English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.

In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.

This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) culture.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add culture to the list of “areas of competence” in the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.

Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.

On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,

“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,

and

“the environment and climate change”.

Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.

I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.

However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.

The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.

Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.

I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.

I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.

I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I will just say very briefly: what a load of hypocrisy from the other side of the House. I was a member of Cumbria County Council from 2013 onwards. In 2021, a Conservative Minister took a decision to ignore our wishes and create two unitary councils in Cumbria instead of what would have been the most sensible solution: a single unitary council. I hope that when my noble friend on the Front Bench responds, she will agree with me that the Government are not proposing what previous Conservative Ministers did.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who I have great respect for, that I see the Bill as a foundation on which further devolution can be built. If you mess around with it, you will prevent the whole thing going ahead.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.

The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.

Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.

Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.

Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support, and to the Minister for her reply.

I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister’s response. I return to the principle that underpins this group of amendments. Any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment 8 and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship and genuine partnership between local and central government.

The question is simple: should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? We stand firmly on the side of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments and would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

25: Schedule 1, page 108, line 9, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments 75 and 106 correct references to combined county authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined authorities. Likewise, Amendments 25, 26, 27, 32 and 37 correct references to combined authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined county authorities. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined, they are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and combined county authorities to ensure consistency across the Bill. We recognise the need for that consistency.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I commend these amendments to the House.

Amendment 25 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

26: Schedule 1, page 108, line 12, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

32: Schedule 1, page 113, line 21, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

37: Schedule 1, page 115, line 28, leave out “combined authority” and insert “CCA”
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Briefly, my Lords, this has been another important group of amendments. The response by the Minister will be important, because a lot of very good and important issues have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for remembering what I said in Committee. Like him, I have concluded that I was right on that occasion, but I will not repeat it now.

I want to say something about Amendment 307, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, because I have signed it. This really matters: if you are devolving power over planning, including infrastructure planning, if you are serious about driving growth and want to improve local infrastructure, and if you want good-quality key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer. This is not new. I have raised this matter on several Bills in recent years and still think it needs to be done, because it is about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it is also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer.

I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said. He is absolutely right: it needs to be a statutory role. This is not a complex issue. The Government should just do it, and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success—and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, who recommends the right answers to politicians. With that, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to agree Amendment 307, at the very least.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for amendments relating to planning, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125 and 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved or spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published, and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan.

We set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should give

“spatial expression to strategic elements of Local Growth Plans”,

as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Further, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth. We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. I hope the noble Lord contributed to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made.

I turn to Amendments 124, 127 and 186. As I have set out, the Government want arts and culture to thrive across the country. That is why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities. It is also why we have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector.

As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asks mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth. It must be up to local areas, working with relevant stakeholders, to determine which projects fit this requirement. That is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. The additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already under way in many places.

I turn to Amendment 120. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities, rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work.

The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments that may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further. The consultation on a new framework, which closed on 10 March, proposed that

“Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards”

introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.

The consultation also included a proposed plan-making policy expecting early engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity constraints and any additional infrastructure requirements, with particular regard to the impacts of planned growth and relevant infrastructure plans. We have recently laid regulations for the new plan-making system. These regulations prescribe water and sewerage companies under the new requirement to assist. They will be obliged to assist with plan-making where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary, given the actions I have set out.

I turn to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us again; it is an important issue. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities and the sector to understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act works in practice and to get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.

As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding which applications should go to planning committees. We hope to publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance shortly. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring.

Turning to Amendment 246, I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business. However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme-specific, requiring case-by-case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.

Moreover, the new planning policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider that a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.

Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises that different areas face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach. A full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.

Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level and frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across the planning and licensing systems.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.

Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.

Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.

Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.

The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

42: Clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “7” and insert “10”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a CCA may appoint from 7 to 10.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by thanking noble Lords for their rigorous and detailed representations on the mayoral commissioners model that the Bill introduces. I think it is fair to say that there is a plurality of views on this important area, evidenced by the substance of the amendments tabled and the hours of considered debate in both Houses. The government amendments that I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring that we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny—issues that have been raised repeatedly in this House.

I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government Amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from seven to 10. Secondly, government Amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64 allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Thirdly, government Amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than only the area as a whole. Fourthly, government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that a commissioner must not carry out work in cases where a mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government Amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.

These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence, and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and local infrastructure area of competence, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I emphasise that the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners recognises that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand. It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know that mayors want high-calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. Therefore, to bring in people with a track record of success, these appointments should be on merit.

While combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners, that does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.

To be clear, no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined authorities and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine that a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes. Part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority’s board.

Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government Amendment 42, and I commend government Amendments 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65. I reserve my right to speak later in response to other noble Lords’ amendments.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, this is going to be the shortest speech I have ever made in the Chamber, but it is really meant. I thank the Government and the Minister for the three amendments that I moved at an earlier stage, which are now tabled as government Amendments 42, 46, 51 and 62. These make three excellent changes that will very much assist the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. Again, I thank the Minister very much for her and the department’s assistance with these three very good amendments—I think that is now probably the unanimous view—that will add to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and I again join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his criticism of Clause 9. Again, I ask the Minister: do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? To make matters worse, they now propose to increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10—why? What possible reason could the Government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more?

In Committee, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles, and we have not had a satisfactory answer. This is a perfect example of how, if you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this does not happen, because it is all paid for by the taxpayer and we need to ensure value for money. That is why I, along with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, tabled my Amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners who can be appointed from seven to five. Reducing the costs of local government to taxpayers should be a priority. Amendment 45 would require the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials are transparent. The Local Government Association has expressed concern about the role of commissioners and wants assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I am doubtful that the Government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability, so, when Amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said earlier, I recognise that this is an important issue, and we want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering those places and communities that are personal to all of us.

Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to reduce the number of commissioners a mayor can appoint to a maximum of five. I remind noble Lords that ensuring that mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of a mayor’s toolbox. Reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits the flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean that a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to. We have had much discussion, both in the Chamber today and during Committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competence, including rural and cultural areas. We do not want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lack the support they need.

I must reiterate that these are optional appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently, based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes.

To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why council leaders cannot do this work, commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts, which means that they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, such as canvassing on behalf of a political party. It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

46: Clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out “7” and insert “10”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a combined authority may appoint from 7 to 10.