, visible and properly evidenced.
Public trust in local institutions depends not only on decisions that they are taking but on how transparently those decisions are made. If allowances are justified, why should the evidence supporting them not be published alongside the figures? Indeed, why should such information not be in the public domain as a matter of course? These amendments also reflect the evolving role of combined authorities. As they take on greater responsibilities and greater public funding, so too must they meet higher expectations of accountability. With increased power must come increased transparency. Is it not reasonable to expect that information on the use of public funds is not published routinely rather than intermittently? Should that information not include the justification for payments made by those in positions of additional responsibility?
I anticipate that it may be argued that existing arrangements are sufficient or that flexibility is required, but if the current system already delivers transparency, what objection can there be to making it clearer, more regular and more accessible? If it does not already do this, should we not take this opportunity to strengthen it?
These amendments go to the heart of accountability. If we are to entrust combined authorities with significant powers and resources, we must also ensure that they are subject to consistent, visible and robust scrutiny. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Amendments 69 to 74. While I recognise her commitment to accountability in local government, the Bill provides that combined and combined county authorities and independent remuneration panels must take account of any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for this clause.
That guidance will be issued in due course and will provide further details on the matters raised in these amendments. None the less, on the principles raised, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point about transparency. We will seek to be pragmatic, ensuring that we balance clear accountability and transparency against overburdening the authorities in their reporting arrangements. I therefore ask that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 69.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have heard from the Minister that the functions may already exist to provide a degree of oversight. However, the question before us is not simply whether information is recorded; rather, it is whether that information is made very visible, accessible and consistently available to the public.
These amendments do not seek to impose unnecessary burdens. They set out a reasonable expectation that reporting should be regular, transparent and accessible; in short, that it should meet the standards that the public are entitled to expect. This is not about questioning the integrity of those involved. It is about ensuring that the systems within which they operate command public confidence, and that confidence rests on transparency.
I listened to the Minister. We will wait until the guidance comes out to ensure that it reflects what we think the public deserve. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 174-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Mar 2026)
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.
I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.
However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.
The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.
There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I did not know that I had to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward important amendments in this group and for the debate highlighting clearly the different challenges faced by rural areas compared with neighbouring urban areas. I very well remember my social life at a bus stop in a rural village in Essex, and that was 65 years ago, so it is interesting that social life in villages is still at or by the bus stop.
I will start with Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The current areas of competence outlined in the Bill broadly cover the responsibilities of public officeholders. While we previously expressed concerns that rural affairs should not be considered in isolation, since Committee stage the Government have announced changes to ensure that a commissioner’s work can relate to one or more aspects of an area of competence, to tackle these cross-cutting issues. Therefore, we support this amendment to include rural affairs.
As it stands, the Bill fails to highlight the specific attention that rural affairs deserve. While it does indeed cover the environment and climate change, this is a more macro—and, I dare say, politicised—area of policy. Rural affairs are far more localised and are often the basis around which local economies function. They should therefore get specific consideration and be part of the responsibilities of these new authorities.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendments. We entirely understand the desire to mandate the appointment of a commissioner to oversee rural affairs, and we support that sentiment, but we are hesitant to specifically legislate that mayors must do so. In the debate on group 9, we will highlight that we are rather sceptical of the proliferation of these commissioners in the Bill. These commissioners are unelected and often bureaucratic; we do not want them to absolve mayors of the responsibility that they were elected to hold. We have already outlined our support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which would add rural affairs to their areas, meaning that mayors would already be required to oversee rural affairs. I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendments none the less, and we will wholly support the principle behind them.
I believe that the same argument can be made for Amendment 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. If rural affairs is to be included in the responsibilities of strategic authorities, then, by definition, they will have the duty to consider the needs of rural communities.
We believe that accepting Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, would be the easiest way to achieve the end that everyone in this debate seems to be after: that rural communities’ needs are acknowledged and catered for.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and her explanation as to why rurality is not in this Bill at all. Mayoralties are moving much closer to the more rural areas of this country and away from our cities and our more urban areas. It therefore seems sensible that rurality should at this point be taken into account. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, decides to divide on this issue, we on these Benches will support her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.
There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.
We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.
This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.
As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that
“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.
Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.
Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment opposes the requirement that decisions of a Combined County Authority have the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a majority of members.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. These amendments address a fundamental question at the heart of this Bill: whether decisions of a combined county authority should depend on the agreement of the mayor or instead be determined by a majority of its members. At its core, this is a question of democratic balance. Combined authorities are designed as collective institutions bringing together elected councillors to reflect the diverse voices and experiences of the communities they serve. That purpose is fundamentally compromised if the will of the majority can be overridden by an individual. Requiring the mayor’s agreement is not a minor procedural step; it is a significant concentration of power that cuts against the grain of local democratic tradition.
In Committee, noble Lords raised serious concerns that granting the mayor what amounts to a veto could sideline the will of the majority and move us towards a more presidential model of governance. That concern is not merely theoretical. One can readily imagine a situation in which the majority of councillors support a vital transport or investment decision only for it to be blocked because it does not command the mayor’s agreement. In such circumstances, can it truly be said that the outcome reflects the democratic will of the area as a whole? If the majority view can be set aside so easily, what meaningful role remains for the collective body?
I recognise the argument made by those who support these provisions. Directly elected mayors bring visibility, leadership and a clear mandate, but strong leadership should not come at the expense of collective accountability. What is the value of a majority decision if it can be overridden by a single officeholder? Does such a system strengthen democratic legitimacy or does it in fact weaken it by concentrating power into too few hands?
These amendments seek to restore the balance for three reasons. First, they uphold the principle of collective decision-making. The authority should act as a body reflecting the range of communities it represents, not as a forum in which the majority view can be set aside by a single voice. If we accept that councillors are elected to represent their communities, on what basis do we justify diminishing their collective authority? Secondly, they reinforce democratic accountability. Councillors, like mayors, are elected representatives, answerable to their constituents. Where decisions are taken collectively by the majority, responsibility is clear. Where agreement of the mayor is required, accountability becomes blurred. In such cases, who is ultimately responsible for the outcome? Is it the mayor or the authority as a whole? Thirdly, they support effective and practical governance. Combined authorities must take timely decisions on transport, economic development, public services and many other things. A system that enables one individual to block decisions supported by the majority creates a clear risk of delay, deadlock and politicisation, particularly where political control is divided.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.
Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) Appointments under this section must be made following a fair and open selection process.(1B) The mayor must publish the criteria and process for appointment.(1C) The mayor must publish the agreed remuneration for the appointed commissioner.(1D) The mayor must publish details of appointments made under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process, and that the criteria and process for appointment are published, as well as their remuneration, in order to ensure transparency and accountability.
High Streets and Towns: Regeneration
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support councils to regenerate struggling high streets and towns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise the very real pressures facing high streets and town centres, from long-term vacancy and rising costs to crime and changes in how people use town centres. That is why we are backing councils with long-term investment through the £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme, and with new powers such as high street rental auctions to tackle vacancy and shape high street uses, strengthened community right to buy, and bringing forward a cross-government high street strategy later this year, backed by at least £150 million. Together, these measures give councils the funding, powers and flexibility that they need to drive regeneration locally and restore pride in place.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Pride in Place is a programme delivering to 300 communities over the next 10 years. In those next 10 years, what financial support will be available to those hundreds or maybe thousands of communities across this country that are not included in the scheme but whose high streets are also struggling, mainly due to the Government’s policies, taxes and national insurance increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think that might be more due to 14 years of letting high streets sink into decline. However, the places that are subject to Pride in Place funding will also be joined by the new cross-government high street strategy, which will look at all high streets. This will be backed by £150 million of targeted support, which will help to tackle some of the structural issues holding high streets back and the challenges facing retail, leisure and hospitality. We will align policy across government and strengthen our councils’ roles as leaders of place-based regeneration. We will develop that with councils, businesses and communities. We recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all for high streets, and this builds on our commitment to pride in place everywhere.
Social Cohesion Action Plan
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. When it comes to social cohesion, the penny has clearly started to drop in government departments that something must be done.
As has been highlighted by the leader of the Opposition in the other place, there are groups in the United Kingdom whose loyalties do not always align with our national interest. We should call it out as what it is—separatism: groups of people living apart from our country’s way of life, our behaviours, norms, customs, expectations and standards. That is what matters. We should be a multiracial country, not a multicultural one. This policy paper does not go far enough, in our opinion, as to admit that truth, which is why we have serious questions about whether the measures proposed will be enough to solve the problems we face.
We are all familiar with the rise of extremism. This paper sets out a new social cohesion measure framework, which will try to monitor levels of social cohesion. However, increased monitoring of the problems needs to be followed through with enforcement to make an actual difference. In addition, the paper promises an annual state of extremism report to set out the nature of extremism in the United Kingdom, with a new state threats designation power. These extremists need to be faced head on. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will name specific organisations?
Last week, I spoke to a group of Jewish university students. Their testimonies of life on campus were harrowing. The Government say that the Office for Students will strengthen its monitoring of universities’ efforts to prevent individuals becoming involved in terrorism. The Government have also said they will codesign a cohesion charter for conduct on campuses, which universities will be encouraged to incorporate into their own codes of conduct. Is “encouraged” enough? Again, will increased monitoring and an optional charter be enough to help those students I spoke to? Which groups will be involved in codesigning this cohesion charter?
The paper seeks to link schools with children of different backgrounds. I would be interested to hear what sort of “social and educational opportunities” are envisaged as part of this initiative. To stop children growing up in communities which are fenced off from wider society, we on these Benches advocate replacing the promotion of multiculturalism in our schools with a curriculum that teaches a national story—one which helps children belong to something bigger than themselves and gives them confidence as to why our culture matters. I understand that my noble friend Lady Spielman will be working with the shadow education team on this issue. I really look forward to seeing their proposals.
I now turn to what has perhaps received the most attention in this policy statement, namely, the new anti-Muslim hostility definition. The previous Conservative Government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, using language based on existing hate crime laws. Others have asked what this non-statutory definition will do to tackle these specific crimes. The accompanying note also insists that the definition allows things to be said which are “in the public interest”. I ask the Minister once again: who decides what the public interest is and how? What criteria are they going to use?
This definition is complex and we deserve to have all the facts, so can the Minister commit to publishing the working group’s report in full? Moreover, the Government met with so-called relevant stakeholders following the working group’s report. Can the Minister please clarify who those stakeholders are?
Protecting What Matters recognises the importance of having a shared language. This is hardly ground-breaking. Indeed, we should not be campaigning in foreign languages, as was seen recently in Gorton and Denton. It undermines integration. Will the Government support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages? Will the social cohesion measurement framework also measure English language proficiency? These are basics which any social cohesion plan should grasp.
Earlier in my speech, I referenced the leader of my party. She also said this:
“Anyone can throw a match and walk away, but the point of this is not to divide or provoke. It is the opposite”.
Our queries to the Minister today reflect genuine concerns about what the policies mean in practice. We need a plan that is honest about the issues we face and which, crucially, has the teeth to solve them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Anti-Muslim Hostility: Non-statutory Definition
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the most reverend Primate. I am going to the iftar in Stevenage tomorrow evening, and it has been great to see the cross-community participation in iftars around the country. The Government are taking a number of steps to support this definition, with funding that will help to tackle some of the anti-Muslim hostility that we have seen. For example, we have put additional funding for cohesion into the Pride in Place programme to enable us to tackle some of these issues. I will go into more detail on Monday.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the anti-Muslim hostility definition allows things to be said that are “in the public interest”. Can the Minister clarify who decides what the public interest is, and how?
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsThursday 5th March 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (3 Mar 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on what was—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before we were interrupted, I was just saying that we are very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on 11 February—it was as far away as that, and we have not met since then. If noble Lords think back, it was quite a substantial debate on quite a detailed group. It exposed three central questions, which the Government must answer before the Committee can be satisfied with Schedule 29. First, is community right to buy being strengthened, or is it being quietly diluted? Secondly, will the new way of doing it be workably practical? Thirdly, are we broadening community value or are we narrowing it?
I will begin with Amendment 222A in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. However carefully drafted Schedule 29 is, community right to buy will not function without progressive funding, and that is simply a fact. Under previous Administrations, community right to buy was not merely a legislative gesture; it was always backed by dedicated financial support. That funding was increased year on year. It was recognised that if communities are to compete with commercial purchasers, they require practical backing and not statutory wording.
I ask the Minister directly: what funding will operate under this regime? Will there be a National Lottery partnership funding, or are communities now expected to rely entirely on their own fundraising capacity?
Schedule 29 makes significant changes to the way assets of community value are defined and protected under the existing localism framework. A number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly step back and ask a more fundamental question: are we improving the system that communities rely on, or are we making it more fragile? Her amendments probe whether protections could fall away too easily, whether designated periods are being weakened and whether the balance is shifting away from communities and towards expediency. At the heart, this is about certainty for communities.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, take us to valuation and compulsory purchase. If market value is assessed in a way that takes into account speculative planning uplift, communities will often be priced out right from the very outset. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was designed to deal with precisely that issue. Therefore, I would like the Minister to explain why the Bill does not address this directly and whether the current drafting leaves community purchasers at a structural disadvantage.
Finally, Amendment 234B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, raises a practical but important point about maintenance. What is the point of designation if an asset can be allowed to decay beyond viability into the future? If local authorities are to hold these powers, do they also have the tools to prevent deliberate neglect?
This group of amendments reveals a consistent concern across the Committee. We support the principle of community right to buy. We introduced, funded and strengthened it. But Schedule 29 represents a significant rewriting of that framework. The Committee is entitled to clear assurances that we are not, through complexity or technical adjustment, weakening the very protections that gave the right meaning. The Government must now demonstrate three things: that the right will be properly funded, that protections are not being eroded and that the definition of community value reflects modern community life in all its cultural, environmental and sporting dimensions. If those assurances cannot be given, this House will inevitably return to these issues at a later stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments on the community right to buy and assets of community value, which I will refer to as ACVs. I know we debated this as far back as 11 February and, if it were not for the magic of Hansard, it would be a considerable memory test as to where we got to.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the determination of our Government to strengthen community right to buy and make it work. I will turn first to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject of funding for the purchase of ACVs. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we are already putting record investment into communities, supporting them to take ownership of valued local assets and ensuring that they can make effective use of the new community right-to-buy powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that if you do not do that, there is little point in having a community right to buy at all. Our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places to regenerate and improve their communities. The Pride in Place impact fund will also provide £150 million of funding for up to 95 places to support the development of community spaces, as well as revitalising local high streets and the public realm.
The Government launched the £175 million community wealth fund in September last year as part of our commitment to put power in the hands of communities and deliver on the Pride in Place strategy. The community wealth fund is funded, as the noble Baroness indicated, through dormant assets and match funding from the National Lottery Community Fund, our delivery partner. Disadvantaged communities will receive funding pots of between £1 million and £2.5 million each over a 10-year period, building community power in the places that need it most. Local people will have a say on where the funding should be spent, be that community cooking classes, after-school clubs, improvements to the look and feel of neighbourhoods, sports facilities or many other projects that have come forward for that funding. We believe that providing funding directly to the most in-need communities and putting them in the driving seat is the right approach. Communities can use their funding on the projects that are most important to them, including protecting local assets.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand all that money coming in, but it is targeted to certain communities. The community right to buy was for communities across the whole country. They had the ability to ask for support to save their pubs, or village or town amenities. I worry that those not in the schemes that the Government have now set up are going to be left behind.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on these matters. Our national parks are now in their 75th anniversary year. Some 10% of our land and most of our SSSIs are part of our protected habitats in national parks. National parks are key for protecting our ecosystems and adapting to climate change, and they provide untold social, health and cultural benefits to the nation. They are an extremely important part of national cultures and psyche. I support the noble Lord; we need further clarity on these matters. I absolutely support his call for the Minister to provide greater clarity and guidance on these matters between now and Report, so that we can properly examine them between now and then.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to the question. His intention is not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation but to probe an important constitutional question: how powers exercised by the national park authorities will intersect with those newly empowered devolved authorities. National parks occupy a distinctive position within our public framework. As devolution evolves, and as mayoral and combined authorities acquire broader strategic competences, clarity of responsibility becomes ever more important.
We would therefore welcome the Minister’s reassurance on two points. First, how do the Government envisage disputes of competence being resolved where priorities differ between the national park authorities and devolved bodies? Secondly, how will the statutory purposes of national parks be safeguarded within the new governance structures? This is not a question of resi1sting devolution but of ensuring that, in our enthusiasm to devolve, we do not dilute clear lines of accountability or the protection afforded to some of our most precious national landscapes.
This are sensible probing clause stand part Questions, and we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising them today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for opposing Clause 73 and Schedule 30 standing part in order to encourage a debate on the role of national park authorities in the production of spatial development strategies. We have discussed this issue during the passage of both this Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I know it is a matter of great interest to him.
As they are not strategic planning authorities, the legal duty to prepare a spatial development strategy does not apply to national park authorities. That means that they cannot be constituent members of a strategic planning board either. They remain local planning authorities with responsibility for preparing a local plan. Although national park authorities are not formally part of spatial development strategy governance, we still expect them to play an active role in preparing the strategy. This could be as a non-constituent member of a strategic authority or as a co-opted member of a strategic planning board.
Strategic planning authorities will be under a legal duty to consult any local planning authorities within or adjoining the strategic development area and affected by the strategic development strategy, including national park authorities, on their draft spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining a spatial development strategy will want to make sure that any views expressed by consultees have been properly taken into consideration.
During a previous Committee debate, I confirmed that the Government intend to publish guidance to support strategic planning authorities in engaging effectively with national park authorities on their strategic development strategies. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government still intend to publish guidance on this matter alongside other guidance to support the implementation of the new strategic planning system.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that guidance will set out how protections are in place for the statutory purposes of national parks, how that can be conveyed as part of the strategic planning process and how park authorities can contribute to the development of strategic plans in that way, and it is the same with the competencies.
With this confirmation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did ask about this: if there is a disagreement between the national park authority and the mayor, who takes precedence?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When it comes to drawing up a strategic development strategy, it will be for the planning inspector—as they would, in the normal way, if there were a dispute between two of the parties engaged in that process—to work through that and determine whose view holds sway in the strategy.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I have one amendment on its own in splendid isolation in this group. It is, as I hope noble Lords will agree, on an important topic: the use of social media in local government. This is an important topic for several reasons. One is that social media is so central to how local government and mayors may or may not choose to communicate with residents. It is also a crucial part of how elected public officials, whether they are councillors or mayors or, indeed, at the national level, experience politics. Often, that is an unhappy experience in terms of harassment and threats, but it can also be a very positive experience in terms of being able to engage more effectively with members of the public.
Of course, social media is important in many respects for its wider impact on society. That is why it comes up so often in debates and Questions on other topics in our House. In that respect, local authorities and local government in general have an important leadership role in setting some of the practical realities of how the social media landscape plays out. Sometimes, we are all collectively a bit too passive in assuming that the social media landscape is set by a combination of tech bros in California and Ofcom getting to grips with the Online Safety Act, but there is a practical degree of leadership at all levels of government that can encourage and help bring out the best of social media while downplaying the worst of social media.
There is an important role at local government level, in particular, because local government is the original source of information on so many topics that people love discussing, debating and sharing information about, whether it is which days you should put your bins out or which days schools are being closed due to snow in the winter or often controversial issues regarding, say, planning applications. Local government can make decisions on how and where to share information on all those things. Even if, in a sense, people think that they are not making those decisions but are simply following by default the social media channels that they have always used or that other parts of government use, that in itself is a decision.
The intention behind my amendment is absolutely to respect the discretion and flexibility that there should be—different places will wish to make different decisions, as appropriate—but also to show that there are two benefits to giving an explicit strategy a bit of a nudge. One is making sure that people are thinking through these issues sensibly and appropriately, and the other is enabling democratic accountability for the decisions that are being taken. Many of us probably have a wide range of views on how appropriate or not it is for people at any level of government to use Elon Musk’s social media channels, but, crucially, for the democratic accountability element to play out effectively, it is important to know what decisions are being made, how they are being made and what the rationale for them is. Different voters in different places may come to different decisions about which approach they prefer, but having a social media strategy that is explicitly published will make that democratic process much more effective.
Of course, I appreciate that if the Minister were to kindly accept my amendment, all the issues that it mentions, such as disinformation and public trust, would not suddenly be solved by it. On the other hand, they are difficult issues that we need to try to tackle, using all the different levers available to us. In that sense, I hope that the amendment would be a small contribution to that overall challenge, and therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely understand the intention behind this amendment. Social media clearly brings its challenges, particularly around misinformation, public confidence and data security—all serious matters. However, we do not agree that this is an appropriate statutory duty to place on local authorities.
Councils are already under immense operational and financial pressure. Their focus must be on delivering front-line services: social care, housing, waste collection, planning and public health. Requiring every authority to draft, publish and continually review a bespoke social media strategy, complete with formal risk assessments, would impose additional administrative burdens at a time when capacity is already stretched.
Local authorities should of course act responsibly and lawfully online, as they already must, but mandating a specific statutory strategy in primary legislation is neither necessary nor proportionate. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 241A, which would require local authorities to prepare and publish a social media strategy. When he talked about the values of social media, it reminded me that my local authority has recently introduced food waste recycling. The bin arrived on my doorstep, and I did not know what the system was—I am not the leader of the council any more, strangely, so I did not know it was going to do it. I did not think to open the bin. Inside was a lovely set of bags that you put your food waste in and a little bag you put on your worktop. I managed to get all that from the website before I actually opened the bin and found all the relevant information. As we know, not all social media is as helpful as that.
Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment is well intentioned, we believe it is unnecessary, given the existing legislative requirements that all local authorities must have regard to when using social media. All local authorities are already required by legislation to consider the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in coming to any decision on publicity, which is defined as
“any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public”.
That definition clearly includes any communications posted on social media. Given that the proposed amendment would, in effect, replicate aspects of the publicity code, to which every local authority must already have regard, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which concern the proposed local audit office. Having read the statement of intent and the consultation on local audit reform, we recognise that the Government have identified three systematic challenges. Two are particularly pertinent. First, on capacity, there is a severe shortage of auditors and too few firms in the market. Secondly, on complexity, financial reporting and audit requirements are overly complex and difficult to deliver on time. They are modelled largely on corporate auditing, rather than tailored to local public bodies. That encourages risk aversion and delay.
We do not dispute that there are real problems, but we want clarity over the proposed solutions in this Bill and in the transition plan published last November. Our opposition to Clause 74 standing part is not an attempt to frustrate reform; it is a probing step to understand the necessity and design of the proposed local audit office. What specific problem does a new statutory body solve that reform of the existing framework could not?
Regarding capacity, how does establishing a local audit office increase the number of qualified auditors in the system? Will it expand the training pipeline and make local audit more financially viable or attract firms that have previously exited the market? The Bill provides that the office will determine audit fees, while audit firms must nominate a lead partner for each audit. On what basis will the fees be set, and will local authorities and firms have any input at all? If fees remain inadequate, capacity constraints may persist.
There is also the question of delivery. If public provision is intended to sit alongside private provision, what scale of direct audit activity is envisaged for the new body? If it begins conducting audits itself, what impact would this have on competition and the long-term health of the market?
We are also told that the local audit office will reduce the audit backlog and strengthen relationships between local bodies and their auditors. Will this be achieved through simplification of reporting requirements, reform of risk and liability expectations and the adjustment of fee structures, or simply through centralised oversight? We need solutions to underline market weaknesses, not just structural governance reform.
The proposed local audit office will have regulatory functions, including maintaining a register of firms qualified to conduct local audits. Amendment 244 probes why a register is proposed while the office is also able to designate another organisation as an external registration body responsible for holding such a register. How many more bodies do we need in this landscape? At the same time, it may have operational functions. How will a clear separation between those regulating and operational roles be maintained? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest if both bodies regulate and potentially participate in the market?
That concern lies behind Amendment 246, which is explicitly a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify why the local audit office should be given the powers to acquire interest in audit firms or to provide assistance to them. What is the rationale for allowing the regulator to act as a market participant? Under what circumstances would it exercise those powers? Would it provide financial support to prevent market exit? What principles would guide such decisions?
Amendment 247 seeks assurance that the local audit office undertakes local authority audits itself and that its works will be subject to the same standard, scrutiny and independent oversight as private firms. Therefore, will the local audit office be subject to equivalent inspections and ethical standards when acting as an auditor? We would quite like a yes or no on that point.
Finally, Amendment 248 probes how rotations of key audit partners will work in practice and how independence will be safeguarded. If the local audit office undertakes audits directly, what arrangements will ensure appropriate rotation of the individuals acting as the key audit partner? What rotation period is envisaged? What process will govern handover and continuity? What safeguards will be put in place to prevent overfamiliarity and to protect professional scepticism? Just as importantly, where will these requirements sit? Will they be set out in the legislation, in regulation or through reference to an external ethical or professional standard? If an existing framework will apply, which one, and how will compliance be ensured in practice? The principle of rotation matters for independence but requirements that are too rigid risk worsening capacity in an already stretched system. How will the Government therefore balance independence with operational resilience?
These are not wrecking amendments. They are intended to provide clarity to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I will start with the clause stand part notice for Clause 74 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which questions why a local audit office is required at all. The local audit office is critical to overhauling the local audit system. The Kingman review, Redmond review and Public Accounts Committee all recommended a new independent oversight organisation to simplify the system and drive change. The current model of dispersed functions across different organisations has not delivered for the system, local bodies, taxpayers or government. As someone who was involved for many years with the LGA resources board and as a spokesperson for finance in Hertfordshire County Council, I felt sometimes as though I were watching this audit problem occurring like a car crash happening in slow motion—you could see it coming along.
While audit can seem like the dry and dusty aspect of local government, it is of course, as both noble Baronesses have said, absolutely vital to ensuring that members, officers and the public can have confidence in their local authority’s financial systems. That is why when we came into government I was so determined that we would fix this. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has set out some of the reasons why this is even more vital and urgent now, as we enter the new era of devolution. The local audit office will play a crucial role in ensuring that the reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers.
The missing data and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of government accounts for the past two years, providing no assurance to Parliament and a general loss of public accountability and trust. That is just not acceptable and we cannot carry on like that. Significant steps already taken by this Government mean that the backlog has been cleared and assurance is being built back. However, without the establishment of the local audit office and our wider reforms to tackle the root causes, the situation could recur.
To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I will come to some of her other questions as we go through, but the local audit office will support and enable our wider audit strategy, which tackles capacity and capability issues among auditors and account preparers, as well as overly complex financial reporting and audit requirements. Without the establishment of this office and the wider reforms to tackle the root causes of these problems, we could end up back where we were a couple of years ago. The local audit office will be pivotal in rebuilding that transparency, accountability and public trust in local government and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred.
Amendment 243 would give the local audit office an additional function to investigate risk management issues identified by audit committees within local authorities. These committees play a vital role across all local authorities. That is precisely why this Bill requires every local authority to establish an audit committee and ensure that it includes at least one independent member to provide robust scrutiny.
If audit committees identify risk management issues within a body, they should ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address them effectively, escalating serious issues to full council where necessary. The statutory guidance for audit committees that this Bill will enable is the appropriate mechanism to consider such issues. While the local audit office will have an important role in overseeing the local audit system, the statutory audit committee framework will remain with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of local government and, crucially, is directly accountable to Parliament. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate for the local audit office to have statutory responsibility for investigating risk management issues identified by audit committees.
Amendment 244 seeks to remove the statutory requirement for a register of local auditors to be held. The local audit register is a proven and effective regulatory mechanism for audit providers that has been in place since the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Currently, the register is held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, overseen in this role by the Financial Reporting Council. Audit providers that join the register agree to its rules and fund its regulatory activity through their fees. In the short to medium term, we expect the local audit office to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms.
New Section 6A replicates that arrangement for the new system, with two changes. First, the register-holding body will be overseen by the local audit office, not the Financial Reporting Council, meaning that the local audit office will have the final say on enforcement where serious quality or professional conduct issues occur. Secondly, there is provision for the local audit office to hold a register itself, and regulate audit providers directly, in case this becomes a more suitable mechanism at a later stage. In the unlikely event that a register-holding body became unwilling or unable to continue in its function, this provision would also enable the LAO to step in at pace to maintain regulation. This arrangement strikes a sensible balance between independent regulation of private firms and the local audit office providing oversight and taking the final enforcement decision in the rare cases where serious infringements of quality or professional conduct occur.
Amendment 245 would remove the provision enabling the body responsible for maintaining the register of authorised local audit providers to charge a fee to applicants and registrants. The register will be both a statutory requirement and a critical regulatory mechanism, supported through a range of activities that need to be properly funded. It is right that the cost of maintaining the register should be borne by those applying and registered to receive public funding for undertaking local audit work, not through the public purse. It is also unreasonable to expect an external body to assume responsibility for the registration and regulation of the local audit market without a clear mandate to charge for the range of activities required to do so. While it would be possible for the local audit office to rely on more generic fee-charging provisions elsewhere in the Bill, it is more suitable for the register to be set up and maintained by an external registration body. Registration costs covered through fees is current practice, and continuing this is the most appropriate approach, at least in the short to medium term.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is not the first time I have found myself getting in the way of the last part of a Bill, usually in talking about territorial extent. The last train that would get me to Saltaire tonight leaves King’s Cross just after 7 pm, so I will try my best to be brief.
This is about terminology but also about honesty. My amendments would provide some tighter definitions of “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. Having seen the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, tabled on “parish”, perhaps I should have also included one on that. I note that his definition of a parish council includes anything that may have the same population as Greenland. The intended ideal size for a “local authority”, which this takes us to, is about the same as the population of Luxembourg. That is not really local government and it certainly is not local democracy.
I grew up believing that all politics is local, and that citizen engagement is a fundamental part of what politics should be about. This would take politics away from the local community and neighbourhood representative model, with references to community groups that are not representative but are entirely self-formed from civil society. I would not only regret that but think it a deep step back away from the principle of democratic self-government.
I know from my early experience with the Labour Party in Manchester that there are many within Labour who regard the relationship between the party and local people as one in which Labour delivers services and the local people are supposed to be grateful for them. The Liberal approach to democracy is one in which we work with people, and we expect and encourage citizens to be engaged in local and community politics.
This is a Bill that abuses the terms “community”, “neighbourhood”, “parish” and “local”. It sets up sub-regional strategic authorities and reduces the number of local elections and councillors. If I understood the answers to the Question yesterday, it is intended that, following this legislation, the next thing will be to reduce the number of local councils and borough councils in the Greater London Authority so that we have local authorities in London that are roughly the size of Luxembourg.
I regret this; as I have sat through Committee on this Bill I have found the whole Bill deeply distasteful and weakening of our democracy—but there we are. However, I wish that the Government would at least be a little tighter in their use of these important terms than they have been, and those are the intentions of my amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this final group of amendments, beginning with Amendment 251 in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, which would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act after five years and to report before Parliament. This report would assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this legislation have been achieved, and whether objectives and measures remain appropriate.
This amendment speaks to a broader concern throughout Committee on this Bill. It is simply not clear what the Government’s objectives are in the Bill, as it does not follow through on its title—as we tried clearly to explain with the purpose clause in the first group of amendments on the first day of Committee. I cannot remember how many weeks ago that was. As we have said before, the financial implications are unclear, as well as whether local authorities will have the capacity to deliver on their responsibilities. But I do not think that we should wait to find that out in five years’ time; we need, and indeed your Lordships’ House deserves, that clarity now about the finances and the geographical configuration of these new authorities.
Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, intends to repeal the statutory provisions, which have never been enacted. I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to do this to simplify the statute book, unless the Minister can outline reasons as to why these provisions must be kept or announces a timeline for their commencement.
Amendment 264, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would ensure that the provisions in this Bill will be enacted within five years of its receiving Royal Assent. Again, we must have the assurance that the Government intend to follow through on legislation agreed in this House, and to be clear on what their exact plans are for the powers contained within it.
Amendments 257 to 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to divine more clearly in law what is meant by “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. That has been a crucial debate throughout Committee; we need to ensure that newly reorganised authorities and local government structures are not just areas neatly drawn on a map for the ease of those in central government. We on these Benches believe that they must also reflect local people’s wishes and be in keeping with local history and traditions. However, we have to be realistic—these new authorities are also going to be responsible for delivering not just very local services, which are now delivered by the district councils or by the town and parish councils, but the big services of social care, SEND, highways and so on. This legislation must not be based on a shallow understanding of what constitutes local communities and neighbourhoods. If anything, I am not sure that the noble Lord’s proposed definition of “local” as
“an area suitable for shared government, linked by easy communication”
goes far enough. People do not think of their local communities and neighbourhoods as districts or from the top-down perspective of governance structures.
Local Government Reorganisation
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am delighted to tell my noble friend that the Government are bringing back pensions for local councillors. It is very important that they do that; local councillors provide outstanding service for their communities and many of them have to give up considerable aspects of their working life to do so. I am delighted that this Government see the value of that and have brought back pensions for councillors.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the estimated outcomes of the local government reorganisation are very unclear, so could the Minister clarify how much money overall that reorganisation is going to save taxpayers? What are the geographic boundaries of the new unitary authorities? If she cannot answer today, will she please tell us when she can?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The Government’s ambition with local government reorganisation is to simplify local government, ending the two-tier system and establishing new, single-tier unitary authorities. Over and again, I have said at this Dispatch Box and in committee on the Bill that we are working on that strong local government will help to growth the economy and drive up living standards. Having one council in charge of each area, making sure that decisions can be taken quickly, will speed up housebuilding, get infrastructure projects moving, attract new investment and help us reform local public services effectively.
On the costs and benefits, each proposal has come forward with its own costs and benefits, and that information will be available when decisions are made on those proposals.
Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our close historic ties with Commonwealth countries, and the Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights. I cannot give an answer on numbers right now but I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have announced voting pilots, as we have heard, in a number of local authorities for the May 2026 local elections, which, apart from other things, will allow electors to vote at polling hubs up to seven days prior to actual polling day. How will the Government ensure that the security and the safety of the ballot box—which is so important to us all—will continue in these hubs? In particular, what about the chances of duplication of votes in that system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are looking to test several ways of making in-person voting more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors. Two types of flexible voting will be piloted during the local elections in May. The first is centralised voting hubs, as the noble Baroness indicated, where any elector in the authority can cast their vote on polling day. The second is to offer advance in-person voting at designated hubs in the days leading up to polling day, potentially including weekend access. That said, there is no diminution, in either of those processes, of the security arrangements around voting. They will have trained polling staff, people will have to show their ID when they vote, and we expect those pilots to be as secure as voting in the traditional way.
Local Government Reorganisation
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have sown confusion and imposed unnecessary costs upon the taxpayer by cancelling local elections, only to reinstate them weeks later and then seek to distance themselves from the consequences. What was presented as a firm and settled judgment has unravelled in short order, leaving uncertainty in its wake. That matters, because it is not an isolated U-turn or rethink or change of position; it joins a growing catalogue of reversals, each compounding doubt and carrying a financial price.
Stability in public administration is the foundation upon which local authorities plan, candidates prepare and citizens place their trust. Against that background, it is important to recall how we arrived here. The original decision to cancel these elections was taken by the Secretary of State. He defended it repeatedly in the other place, and the Minister defended it consistently in your Lordships’ House. In the press, the Secretary of State went so far as to describe the elections as “pointless”. Yet what was so confidentially asserted has now been undone.
Two issues now arise. The first is constitutional. Does the Minister accept that there should be strict limits upon the power to delay or disapply elections outside the most exceptional circumstances, such as war or public emergency? If she does, then, in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, will she urge her colleagues to reflect upon the sentiment of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and those in my name, which would limit the power of the Secretary of State to cancel elections by secondary legislation and constrain the power to alter the timings of local polls? It is notable that members of the governing party voted down those safeguards in the Commons.
The second issue is practical and goes to the heart of delivery. Local government is already navigating a demanding programme of reorganisation. Councils are restructuring governance, staffing, finance and service delivery. To remove and then abruptly restore elections in the midst of that process has inevitably diverted senior officers and members from their primary duty, which is the delivery of services to their residents. In other words, reorganisation requires focus, discipline and clarity. Instead, councils have been drawn into administrative uncertainty, legal contingency planning and accelerated preparations at short notice. That is not without consequences. It absorbs scarce managerial capacity and risks delay to the very reforms that the Government profess to champion. If community empowerment is truly the objective, one might expect the Government to strengthen local capacity rather than burden it with unavoidable disruption.
It is precisely because there are constitutional and practical consequences that your Lordships’ House is entitled to transparency on the costs of all this. Can the Minister therefore inform the House of the full costs of this regrettable sequence of events? What have been the expended legal fees on wasted preparation and the emergency arrangements that are now required to conduct elections at short notice? What support is being provided to local authorities required to shoulder these additional burdens? There is talk of £63 million, but is this on top of the already agreed election costs? Has an assessment been made of the impact upon council capacity and service delivery, and if so, will it be published?
The same need for clarity applies to the Government’s approach to election pilots. What is their present status? How many councils that initially indicated they possessed the capacity to participate later informed the department that they did not any longer have that capacity?
Taken together, these questions point to a wider uncertainty. Where does this leave the Government’s much-heralded program of reorganisation? Confidence in reform depends upon steadiness of hand and clarity of purpose. If Ministers will not answer fully and restore transparency, then we feel that serious reflection is required at the highest level. I would suggest that that is not at Secretary of State level, as he has been the person responsible for this unnecessary mess.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, here we are again with a topic we have discussed and debated in different forms several times. I will do my best not to simply repeat the points made previously, particularly as it seems like each time we return to this topic, it is messier and more expensive. Although the outcome in the end is welcome—that all elections will be going ahead in May, as should originally have been the case—I think we can all agree that the route by which we have got here is a highly undesirable one. Therefore, having read the Statement that we are considering this evening very carefully, and having read Hansard for the debate on Monday in the House of Commons about the Statement, I have three particular questions for the Minister.
First, in that debate on Monday, the Secretary of State was asked whether, in the light of the latest legal advice and the Government’s current understanding of the legal situation, the Government believed that the cancellation of elections last May was legal. The Secretary of State was asked that direct question and chose not to answer it. We can all speculate why, but I hope that the Minister will be able to clear that matter up by giving us a direct answer on that.
Secondly, having looked at the reasons the Secretary of State gave in the Statement for cancelling elections, I think that they do not sit easily with what he wrote in the article published in the Times newspaper ahead of the consultation closing on potential cancellations. The Statement that we are considering this evening says that the cancellation of elections,
“should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances”.
That is a sentiment with which I suspect we all agree. But in the article in the Times newspaper, the Secretary of State said:
“They want pointless elections, Labour wants to fix potholes”.
The existence of potholes in need of repair is absolutely not an exceptional circumstance. It is a frustrating daily reality. It is really hard to see how one can reconcile the Secretary of State’s comments about wanting to fix potholes with the claim that these are exceptional circumstances.
Moreover, the Statement we are considering goes on at some length about how the Government were listening and consulting. Again, however, looking back at the article in the Times newspaper, published before the closure of the consultation over elections for this May, we see that it kicks off right from the very first sentence with a very clear steer that the Secretary of State thought that cancelling elections was a good idea. It goes on to make that point repeatedly in the succeeding sentences and paragraphs. So, given that that article, published before the close of the consultation, could be seen both to have prejudged the outcome of the consultation and to have given different reasons for cancelling elections than those considered in the consultation—all of which potentially would result in some legal issues about the validity of the decision—I wonder whether the Minister could again clarify matters by letting us know if the Secretary of State’s comments, both in that Times newspaper article and elsewhere, were a factor in the change in legal advice being given to the Government about the legality of the cancellation of elections.
Thirdly, turning to perhaps a more positive aspect, I absolutely welcome the comment in the Statement that the Government are willing to think again—particularly in the context of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am sorry: the phrase is that the Government are “reflecting carefully”, which I hope means “thinking again” as well, about the amendments that have been tabled, such as by myself and by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the powers and the circumstances in which elections might be cancelled in the future. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to tell us whether those reflections will be carried out involving a degree of cross-party discussion. Will they be carried out in time so that, if the outcome of those reflections by the Government is to decide that changes to the law are appropriate, we can do that on Report of that Bill?