English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak initially to my Amendments 70 and 71 in this group. It is a pleasure being here with noble Lords; it feels like a reunion of assembly or London Councils meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know is not able to be here today, for adding his name to Amendment 70, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for adding his name to Amendment 71. Both noble Lords have direct experience of the GLA and London government as a whole. Like other noble Lords, in drafting these amendments I bring 26 years’ experience as an assembly member and a London borough councillor.

Amendment 70 is about the power of summons. The law as it stands means that the assembly has relatively limited powers of summons over individuals and documents. It can summon the Mayor of London only in his or her role as chair of one of the functional bodies. For example, you could summon the mayor to a meeting as chair of Transport for London, but you could not summon them to come to a meeting if there was a huge failure or difficulties in their housing or solar programme and you wanted a detailed discussion. That makes no sense.

Furthermore, the assembly is prevented from summoning those delivering services in London. Noble Lords might well think that that does not matter because people will go and give evidence, so we do not need this power, but I will give the Committee a concrete example. Many years ago, I led an investigation into High Speed 2—then an initial programme that was going to have a huge impact in west London. High Speed 2, admittedly at that time under different management, refused to come before the assembly to give evidence to our inquiry. Despite huge amounts of correspondence, including the Department for Transport trying to put direct pressure on this body that was accountable to it, High Speed 2 refused to give any evidence at all. Yet it was delivering a project affecting London with huge amounts of public money.

Similar bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Port of London Authority and even London Councils, may attend if requested, but they, too, have at times decided not to. That cannot be right when we are trying to look at services delivering for London. This power would strengthen the assembly, allowing it to fully carry out its scrutiny role. It sits well with Amendment 72, which proposes a London local authorities joint committee, because there would need to be scrutiny of that body and this new power would allow the assembly to carry that out.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is unable to be here today, but in correspondence last night he said that he was happy for me to explain his support for this. He comes at it from a different point of view. He used to work for the former Mayor of London and he said that, although we come at this from different angles—he would brief the mayor ahead of scrutiny and I would be there as a scrutineer—he feels that these scrutiny sessions are serious, healthy, important and substantive and he does not see any potential for these powers to be abused because you would use them only in exceptional circumstances. He feels that, ultimately, if the mayor turns up, they may not answer the questions put to them, but at least you would have that opportunity—so he was keen to support this amendment. This issue has had cross-party support on the assembly for years, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment.

Of course, if more powers are given to the mayor, as was discussed at the start of this group, the assembly should be strengthened alongside this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned London being up on a pedestal but, actually, Manchester has more power than London in certain areas, such as health, and it feels as though London potentially needs to catch up.

Amendment 71 would remove the anomaly that, to amend the Mayor of London’s budget, a two-thirds majority is needed at the final stage. For many years, this has meant us, as assembly members, sitting there and rejecting the mayor’s budget and then it still going through at the final meeting because the threshold has not been reached. Such a threshold does not exist in any other part of local government, and I do not understand why it is needed here for London. I ask the Government to remove this requirement so that any mayor has to work with the assembly to ensure that a budget has majority support.

The other amendments in this group cover the establishment of a London local authorities joint committee and the power to pay grants to it. This would, as we have heard, put in place formally what is already taking place through other means. I am happy with these amendments. They have cross-party support and support from the London Assembly. As I said, they complement my amendment on the power of summons for the London Assembly, because I think that this joint committee should be subject to scrutiny as well.

Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, makes a reasonable point—the noble Baroness and I exchanged some correspondence at the weekend about it. As many of us have said, reviewing how the London system works and what lessons there are for other areas does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. I come at this from a different point of view. I am really keen to increase the powers of the London Assembly and to look at stronger scrutiny arrangements across the country with the rollout of mayoral and combined authorities. For me, that is the gap in the model that is being rolled out.

At the moment, there is little to no real scrutiny of billions of pounds-worth of expenditure across the country. This is a huge deficit in these new mayoral models. This scrutiny must be carried out by members who are not conflicted through other roles, such as being leaders of authorities. This is probably where I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord John, because I think that council leaders can be conflicted. They want to secure funding for their borough, and that can cause tension—they may not want to get into the bad books of a mayor. That is where the benefits of the GLA model, with scrutineers who are directly elected, comes in. They can look at things more independently, ask the tough questions and, sometimes, produce very tough reports.

I disagree with the suggestions we have heard in the debate on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Harris, about reducing the number of London boroughs. I do not think that that would be right. The amount of work, including casework, that borough councillors have to do in London is unbelievable compared to their colleagues elsewhere. That would not be a realistic option.

I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest. I hope we can start to see some movement to strengthen the powers of the assembly and to support London Councils on this matter.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their amendments relating to London devolution. As a mere veteran of what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, described as provincial local government, I feel a little hesitant about sticking my head into the lion’s den of London local government—but it is my job, so I will do it anyway.

I start with the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which would remove Clause 15 from the Bill. It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance. Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill in order to signpost to Schedule 25 to the Bill and the GLA Act 1999. This enables the Government, among other things, to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Contrary to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about putting London on a pedestal, the provision enables us to confer powers on the mayor and the GLA. If the GLA was excluded from Schedule 25, it would then be the only strategic authority that would require primary legislation for the conferral of functions, and there is no rationale for creating a divergent approach just for London. Schedule 25 will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.

The noble Baroness asked a question about consultation. Ahead of the Bill being introduced, the Government engaged the mayor, the GLA and London Councils on proposals in the devolution White Paper.

I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for bringing his wealth of experience and knowledge of London to our debates on this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Moylan and Lord John. I have not yet been able to add up their joint years of London experience, but it is of significant breadth and depth, and it is welcome to have that informing our discussions on the Bill. For the record, my local council was formed in 1971 and has been a Labour council to this day. It does not quite meet the 60 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but we are not far away, and we are a new town.

We are currently engaging positively with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on this matter. In the context of that ongoing work and the need to continue to work jointly towards a constructive resolution, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to rush in a legislative change for the unique arrangements for London governance through this amendment. I am very happy to meet my noble friend Lord Harris and other London partners, if he feels that that would be helpful before Report, because I understand the points he has made.

On Amendment 70, in the English devolution White Paper the Government committed to strengthening scrutiny in strategic authorities. As the noble Baroness knows, London is unique among strategic authorities, in that the mayor’s work is scrutinised by the directly elected London Assembly. It is my understanding that the mayor is committed to appear before 10 sessions each year for scrutiny. If he does not do so, or misses more than a number of those sessions, he can be sanctioned by the GLA.

As the Government consider the best way to strengthen scrutiny in strategic authorities, it is right that we tailor our approach to the arrangements in London. We will engage the GLA and the London Assembly on any potential changes. I have much sympathy with the frustration about key partners and providers that spend public money and then refuse to come before scrutiny bodies. I will not go into my particular pain over bus companies, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness was making there. This amendment would significantly alter the powers of the London Assembly and preclude the Government’s ongoing work on this issue, which is being taken forward in close discussion with combined authorities and the GLA.

Similarly, on Amendment 75, London’s model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years—I think the noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the successful part of London governance. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities. We hope to build on these where possible. Therefore, we do not believe that a formal review is necessary.

I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about issues around boroughs neighbouring London, Lee Valley park, the London grants scheme and so on. I will reflect on those. A meeting might be helpful, because I did not quite understand the balance between “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and there being things that need to be fixed that we should have a look at to see what changes would be necessary. It would absolutely not be right to interject a legislative knee-jerk into this space without the work that is needed between all parties to determine a way forward. I hope that we can move that forward before Report.

Amendment 71 seeks to introduce simple majority voting for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget. This Bill includes measures to unblock mayoral decision-making. Primarily, this is by stipulating that most decisions in combined authorities and combined county authorities require a simple majority including the mayor, but also by making some functions, such as those concerning police and fire, exercisable by the mayor only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

We talked about a review of the scrutiny arrangements of other metro mayors, if you like—mayoral and strategic authorities. Is the Minister able to give us a timescale for that? We also talked about discussions with the GLA; the GLA is made up of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Is the department talking to officers and members of the London Assembly, because the Civil Service often uses the term “GLA” when it means just the mayor’s office.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that discussions are with the GLA, but I will double-check on that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.

We are putting in place a robust system of overview and scrutiny for the combined authorities. We are also considering, as we discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the other day, whether a system of local public accounts committees might also be relevant.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

There is a certain sleight of hand going on. The noble Baroness referred to scrutiny arrangements and, of course, the London Assembly is largely a scrutiny body; that is what it spends most of its time doing. But when it comes to budget setting, it is a co-decision-maker. That is a crucial difference. Setting and amending the budget is not a scrutiny activity by the London Assembly; it is a co-decision-making function with the mayor, which strengthens democratic oversight of the mayor’s expenditure of what are now very large amounts of money—£20 billion-plus—on the people of London.

The question is what an appropriate position and appropriate balance of power for the assembly is in that co-decision-making role—not its scrutiny role, but its co-decision-making role. We are now into 26 years of existence of the London Assembly. The fact that that threshold has never once been met illustrates that it is not allowing the assembly to function as intended, as a co-decision-making body. It needs to be adjusted. One might say that the mayor’s executive functions would be hampered if democracy were improved, but of course the mayor’s executive functions would be further unhampered if there were no democracy at all. The London Assembly is meant to be a democratic body. Why is it not allowed to function as a normal democratic body in this one area where it has a co-decision-making power?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ contributions, for which I am very grateful. It is so refreshing to hear about London local authorities. I have talked for a number of years in both Chambers about local government, but we very rarely have a proper debate on London governance. It is very refreshing and I thank noble Lords who have, it seems to me, hundreds of years of experience in the great city’s governance. It is seriously refreshing.

To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I say that of course I understand the role of our great capital city and its importance in the economy of our country, but I do not think that that means that we cannot at times challenge it and scrutinise it from here, and I think that that is what we are doing. It is our genuine desire to ensure that community empowerment, efficiency and localism should apply to London as well when we are looking at the rest of the country.

Clause 15 remains wholly unclear, both in its purpose and its intention. Empowering one individual further without compelling justification or evidence is not the right direction of travel in our opinion. It may be that we need to review London before we give these further powers, as we are doing for the rest of the country. Are we giving these powers to an authority that is as efficient as it can be in governance, just as the rest of the country is being challenged to be before it gets those powers?

If there is a case for expanding the powers in London, I suggest that the Government look at that governance before they make that decision, which is why the amendment was tabled. If such a case exists, I believe that it should be laid before Parliament transparently rather than delivered through secondary legislation at a later stage in a way that limits our scrutiny and public understanding, which is important.

Equally, amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have highlighted a real concern about the existing governance arrangements and structures, although I remain unconvinced that more layers of committees are the answer. None the less, not only are the Government taking, in our opinion, the wrong direction of travel, but they are also missing a great opportunity in this primary legislation. The proposal to reduce the two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as we have heard, for changes to the GLA council tax requirement would empower councillors, as we are trying to do in this Bill. My understanding is that, when the budget is debated, many of the issues in the budget are voted down by the GLA but, when it gets to the budget decision, that decision is lost. That does not seem right and the Government need to seriously look at this again.

The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I thank her for all her work in the London boroughs—would give us exactly the opportunity that we want in order to assess what currently works, what does not work and where genuine reform, rooted in efficiency, transparency and local empowerment, might be needed.

I suggest that the Government are not listening to what we are saying. It seemed to me that, at different levels, there was pretty much cross-party agreement. I believe that they must explain with much more clarity why Clause 15 is necessary without some sort of review of London, who it benefits and what problems it seeks to solve. We all want a London that works for Londoners, for the people who come here to enjoy our wonderful capital city and for the economy that it feeds in this country.

I also believe that the Government’s arrangements for our city should be proportionate to those for the rest of the country. Further empowering an already powerful mayor without a real, robust rationale does not achieve that. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully between now and Report. In the meantime, I will withdraw my stand part notice but will be considering what we bring forward on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. In essence, we are debating a philosophical issue here. I firmly believe in democracy. Elections take place; your Lordships would be surprised to know that I do not always like some of the decisions that the electorate make, but I will defend every time the public having the opportunity to elect whom they want to represent them. That is a priority.

Just because I do not like it or just because they have a second job that I may not think appropriate, they should have that opportunity. We need some protections in place for fraud and other things, but I believe in democracy and, in essence, that is what the comments of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lady O’Neill are about, and I associate myself with them. We should not prevent people standing for election; we should allow the electorate to make their choice. That is what democracy is. We may all have our views about whether a job is too big and therefore we cannot have somebody doing two of them but, if you believe in democracy, you believe that the electorate should have the facts presented in front of them and they should be given that choice. That is my strong philosophical view. We should not be telling the electorate, “No, you cannot have this person because they are already too busy”. Therefore, I genuinely believe my noble friend’s comments and that it is right that we should trust the electorate.

I appreciate that that may not align with certain party rules on different things, but there is no reason that the law has to mirror a certain party’s rules. I have no problem with whatever party having particular rules for the candidates they choose. That is the right thing to do. I know, from my own experience as chairman of the LGA, that the Conservative group had some very different rules from the Labour, Liberal and independent groups for how long people could stand and who was eligible. That is fine; I would not criticise the rules that Labour or the Liberals had, and I hope they did not criticise our rules. That was a choice; we were not imposing them by statute.

I very much support both the amendments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the proposal that this clause not stand part of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Fuller. If Clause 16 stands part, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne would introduce a certain amount of flexibility. Given the amendments that the Government are proposing, what would happen if an election were to take place, let us say, 10 days before the end of a parliamentary term? Would the Government really want to impose a mayoral election? I am not quite sure that 10 days works, but I am sure your Lordships get my gist. If Clause 16 were to stand, a certain amount of flexibility would be beneficial, notwithstanding my previous comments.

I also agree with the Government’s amendments, assuming that eight days is the correct period and would give time for an MP to stand down and so forth, but I have a particular question on this. It may be very unlikely, but what happens if an election for a mayor happens when Parliament is not sitting? My understanding is that an MP cannot resign when Parliament is not sitting. Could the Minister at least consider that? I am not necessarily expecting an answer here, but a written answer would be helpful for everyone.

The fundamental point is why this Government believe that the electorate are not the right group of people to decide who represents them, even if they decide that it is Andy Burnham.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Fuller, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for moving the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority, and for probing whether Clause 16 is needed.

It is not the job of this Committee to debate the Labour Party rulebook or decisions of its national executive committee. Your Lordships must trust me that they do not want that job. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions on that issue.

Clause 16 will prevent individuals being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mayor at the same time. This is an important clause for two reasons. First and most critically, the post of mayor is a vital role at the forefront of delivering change—whether that is economic growth, public services, planning for the strategic area, transport or many other issues—and its responsibilities will only increase with this Bill. The role must demand a person’s full attention as a full-time post, rather than being a part-time position done alongside another vital public service role.

Secondly, elected members and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents who elected them. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the potential issue of having different constituencies. Fulfilling two different roles on behalf of different geographical areas could lead to conflicts of interest or undesirable trade-offs. This is absolutely not party political; it is common sense. Indeed, it is now the case that those mayors who are also police and crime commissioners—Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin—cannot be Members of a UK legislature at the same time.

I know that this House operates on a slightly different basis, but when I joined it, I was still leader of my council. As a Minister you cannot do both jobs at the same time, but even before I was a Minister, I would not have dreamed of trying to do so. They are different jobs; both carry a heavy level of responsibility, and it was important to me to focus on one.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify that what she just said about PCCs and Members of the legislature concerns the elected Members? We have to be very careful here; we are part of the legislature.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise; I could have been clearer on that. The noble Baroness is quite right: it is the elected legislature. In view of my comments, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

Government Amendments 77, 80, 82, 85 and 90 will modify Clause 16 to introduce a grace period in which a mayor can hold office and simultaneously be a Member of a UK elected legislature without being disqualified. The period will be eight days. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the eight days enables the Chiltern Hundreds process to happen—that is the period required for going from being an MP to being a mayor. To go from being a mayor to being an MP, it enables the mayor to put their affairs in order before they take up their post as an MP. In the event that a mayor is running to be a Member of a UK legislature, it will be eight days beginning on the day when they are elected to that legislature.

I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as I do not know the answer to his question. It is important that Members are given reasonable time to get their affairs in order and to ensure their resignation from the respective legislature. These amendments address concerns raised in the other place about ensuring that an orderly transition can occur in the event that an MP is appointed as a mayor. Similarly, mayors running to be a Member of a UK legislature would otherwise be disqualified immediately on election. Introducing the grace period provides a period of transition for the outgoing mayor to get their affairs in order. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I raised another point in relation to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. With a very strict timetable of eight days, one could envisage situations where any sensible person would stand back and ask, “Do we really want to have a mayoral election for the sake of two, three or four weeks?” Will the Government consider a bit more flexibility?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise; I meant to say to the noble Lord that I will write to him about the situation in which Parliament may not be sitting when that election takes place.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister will do that, but I was also making the point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would at least provide some flexibility. The common-sense approach would be to ask, “Why would I have a mayoral election this month when there’s one happening next month anyway?” Can there be a bit more flexibility? As the Labour Party has rightly said, it costs a lot of money to run an election in Manchester.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

77: Clause 16, page 20, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a combined authority,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

80: Clause 16, page 20, line 13, at end insert—
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

82: Clause 16, page 20, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a CCA,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

85: Clause 16, page 20, line 29, at end insert—
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

87: Clause 16, page 20, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the Mayor, and(b) is, on the first day of the Mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the Mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the Mayor,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes Mayor) or as Mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

90: Clause 16, page 21, line 6, at end insert—
““first day of the Mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the Mayor, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the Mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the Mayoral term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who asked a number of important and timely questions.

Let me use her first amendment in this group as an example. It would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to consider and

“minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.

This is absolutely sensible and common-sense, and it should happen. However, I suggest that, for clarity, this should extend also to Whitehall, from where powers are devolved; then, with the exception of oversight, those powers and the bureaucracy involved should no longer exist within Whitehall.

The Bill amends the 2023 Act through numerous schedules and amendments. It is right, therefore, that we ensure this clarity and avoid unnecessary overlap. I am sure that many Members in this Grand Committee will remember the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through the House. It was a long and complex piece of legislation—I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my noble friend Lady Scott—and the changes in this policy and space must be approached with care. I am keen, therefore, to hear from the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication and legal uncertainty, in relation not just to this amendment but across the Bill as a whole.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendments on the role of mayors. Before I respond to these amendments, I want to clarify the rationale for Clause 18. The clause will extend an existing power of the Secretary of State to provide that certain general functions may be exercised solely by a mayor. The power currently exists in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This clause will ensure that it can also apply to general functions conferred under any other regulation or Act of Parliament. The extension of this existing power reflects the broader range of routes through which functions may be conferred on strategic authorities and their mayors, once the current Bill becomes law.

Amendments 91 and 92 seek to amend this clause and prevent the potential for conflict, overlap or duplication between a mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies. As your Lordships will know, mayors of combined authorities or combined county authorities are not corporate entities in themselves. For that reason, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority rather than directly on to the mayor. However, some functions may be designated as mayoral functions, as they are to be exercised only by the mayor. Where functions have been made mayoral, they typically relate to the management of day-to-day activities.

Key strategic decisions still require approval by the strategic authority constituent members. To give an example, all members will vote on which roads form part of a key route network, after which the mayor will be responsible for managing it. This will allow for swifter decision-making and more effective governance on day-to-day matters.

It will be important that all tiers of local government work together to benefit their communities. This is why principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This will ensure that they play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. Furthermore, before any new function is conferred on a strategic authority by regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the constituent councils of any affected strategic authorities and any other person who exercises the function concerned. This will ensure that the views of those affected are properly considered.

I hope that, with these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely accept that the new structures are complex and complicated. It is very easy to be seduced by the noble Baroness’s fluent explanation. My amendment was coming more from the perspective of practicalities, which was also borne out by the comments earlier that, in reality, there is overlap, with weakened scrutiny, unclear accountability and eroded public trust. I would like to feel that a lot of work was being done into what those are. We know it is probably happening, but it is all going to come later through SIs and secondary legislation. I wanted to make it absolutely clear, up front, that those overlaps and duplications will be considered, because they will be a source of conflict and friction going forward. It was interesting that the leaders of boroughs are saying that that is happening even 20 or however many years later. But, for the moment, I will withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.

I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:

“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.


I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?

I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments on local partners’ co-operation with mayors. This is an important group of amendments. Without this type of local co-operation, devolution will not work, so I take it very seriously.

Amendment 98 would provide for the Mayor of London, instead of the Secretary of State, to define “local partners” for the purposes of Clause 21. Elsewhere in England, it would remain for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “local partners” in regulations. Were this amendment to be made, it would create an immediate inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and the approach taken elsewhere in England. Allowing the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors could not would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all levels. Defining “local partners” in regulations will allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny—I think that is important—will provide a single, coherent definition across England and will ensure that mayors’ power to convene can be clearly understood by both mayors and local partners.

Examples of the types of organisations the regulations may include are those that deliver public services on behalf of, or receive funding from, a mayoral strategic authority; are identifiable as key enablers in statutory strategies; or play a material role in helping a mayoral strategic authority perform its functions within its local area. We are not seeking to define “local partners” in isolation. We are interested in understanding from strategic authorities and their mayors the type of organisations and institutions that should fall under a definition of a “local partner”. We are doing some more work on that with our strategic authorities.

I turn to Amendment 99, which seeks to understand the requirement for local partners to respond to a notification from a mayor of a strategic authority to convene a meeting. Clause 21 provides mayors with a new power to notify local partners of their intention to convene a meeting on a local matter that relates to their areas of competence. It also places a corresponding requirement on any local partner to respond to such a notification. This power is designed to enable mayors to bring the right people around the table, so that partners can work together to tackle shared challenges, seize opportunities for their communities and deliver the best outcomes for local people. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about data sharing was very relevant to this. It is often the lack of ability to share data across organisations that slows down these kinds of collaborative projects.

The requirement on local partners is proportionate and not unduly burdensome. It does not oblige partners to engage beyond acknowledging the notification, nor does it prescribe what steps a local partner must take following any meeting or how they must act. Rather, the requirement is simply to respond to a mayor’s notification. The intention is to promote constructive dialogue even where there may be a difference of view on the relevant local matter. Taken together with the other mayoral powers of competence in this Bill, Clause 21 will strengthen the role of strategic authority mayors, giving them the means to drive growth, foster collaboration and deliver improvements for their communities.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about whether public bodies can require the mayor to attend, the mayor’s role in convening will probably answer that point, but I will reflect on it. If the mayor had a duty to convene people to collaborate on issues, and another body requested a meeting to discuss something like that, it would not seem in the spirit of what is in this Bill for the mayor to decline that invitation. I will take that back and think about it a little more.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 196 and 237 from my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I assure noble Lords that the Government —and I—strongly support the spirit of the amendments: local public service partners and strategic authorities should collaborate to ensure quality, joined-up services for local people. Placing a new, wide-ranging statutory duty on local public service partners to attend meetings; provide information and assistance; and engage with strategic and local authorities in their local area may place an additional and unwarranted burden on these bodies. I, too, remember the Total Place initiative. One thing that got in the way of that was the dialogue between bodies, when they said, “We just do not have the capacity to provide that at the moment”. It caused some friction between some bodies.

As set out in the English devolution White Paper, it is the intention that mayors act as conveners on public service reform. The Bill provides them with the power to do this by granting them a power to convene local partners on their areas of competence, which include health, well-being and public service reform. The Bill places a corresponding duty on local partners to respond to a request by a mayor to meet. It is important to note that this does not place a duty on local partners to agree to particular policies of the mayor or to meet if they do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that this strikes the right balance between giving mayors the tools to drive collaboration, protecting the independence of local partners to act as they think fit and avoiding burdensome duties to which they must adhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I will take back what the noble Baroness says. In this case, my point is that a random unelected body is not the same as an elected body. I genuinely think that democracy is important. If you wish to engage, you probably need to be a bit more nuanced in whom you engage with, because it should not be random; it should be those people who can really give you the feedback and information you need, depending on the subject and the place. Take central Bedfordshire, for example: a random 100 people from across central Bedfordshire will not be particularly helpful when we are discussing what is happening in my own little village of Maulden; I would rather discuss it with the residents of Maulden.

With that, I shall move on. This debate has made it clear that collaboration is important—in many cases, essential. I hope that it will be taken seriously by the Minister and that she will come back with some flexibility later on in the Bill’s passage.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that we have been pressing on time; the Hansard team and other officers were here until very late last night and we do not want to put them under any further pressure.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Janke, for their amendments on the duty to collaborate. I shall start with Amendment 100, for which I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I completely understand the intention behind this amendment—we have now had many discussions on this issue—but we ultimately think that it is unnecessary, as cultural well-being is captured in the current wording of Clause 22.

Culture underpins our creative and visitor economies; in this way, cultural activity is inherently captured in the meaning of

“economic, social or environmental well-being”.

The formulation is intentionally wide so that mayors can request collaboration on a broad range of matters; it is also intended to avoid an exhaustive or prospective list. Adding “cultural” risks undermining that approach and creating pressure to enumerate further dimensions of well-being without delivering any substantive new effect. Indeed, explicitly singling culture out could invite arguments that other aspects of well-being that are not listed are of lesser importance, or that cultural interests should be interpreted narrowly or separately from economic, social or environmental considerations.

Mayors of strategic authorities can, and already do, collaborate on cultural matters. The Mayors of South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire have come together to sign the White Rose Agreement, committing to work together on high-profile culture and sporting events and to celebrate Yorkshire’s heritage. I hope that the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who raised the issue of culture have been reassured by my agreement to reflect on how culture is treated in the competency framework.

I turn to Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which seeks to promote greater regional collaboration between mayors and other public and private partners. The Government agree with the value and benefits of regional collaboration. However, while the amendment is well intentioned, we do not think it is necessary. Strategic authorities and their mayors already have a wide range of mechanisms to collaborate across administrative boundaries, and several mayors are already doing so successfully. We heard some examples from the noble Lord.

The powers in Clause 22 are not intended to replace the wide range of positive and informal collaboration that already takes place. They are intended to supplement these existing mechanisms and strengthen mayoral leadership by providing a more formal route for cross-boundary pan-regional collaboration where this can improve outcomes for communities. However, it should be for mayors to decide for themselves how to use these powers rather than for the Government to prescribe or constrain the purposes and form that mayoral collaboration must take. More broadly, under existing legislation, combined authorities and combined county authorities can already enter into joint committees, allowing them to discharge certain powers together and jointly produce legislative documents such as spatial development strategies.

I turn to Amendment 102 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; this is not from Sir Humphrey, but from me—I am passionate about devolution and am not letting anyone get in the way of that; it is good programme, though, and I like it. This amendment would require strategic authorities to prepare joint strategic development plans, covering two or more strategic authority areas in certain circumstances. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment to join up strategic authorities, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. We already have broadly equivalent powers as a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. New Section 12B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the 2025 Act, enables the Secretary of State to require authorities to work together on spatial development strategies through the establishment of a strategic planning board. The Government intend to use these powers, in particular in areas without a combined authority or a combined county authority. The same Act gives the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in relation to the preparation and adoption of spatial development strategies.

It is worth highlighting that, where strategic planning authorities are working on separate spatial development strategies, they are required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, to have regard to the need to be consistent with current national policies. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out strong expectations on authorities to work effectively across local government boundaries.

I turn to Amendment 103. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for raising the importance of citizen engagement in local decision-making. The Government fully agree that residents should have meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions that affect their areas. However, as the locally elected leaders in their regions, mayors should have the ability to decide on how best to engage with their local communities. Mayors can convene citizens’ assemblies if they wish to, and, in places such as South Yorkshire, mayors have decided to use these powers. Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have general powers of competence conferred automatically on them, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so.

Finally, the Bill already includes a provision in this area. Clause 60 introduces a neighbourhood governance duty, requiring all local authorities to put in place arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance. That will ensure that communities have meaningful opportunities to inform and influence local decisions.

I turn to Amendment 104, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 196, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Both seek to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities work closely with their local authorities, public service providers and bodies representing local communities in town and parish councils. I recognise the spirit in which these amendments have been made. It is important for all mayors to engage with the wider public sector and the local authority family in delivering their own functions. However, strategic authorities are already expected, through existing legislation and provisions in this Bill, to work collaboratively with local partners and communities when exercising their functions.

Amendment 104 in particular would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities by placing a new duty requiring them to meet local authorities, public service providers and town and parish councils. As an illustration, North Yorkshire alone compromises 729 individual parishes, organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor to discharge this proposed duty in respect of each body would be impractical and may crowd out some of the time needed for the officer’s other strategic responsibilities. Parish and town councils continue to be supported in their work, and local authorities are strongly encouraged to work with them to understand the contribution they are able to make to the delivery of local services and the management of local assets.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2025 be approved.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I appreciate that noble Lords’ enthusiasm for transitional relief on business rates at 12.07 am might not be as keen as mine, so I will be as brief as possible, but it is necessary to set out the detail of the regulations.

Before I discuss the regulations before us in detail, I wish to briefly touch on the measures announced yesterday by the Government—which is actually now the day before yesterday, but let us not split hairs—as this is relevant to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which I will address in full in my opening statement. Yesterday, the Government announced a further 15% relief for pubs and live music venues in 2026-27, on top of the support package announced at the Budget. This will be followed in 2027-28 and 2028-29 by a real-terms freeze in the bills of these properties.

As a result of the intervention next year, around three-quarters of pubs will see their bills fall or stay the same. I add that the Government published a definition of “pub” and “live music venue” which local authorities will use in determining which properties in their area are eligible, and formal guidance for local authorities will be issued shortly.

These regulations provide for the business rates transitional relief that was announced by the Chancellor at the Budget. This scheme, provided over three years, gradually phases in large bill increases created by the 2026 revaluation. It also puts in place a 1p transitional relief supplement for one year only, in 2026-27, to help fund the relief provided.

These regulations are necessary because of the 2026 business rates revaluation. As of 1 April 2026, the revaluation will update the rateable value of the 2 million non-domestic properties in England. Revaluations are an important and necessary part of the business rates system, where rateable values are updated to reflect market conditions. At the same time, the multipliers or tax rates are adjusted in response to the overall movement in the tax base.

If the overall rateable value increases at the revaluation, it has a downward pressure on the tax rates, and vice versa. That is why the multipliers for next year will be at a lower rate than they are currently. This does not necessarily mean that bills go down; at revaluation, some ratepayers’ bills go down, some stay the same and some go up. The Government fully understand that, for some ratepayers seeing increases, support is required to help them move gradually to their new liability over time. That is why the Government have introduced a support package to help ratepayers with their new liability, and these regulations are part of that support package.

To return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in his amendment, it is important to clarify a factual point. These regulations do not alter or reduce the current 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief, or other small business reliefs within the business rates system, such as small business rate relief. Voting against these regulations would, in fact, prevent us giving transitional relief support to ratepayers. To address the broader point made by the noble Lord, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief was introduced to support eligible ratepayers during Covid. It was an atypical measure for an atypical period of time.

This Government have been clear, first at Budget 2024 and then through our passage of primary legislation, the Non-Domestic Rating Act 2025 to create the new multipliers, that, as part of our broader work to transform the business rate system, we would end the temporary, financially unsustainable Covid-era relief and replace it with a permanent lower tax rate for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The Government have done that through the introduction of the new permanent retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers for qualifying properties with rateable values below £500,000. However, the Government are well aware that a lower tax rate does not necessarily equate to a lower rate liability. Some ratepayers, particularly those in sectors which were closed due to Covid on 1 April 2021—the antecedent valuation date for the 2023 revaluation—have seen substantial rateable value growth. This was expected as normal economic activity has been restored since Covid.

It is right and important that the previous Covid-era relief is unwound, but the pace at which we do that is just as important. That is why, at the Budget, the Government also announced the expanded supporting small business relief scheme. The scheme provides relief to ratepayers losing some or all of certain reliefs as a result of the revaluation, including the 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief. That scheme caps bill increases for eligible properties at whichever is the higher of £800 or the relevant transitional relief percentage cap. Importantly, the capped increase is calculated from a base liability, including the effect of the eligible reliefs, providing enhanced support to enable these ratepayers to transition to their new liability over time.

As I have set out, the Government, following engagement with stakeholders, went further yesterday for pubs and live music venues, announcing additional support on top of this Budget package. The regulations before us today do not deliver the supporting small business relief scheme, or measures announced yesterday. These are provided by guidance that is published by my department, which enables local authorities to apply these additional reliefs. None the less, they are important contexts to remember, and are pertinent to the points raised by the noble Lord as we consider the draft instrument before us.

This instrument delivers the transitional relief scheme element of the government support package, and will protect properties from large overnight increases in their business rate bills as a result of the revaluation. It will cap bill increases by a set percentage each year. For example, in 2026-27, the caps within the transitional relief scheme are 5% for small properties, 15% for medium properties and 30% for large properties. These are the same year one caps as set at the 2023 revaluation. These caps are applied before changes in other reliefs and local supplements. Therefore, changes in actual bills may differ from those caps.

At this revaluation, the transitional relief scheme will provide more generous caps for large properties in years 2 and 3 compared to previous revaluations. The caps in years 2 and 3 will also rise with inflation, as has been the case previously.

The noble Lord has raised the fact that no public consultation was undertaken prior to the laying of these regulations. As was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the draft instrument, transitional relief was last consulted on in 2022. In their consultation response in 2022, the then Government stated:

“Given that upwards caps have been consistently retained for consecutive schemes and, in general, it is only the level of support provided that will vary, the government will no longer consult on the scope of future TR schemes as a matter of course”.


That response also stated:

“Future TR schemes will be developed taking into account revaluation outcomes to ensure that the support provided continues to be effectively targeted at ratepayers facing the largest bill increases”.


The steps that this Government have taken to redesign the scheme include providing more generous support in years 2 and 3 for the largest ratepayers and calculating support from the relevant multiplier that each ratepayer pays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, this is the last speech that I shall be making after midnight as Chief Whip for the Liberal Democrats, because I am stepping down at the weekend. I hope that the first thing that the next Session of Parliament does is bring in some legislation, or whatever we require, to modernise the hours of this House. It is ludicrous that we are sitting here at this time.

I will not speak for very long, because this SI is aimed at providing transitional relief to support business rate payers as they transfer to the new bills following the 2026 business rates revaluation. It is based on schemes that we have had for some time and has been improved by the Government. We will deal with extra support for public music venues when we look at the SIs on 10 February, so I am not going to go on about the impact of NI with the minimum wage and the rate valuation now. We will look more closely at those issues at that time.

We support the new structure of rates designed to shift the burden from the high street to large warehouses. The only problem that I want to raise is that the Government would do well to publish data on the impact of the revaluation on specific sectors to help analyse the need for targeted support.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the regret amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for all his work as Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat group. I am very grateful to him for everything he has done. I know that he will continue to contribute in the House, but we are very grateful for what he has done in that role.

Quite honestly, it was the party opposite that sat on their hands as our high streets crumbled around them for 14 years. Therefore, I find this simply astonishing, and the selective memory on Covid measures, again, is quite baffling. The measures were put in as a response to the situation during Covid. I will respond to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made, but I do so in the hope that, at some point, those who were part of the previous Government will have a bit of humility about the fact that we have had to come in and sort all this out, because it was left in such a mess when we took over in 2024.

In relation to the noble Lord’s comments on stealth tax, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief introduced by the previous Government in 2020 is unsustainable and was always temporary in nature. We have ended the uncertainty of that relief and replaced it with permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have done this in a way that is financially responsible and sustainable by funding this support from within the business rate system via the high-value multiplier for ratepayers with a rateable value of £500,000 and above.

In relation to further support for high streets, as I set out in my opening speech, the Government have introduced permanently lower multipliers, and we have also provided an expanded supporting small business rate relief scheme to help those ratepayers gradually move from the 2025-26 relief to the new tax rates by moderating their bill increases over the next three years. We went further in the announcements yesterday with the additional 15% relief for pubs and live music venues on top of the Budget package.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

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

I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the first clauses of the Bill last week. I have replied in writing to some of the questions noble Lords asked me last week, and I hope they have received those replies. I look forward to further scrutiny today.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their amendments to Clause 6, on decision-making arrangements. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 6 is required. Clause 6 is central to the Bill’s core ambition of moving from devolution by deals to devolution by default. It creates a clear and consistent decision-making framework for combined authorities and combined county authorities. Current decision-making arrangements in combined authorities and combined county authorities are complex and vary widely, as noble Lords who have spoken have referred to. This confuses the public and makes accountability harder. For example, mayors are often seen by the public as the accountable person for their authority, but the Mayor of the West of England and the Mayor of the West Midlands are not allowed to vote on their combined authority’s budget.

Clause 6 introduces a simple majority voting system which makes decisions more transparent, creates a level playing field and provides more clarity for the public. For mayoral strategic authorities, the mayor must be in the majority for a vote to pass. This reflects their direct democratic mandate across the entire area. When he was referring to Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the consequences if that is not in place. I think it is an important move. Collaboration remains important, and we are clear that we want to see mayors build a consensus, but one member should not be able to block decisions for an entire region. Removing Clause 6 would keep the current patchwork of governance rules, which slows decision-making down and can undermine accountability to the public, so we believe the clause is essential for strong, transparent governance and should remain in the Bill.

Amendments 41 and 43, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to understand the justification for providing the mayor with a veto over decisions and why decisions must require the agreement of the mayor. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration with strategic authorities. That is exactly why the Bill requires both the mayor and the constituent members to work together. The standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of members support a decision. We believe the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between collective decision-making and clear leadership. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are elected by the public to provide leadership and direction for their whole area. Requiring mayoral agreement on key decisions helps ensure clarity over who is accountable for outcomes. Without that clarity, responsibility risks becoming blurred. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution. It would lead to slower decision-making, less coherent strategies and reduced accountability to the public.

Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to provide that secondary legislation can be used to set voting arrangements for combined authorities and combined county authorities that differ from the standard arrangements set out in Clause 6. The Government agree that simple majority voting would not be appropriate for all situations. That is why Clause 6 already provides that voting arrangements set out in other enactments continue to apply. Therefore, these amendments are not necessary. For example, in non-mayoral areas the local transport plan must instead have the consent of all constituent councils in order to be adopted. In mayoral areas, the local transport plan remains a mayoral function, but it must be approved by a simple majority vote of the strategic authority. The existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements in secondary legislation, to which the amendments refer, will also apply.

Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act—that is a snappy title—and Clause 6, the Bill does not disapply or override those Acts. Their relevant provisions continue to apply where appropriate, so restating them here does not add any new legal protection. Including additional statutory references risks creating confusion about which provisions apply in different circumstances and undermines the clarity of the governance framework the Bill is trying to apply.

We recognise that some parts of the country have unique technical circumstances that require small changes to this consistent approach, such as to reflect arrangements relating to the management of trams or local bus companies. We have undertaken extensive engagement with existing combined authorities and combined county authorities over the past 12 months on this issue to agree a limited set of bespoke voting arrangements that met this high bar. Should any future strategic authority seek bespoke arrangements, the Government would need to consider them on a case-by-case basis. However, we are clear that any changes to the standard voting arrangements would be by exception and subject to a very high bar.

The Government will maintain some of the place-specific voting arrangements. For example, Lancashire combined authority has bespoke voting arrangements in relation to its budget, which reflects its governance structure. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about weighted voting, the existing powers for the Government to provide place-specific voting arrangements will continue to apply, so that will be for Suffolk and Norfolk to determine as we go forward. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I said, the issues raised today go to the heart of how we structure local democracy and ensure that the voices of all our communities are fairly and effectively represented. That is why we brought forward these probing amendments.

A consistent concern has emerged that the balance of power proposed in the Bill risks concentrating authority in the hands of the one single officeholder rather than empowering the broad and diverse range of locally elected councillors who best understand the communities that they serve. I have not heard a lot today that puts my mind at rest, but I will read Hansard tomorrow and look further at it. I was pleased that the Minister said that places such as Norfolk and Suffolk, quite close to my heart now, will have that flexibility to deal with local problems—but I have to say that they might argue about it. Who knows? Let us hope that there are two single authorities and we do not have any problems.

We all agree that effective local leadership is vital, but leadership does not mean overriding democratic deliberations; it means working with those local representatives, ensuring accountability and respecting the mandate of those who have been elected by their communities. When decision-making structures are distorted in favour of one individual, however capable, they operate not as a system of local democracy but, as I said, as a presidential model, which sits uneasily with the traditions of government in this country.

My noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment rightly seeks to bring the Bill back into alignment with those frameworks established in previous legislation. I will read this back, but it sounds as if that is happening, although I am not quite sure how. If there are any further questions, I am sure that we will talk to the Minister about them. I am happy with that.

In relation to Clause 6, we have urged the Government to reconsider whether rewriting the constitutional arrangements of the Act was necessary or justified. It looks to me as if we are perhaps not rewriting as much as we feared was being rewritten—but, as I said, we will look at that in detail when Hansard comes out.

We still believe that, if the Government truly wish to empower our local authorities, they must demonstrate it by upholding democratic balance, trusting councillors and ensuring that all voices, not just one, carry the appropriate weight in the decisions that shape our counties and regions. But at this time, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendments. I think that there has been consensus among noble Lords contributing on this group that this is something that should be explored and looked at further. Amendment 45 rightly links local growth plans to spatial development strategies, ensuring that they are not formed in isolation and do not contradict each other. When a local growth plan is drafted, it should take account of the implications for spatial development. We welcome this amendment and support a more integrated and coherent approach.

However, we also believe that these plans must be informed by neighbourhood plans as well as neighbourhood priority statements, which have yet to be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies take into account national environmental improvement plans and the land use framework. This will help local government at least to have regard to the national Government’s environmental targets and to be aware of the environmental solutions proposed. As for the land use framework, we are still waiting for it to be published. Can the Minister confirm the timeline? As others have asked, will it be imminent?

Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 address the need for spatial development strategies to be aligned with infrastructure projects to identify any that are needed for growth. Again, these should be important considerations to ensure that new developments are supported with the necessary infrastructure rather than treating the two in isolation. As we said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debates, the consequences for development of the failure to deliver infrastructure should also be clear.

We agree with the principle behind all these amendments. It is important that combined authorities’ and councils’ various strategies are joined up, co-ordinated and coherent to ensure not only good governance and efficiency across local government but, more importantly, high-quality development. I thank my noble friend for his efforts and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of spatial development strategies in the new devolution framework.

Amendment 45 would require strategic planning authorities to identify the policies in their spatial development strategies that are of strategic importance to address the local growth priorities identified in local growth plans. I very much agree with the need for spatial development strategies properly to address the priorities identified in local growth plans where they are of strategic importance to the area, such as the issues that the noble Lord mentioned around skills and infrastructure. There is an expectation in the revised NPPF that that is exactly what will happen.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act, to which the noble Lord also referred—we recently sat through many hours of debate on it—requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy they have published. This would include a local growth plan. In the draft revised NPPF, which was published just before Christmas, we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans, and that would include all of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We also set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should be tested against national policy when they are examined; that will include the industrial strategy, for example, and will shine a light on whether they are meeting the expectations we have of the SDS.

A number of Peers spoke to Amendment 46. I say to my noble friend Lady Young that I found her extrapolation of this through to losing lots of elections in May and then having a whole reshuffle a bit depressing. I hope that will not happen, and I also hope that my noble friend will have a wander through one of her new forests and cheer herself up a bit. Amendment 46 would require a strategic planning authority to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan and the land use framework for England while preparing a spatial development strategy.

I absolutely agree with noble Lords on the importance of these national documents relating to land use and the environment. The provisions detailing the required content of spatial development strategies and the factors to be taken into account in their preparation were introduced less than two months ago in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, following very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary to revisit or amend these requirements before they have even had a chance to be tested in practice. The documents in question are expected to inform the drafting of national planning policies, and strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with the current policy.

For example, if we found that the land use framework or the environmental improvement plan were being ignored in strategic development strategies, we would keep that under review. Should any gaps or misalignments emerge between strategic development strategies and these documents, we can consider future changes to the National Planning Policy Framework or planning practice guidance, or even secondary legislation to ensure that they are taken into account in preparing an SDS.

A number of noble Lords asked questions on the publication of the land use framework, which I know is eagerly awaited. The Government consulted on land use in England from January to April last year. The responses, as well as the feedback from supporting workshops that have been held since, are being analysed. The responses will inform the preparation of the land use framework. I cannot give noble Lords an exact publication date today, I am afraid, but I know that my colleagues in Defra want to publish it as quickly as possible.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about regional plans, I used to be on the regional assembly, so I sat thought the entire process of the east of England regional plan; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, did so as well, I believe. There were a lot of lessons to be learned from those regional plans, particularly around the co-ordination of data and so on, and I know that officials in the department have taken into consideration how that was done. We need to reflect carefully on those experiences and how they fit in with what we are about to do with strategic development strategies.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about London. The London plan sits outside this Bill, I think, but there is an expectation on London boroughs that this will be done. Indeed, my own borough is quite a way outside London—well, 28 miles; we are in Hertfordshire, so not that far—and we were consulted on the London plan as part of the Ring Around London consultation.

On my noble friend Lady Young’s question about the local nature recovery strategies, it is a requirement that SDSs take account of those; indeed, the London plan has to take account of local nature recovery strategies as well.

Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would require mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set out in their local growth plan what is needed in spatial and infrastructure terms to realise the economic growth opportunities presented in the plan. As with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying these needs. Local growth plans will be required to set out an economic overview of their area, shared priorities agreed with the Government, and a pipeline of investment opportunities. Where infra- structure or development presents a relevant investment opportunity, we would expect it to be included in that pipeline. We are clear that local growth plans should provide an overarching framework for growth, identifying actions and investment that can drive economic growth and productivity.

But, when it comes to addressing the spatial implications of local growth plans and identifying the development and infrastructure needs for realising growth, the right vehicle is the spatial development strategy. That is why we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans when we published our proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we will come to local growth plans and culture. Can the Minister confirm that the spatial development strategies will include cultural growth as something to look at?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and to all noble Lords who spoke on this group. In particular, I give warm thanks to those who supported Amendment 46. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, rightly said, we may need to think about this again on Report, just to check, for example, that the National Planning Policy Framework does what the Minister says it does. At the moment, I cannot honestly say that I am sure that it does.

Noble Lords who are often in these planning discussions will always find it rather odd to try to work out that the Government sometimes say that we need to put something in the Bill. For example, local nature recovery strategies are prescribed to be taken into account for a spatial development strategy. Why not prescribe the land use framework? That, apparently, will be covered in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, as we know, is a document that derives statutory weight. So, if it is in there, the weight is there, and that is fine. But the point is that we are writing this legislation now, and this gives us an opportunity for Parliament to say what it thinks, because we cannot and do not debate the content of the National Planning Policy Framework in the way that we debate this legislation. So, there is a reason why we do this now, in the here and now.

There are many links to, for example, environmental well-being, local nature recovery strategies and promoting the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change in the way spatial development strategies are to be constructed. I just think we need to be absolutely certain that Ministers will make that clear in the NPPF. Indeed, they have a power under Section 12D(7) to prescribe the matters that spatial development strategies must include. We just need a bit more certainty that these things will be prescribed.

Where the relationship with the growth plan is concerned, I completely take the Minister’s point. It is just that, although growth appears to be the priority, actually the spatial development strategy says that the strategic authority should focus on the consequences of growth rather than on delivering the growth. The relationship between the local growth plan and the spatial development strategy is much more of an ex ante than post hoc set of decisions. You want to go upfront and say that we are designing the local growth plan alongside the spatial development strategy and not trying to retrofit the housing to meet the local growth requirements. I hope that that is what is going to happen; otherwise, I fear that these will be two teams in strategic authorities, with the economic development people on the one hand and the planning people on the other, when they should be one team producing one strategy. I hope that we can encourage that as much as possible through the nature of the debates we are having.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, for their amendments on established mayoral strategic authorities.

Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to designate by regulations a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority. We have been clear that newer strategic authorities will need a chance to establish themselves and set up core functions properly before they exercise all the powers in the devolution framework. However, it is important that our most established strategic authorities are not held back from accessing the full suite of powers in the devolution framework.

The ability for the Secretary of State to designate established mayoral strategic authorities is crucial to ensuring that the most mature institutions have full access to all devolved powers. Amendment 47 is therefore inconsistent with the Government’s objective of devolving further powers out of Whitehall. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, established mayoral strategic authorities have access to an integrated settlement, which is a very important measure for them.

I will set out further where we have got to with this so far, as it might help noble Lords with the concept. The English Devolution White Paper confirmed that the following combined authorities have met the criteria and will be eligible to apply for the established mayoral level of devolution: Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and the North East.

Once the Bill becomes law, several other combined authorities will become eligible to apply for MSA status: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, East Midlands, and York and North Yorkshire at that point. These prospective established mayoral authorities will need to submit formal proposals outlining how they meet the relevant criteria. Those proposals will then be considered by the Government, taking into account the combined authority’s or combined county authority’s track record of managing major programmes. The Government will engage with all remaining mayoral combined authorities when they meet the eligibility criteria to apply for established mayoral strategic authority status. I hope that that helps to clarify where we are at the moment.

In practice, the effect of this amendment would be to remove the regulation-making power when the Secretary of State designates an established mayoral strategic authority. In the absence of that regulation-making power, designation would instead rest solely on the Secretary of State. This amendment would therefore deny Parliament a say on the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities.

Amendment 49, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before making subordinate legislation in relation to the designation of established mayoral strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of a combined county authority before removing its status as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation. However, the actual effect of the amendment would be inconsequential, as Clause 8 already prohibits the Secretary of State from using secondary legislation to remove an authority’s established status. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.

Also, if in tabling this amendment the noble Baroness was seeking reassurance that a combined county authority could not be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority using secondary legislation without the consent of the authority, then this amendment is also not necessary. Clause 8 already stipulates that the Secretary of State may designate an authority as established only if that authority itself submits a written proposal asking to be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. Therefore, the authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies.

Amendments 48 and 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seek to introduce a new statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the

“governance, accountability and specified performance metrics”

of an existing mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority, before it can be designated as an established mayoral strategic authority. I accept that the noble Lord has made this amendment in good faith and wishes to ensure that only those authorities with a strong track record of delivery, and which can demonstrate exemplary stewardship of public finances, are able to access the deepest powers and functions. On this, the noble Lord, the Government and I, as the Minister, are aligned. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The Government have already published clear non-statutory criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. The reason for having this in non-statutory documents is that it may require amending from time to time, depending on our experience of taking this forward.

To answer the question about criteria from the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Lansley, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, already set them out, but just to be clear, they include that a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority must have been in existence, with a directly elected mayor, for at least 18 months at the point of submitting the request. It must have published a local assurance framework and it must not have been subject to a best value notice, independent review, statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months. Finally, it must not have been subject to any ongoing recommendations from an externally mandated independent review and there should be no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year that relate to the strategic authority’s ability to manage public money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want just to be sure that I am clear. On the criteria that are applied by the Secretary of State to the question of whether a strategic authority that applies to be established should be permitted to do so, so far they presently include what the devolution White Paper said. None of that has been withdrawn and nothing has been added; it is still the same. But if that were to change at some point in the future, the Government do not need a power in order to change it, because the Secretary of State will simply issue some document that says, “From now on, this is how the Secretary of State is going to look at these decisions”. It is important to get these criteria right. Unless I am misunderstanding the Minister, the intention is that this is a gateway through which you can pass in only one direction. You become an established mayoral strategic authority and you cannot come back if it is wrong, so the criteria have to be right, and the mayoral strategic authority has to be able to live permanently with that status. Am I correct about that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Lord is right, but this is quite a high level of criteria. There are some financial aspects, but the fact that the authority must not have been subject to a best value notice, an independent review, a statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months covers a wide variety of activity in a strategic authority. There is a rigorous process and a very high bar for those authorities to get over. When we look at the established authorities that I mentioned in relation to the progress on where we are with these now, they have been in place for a long time. Some of them are requesting additional powers to do things that were not traditionally in the framework for mayoral authorities. It is important that that is a high bar for them to get over.

As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, having an integrated settlement is an important step forward for those authorities. We hope that this will be a transformational process and that all the combined and combined county authorities will strive to get to that process once they have a mayor in place. We do not want it to be something that slips back. Let us hope that we can set these criteria, setting the bar high, which indicates the direction of travel we have for devolution, and move forward so that our authorities have the powers to do what they need to do locally.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting; I promise that this will be the last time. On the question of tourism revenue, if there is a tourism tax or whatever, what do we know about the arrangements for that? Is it the case that only established mayoral strategic authorities will be able to levy any kind of tourism tax because they have the financial governance and accountability arrangements established for this purpose—forgive the use of “established”, but the noble Baroness can see what I mean—or is there an intention that this would be a wider financial offering to strategic authorities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The tourism tax is an interesting step forward because, as far as I know, this is the first time a fiscal power has been devolved. The Government are keen to test out that devolution of fiscal power; I do not have the details at my fingertips so I will write to the noble Lord on the detail of how it is moving forward.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughtful amendments and comments. I also thank the Minister for her feedback, which has certainly provided some more illumination on a sometimes slightly murky area of devolution.

On integrated financial settlements, I know that, when I chaired the LGA, I pushed very hard to move in this direction. I was very pleased that we managed to get a couple of them over the line with the previous Government. They are important and offer huge benefits to the areas that have them. Therefore, this idea of criteria, and being very clear on them, is important; I thank the Minister for being clear that the White Paper is where the criteria are set out.

However, I am quibbling over and slightly uncomfortable with the fact that the criteria are just guidance for the Minister and could, therefore, be changed relatively easily. When you are talking about devolution, with local councils and local government making significant changes in anticipation of something that will potentially make a significant difference to their areas, those criteria must be very clear and not changeable. Councils must know what goal they are aiming for because, as the Minister said, this is not something that happens overnight; it takes several years, potentially, and a lot of effort. I do not want the goalposts to move too much—most local authorities would not want that, I think—so I would like some assurances, though not necessarily today, on how set in stone the criteria are as people go through the process.

I am also quite curious about the “no stepping back” bit. As the Minister said, we set some very high bars. However, the day after, someone might fail those high bars—but they are still there. A little elaboration on that at some later point would be very much appreciated.

With that, I thank noble Lords for the debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Devolution should rest on democratic legitimacy, transparency and clear lines of responsibility. Those are the principles that should guide us as we shape governance arrangements; it is against those principles that this Bill must ultimately be judged, not the creation of additional bureaucracy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on mayoral commissioners and for the wide-ranging debate that we have had on the subject.

Before I respond to any individual amendments, I want to reiterate why the Government are introducing commissioners. I completely understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on title and definition. I must say, I asked myself the same question on the potential confusion around commissioners who are sent to do a job when an authority is failing and these types of commissioners; we have to think carefully about that.

As I have set out, the Bill will empower our mayors with wide-ranging new powers over transport planning and local growth, so they can drive growth across their region, and powers over health and public safety, so that they can deliver the public service reform that the public expect to see. These are critical functions, and it is not reasonable to expect a mayor to do all of them. That is why we have introduced commissioners—an optional appointment to whom mayors can delegate functions to support them in their work. Mayors will be able to appoint up to seven commissioners, aligned to the areas of competence and reflecting areas of responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, mayors can also appoint members of the combined county authority or combined authority as portfolio holders, of course; they will also have officials to support their work, such as finance officials, legal officials and so on.

Let me be clear: this is not about inviting a proliferation of appointments. Rather, it is about mayors having capacity to deliver against the full range of their functions and giving them flexibility in how they deliver for their area. Local authority leaders who are on the combined authority will be able to support the mayor as portfolio holders; do not forget, though, that it is important to remember that they will have their own authorities to lead as well, so they will be working in their own authority at the same time.

On Amendments 51A and 52A, I reiterate that commissioners are an optional appointment: they are designed to increase capacity and give mayors more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their areas. These amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, would remove that optionality, effectively introducing seven new statutory roles in the combined authority or combined county authority. We have set out the competency, for example on the environment and climate change, in the Bill itself, but mayors are best placed to determine whether they need additional support on this based on the needs of their local area.

While we have set out in the competencies what we think mayors should be doing, it cannot be right that we make the choice for them about how they do that. Therefore, it is for mayors to decide. I know this can be difficult for us in the political process when a mayor may put an emphasis on an area that would be less important to us than something else, but I am afraid that is part of the democratic process that we live with all the time; it is not that different.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I just do not understand this. If I am a leader of a local authority and I have a specific need for a competence, I employ an official or an officer. I interview a large range of them; I do not go to one of my mates and ask if they would like to be a commissioner. I do not understand why that should be any different in a mayoral office. If they are doing work that demands somebody extremely well-qualified in a specific arts project, they can employ an officer or official. It does not need to be a commissioner who has a connotation of being politically motivated, as well as being possibly qualified in that area.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay. If I do not answer the noble Baroness’s question, I will come back to it.

Amendments 50A, 51B and 53A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam, seek to remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by the mayor. It is important that mayors have the support they need from specialists to deliver for their constituents. However, we believe the Bill strikes the right balance, ensuring that mayors have the capacity to deliver without inviting a proliferation of appointments.

For this reason, I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment 196A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. This amendment would enable mayors to appoint mayoral special advisers and would include provisions regarding their appointment, function and code of conduct. It would also exempt these advisers from holding a politically restricted post under a local authority for the purposes of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I agree that mayors can benefit from advice that they trust aligns with their politics. Political advisers bring important expertise that helps mayors formulate their strategy, policy decisions and communications approach. That is why mayors can already appoint a political adviser, and our current position is to provide new mayoralties with that option too.

However, these advisers will be subject to political restrictions in the same way existing advisers are. Accountability in public office is of paramount importance, which is why we have existing guardrails in place. The cap ensures that spending remains proportionate to the institution and prevents a proliferation of political appointments. On my noble friend Lord Bassam’s point on the code of conduct, mayors’ special advisers, where appointed, are employees of the strategic authority, and therefore they would be covered by the strategic authority’s code of conduct.

Amendments 54, 55, 58, 59, 57 and 61, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, seek to enable commissioners’ work or the delegation of function to relate to more than one area of competence. The amendments also seek to allow two or more commissioners to relate to the same area of competence. I thank my noble friend for these amendments, and I reassure him that the mayor will already have the flexibility to consider local circumstances when considering a commissioner’s exact brief and any delegated functions relating to the area of competence.

The Bill states that a commissioner’s work or functions can relate to other areas of competence and matters outside of them where it is incidental to the work in their special area of competence. For example, a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead on a growth strategy that included elements related to housing, skills and transport.

Amendment 171, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach, seeks to ensure that, where a mayor is responsible for more than one police force, they would have the flexibility to appoint a single deputy mayor or separate deputy mayors for each police force. As I have set out, the Bill already ensures that the mayor has support in exercising police governance functions in each of the police forces for which they have responsibility, and it recognises that these forces remain distinct and separate entities. The provisions in the Bill will prevent the same person from being appointed to more than one deputy mayor for police and crime positions, ensuring that there is a dedicated lead for the day-to-day oversight of policing in each force area.

My noble friend will know that I worked in policing for many years, and I am very aware of the different policing challenges that can occur even in neighbouring forces: the balance of different types of crime—rural and urban—and some of the more internal issues around different IT systems, and so on. That seems appropriate at the moment. Our right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke very powerfully about her view that there needs to be further reorganisation of policing, and we should of course work across government as we move forward with the Bill to work with her to identify her ideas and how that might be implemented in this. But I appreciate that she was talking about some of this being implemented some way off, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said.

For the moment, this amendment would impact the direct line of accountability the mayor is able to provide to voters regarding the police forces which they are required to hold to account. I will reflect on his call for flexibility around this, and I think we need to have further discussions with the Home Office about how this will work moving forward.

Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, would enable a mayor of a combined authority to appoint any councillor of a constituent council in a combined authority area as deputy mayor. I want to clarify with her that I have understood her amendment properly, because I think she said something slightly different from what is in the amendment itself. The mayor can appoint members of the constituent authorities who sit on the combined authority in portfolio holder roles, but they cannot appoint any member of the constituent authority. I just clarify that.

The position of deputy mayor is a significant responsibility, which could involve stepping in to chair the authority and undertaking mayoral functions. That is why, currently, only those constituent councillors who have been appointed as a member of the combined authority may be appointed as a deputy mayor. These members have been appointed by the council to the authority in the knowledge that this may involve taking on the deputy mayor role, so they have the legitimacy to perform it if called upon. It is important that we keep measures in place to ensure that a deputy mayor is a legitimate appointment, best prepared for the demands they will face should they have to step in as mayor. Because this amendment applies only to combined authorities, technically it would create a divergence between the requirements imposed on them, versus combined county authorities.

The remaining amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek to remove Clause 9 and Schedule 3. This would eliminate the role of commissioners from the Bill, preventing their appointment by mayors. As I have stated, commissioners are intended to increase mayors capacity and give them more flexibility in how they deliver for their area. These authorities will have critical new functions to undertake, requiring representation on national bodies, joint working with partners and access to the expertise they need. It is simply not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. These appointments will be a local decision, and no additional funding will be provided.

I will now cover some of the questions that have been asked by noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others. Starting with the question about commissioners being simply devolution to unelected officials, commissioners are optional and can be appointed only by the mayor, who determines their terms and conditions. They will work in lockstep with the mayor to drive forward the policy agenda for a specific function, such as transport or public health. This will be particularly effective where a commissioner has specialist knowledge and expertise that can help deliver the mayor’s vision for local people. There is a real difference here between employed officials of a local council, for example, and what these commissioners will do. The best example I can give is the way that these positions work in London, where the mayor has a number of deputy mayors, as they are called, who act for the mayor in certain policy areas.

The mayor, the combined county authority and the overview and scrutiny committee will each play a role in the commissioner’s appointment and/or the termination of their appointment. We will set out guidance, following Royal Assent, on recruitment and job descriptions. Responding to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I say that these commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles, as employees of strategic authorities. Commissioners will also fall under the strengthened accountability system for devolution, which will confirm further details in due course; we are likely to have further discussions about that later this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

With voting, the figure required can be either two-thirds or 50:50. Can the Minister clarify what figure is required to remove a commissioner?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

For the overview and scrutiny committee, I believe it is a simple majority vote, but I will clarify that in writing for the noble Lord.

We expect that commissioners will have detailed knowledge and expertise in their assigned area of competence and will be appointed on this basis. Constituent members will not necessarily be experienced in their portfolio subject area. There are also circumstances where it would not be appropriate for a portfolio lead to represent both the borough and the region; there may be perceived conflicts of interest. As I said earlier, the local authority leaders who sit on the combined authority will also be running their councils on a day-to-day basis.

Commissioners will be able to represent the mayor’s authority and policy positions in a given area, including by speaking to the media. They could help make day-to-day decisions that are delegated by a mayor and provide strategic insight and advice for their area of expertise. We also expect commissioners to play a leading role in stakeholder engagement and partnership working, across geographies and organisations, as appropriate. This would include working closely with local councillors, business leaders and public sector institutions, using their advocacy and influence to deliver the mayor’s agenda.

I hope that that has helped clarify some of the points raised by noble Lords and that, with the assurances I have given, they will not press their amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

If there are any matters raised by me or other noble Lords that the Minister did not cover, could she send a letter to cover them? I do not think I heard confirmation about the Nolan principles, for example. If there is anything else, I hope that officials might draft something for her to send.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I did confirm that the commissioners will be subject to the Nolan principles. I will go back over Hansard—I always do after these debates—and if I have missed anything, I will certainly write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating debate. It has made me think a lot about the history of local government and how it has changed over 150 or 160 years. There was a time when we had aldermen, but they were abolished. We have had two-tier government, county boroughs and so on, but things have changed there too. The introduction of commissioners is a very progressive move, so I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, on that point. I can see that the accountability framework for commissioners is very important; they will have a powerful job.

If we think about it, some of those combined mayoral authorities will cover large geographical areas. My own likely combined mayoral authority involves East and West Sussex, which is about 100 miles from one end to the other and about 50 miles wide—and East Anglia covers a similarly large geographical area. It is right that we have these commissioners appointed and can hold them to account, because they will have a very important job to do. That is one reason why I thought that introducing some flexibility in terms of the patch or territory they cover, or the policies, was so important. However, I have heard what the Minister has said about that, and I hope we can reflect on some of those issues before Report.

On the points I made about political advisers and special advisers, I simply say this: again, it relates to the size of the task in front of mayors and commissioners. The salary is some £45,000 a year, which is generous but not pitched at a level one would necessarily expect to attract the very best. We need to have good quality political advisers involved in these strategic mayoral authorities. In my time as a local government leader, I did not see fit to have a political adviser—I got more than enough political advice from the Labour group, daily, and sometimes beyond that. But political advisers and special advisers are of immense value. When I first became a Minister back in 1999, what the civil servants used to say to me that was of value was that they had access to a special adviser who understood the thinking of the Secretary of State and their Ministers. That is really important, and that is why I thought it worth having a discussion about introducing special advisers into these very large strategic mayoral authorities. However, I have heard what the Minister said about that, and I shall reflect on it some more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

These arguments feed directly into Amendment 196B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which seeks for the designation of local accounting officers to strengthen accountability for public spending. This is of a piece with the wider debate that we are having today. It reflects the same underlying concerns that as power and funding move closer to communities, accountability must follow just as clearly, visibly and robustly. This is not a debate about structures for its own sake. It is about whether the Government have a credible, coherent plan to ensure that trust, accountability and value for money keep pace with devolution.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments relating to accountability and scrutiny, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is recovering.

Starting with Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, there is already an existing system of scrutiny that provides accountability to the public and local checks and balances and accountability to government, including a requirement for combined authorities and combined county authorities to establish an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. In addition, the English devolution accountability framework and the scrutiny protocol set out the processes and principles that mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow. Both documents are being reviewed to reflect the changes introduced through the integrated settlement and through this Bill. Where the most established mayoral strategic authorities benefit from integrated settlement, assurance is provided via an outcomes framework which interacts with the wider government system of accountability.

However, we recognise that there is scope to strengthen further the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to exploring a local public accounts committee model. Listening to the noble Lord made me reflect on some work that I did in 2015 with Sir Richard Leese, who was then the leader of Manchester City Council, and Jules Pipe, who was then mayor of Hackney. That work was focused on devolution and turning the dial from acute responses to prevention.

We recommended that if there was more widespread devolution, there was a need to think about local public accounts committees. Although that feels like six months ago, it was 10 years ago. Maybe every idea has its time. Therefore, I accept the principle behind this amendment and assure the noble Lord that we intend to hold mayoral strategic authorities to a very high standard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was reflecting on the scrutiny of integrated settlements, for example, and allowing those who have the local knowledge of how things are working is crucial. When we were thinking about the possibility of a local public accounts committee, we saw it as being as powerful as the Public Accounts Committee here, being able to call witnesses from various bodies that are impacted on by the services and projects that are being delivered so that it can gain a much fuller picture of what is going on. This is a very different type of scrutiny—fundamentally different, as the noble Baroness said, to audit, which is a financial function. It is really important that we consider this fully. However, I ask that the Government are given time to complete the engagement that we need to do with the sector to design such a new approach, because it is important that we talk to the sector about this.

I hear the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made about the scrutiny of all levels of local government. He is of course right that both budgets and precept levels in town and parish councils are not insignificant in many areas, so we have to think about that. It is essential that any new accountability and scrutiny regime complements the existing system and the reformed audit framework in the future. Above all, it must be proportionate and supported by clear guidance and support for the sector, to make sure that we get these reforms right. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move his amendment.

Amendment 196B relates to local accounting officers. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for this proposed new clause that would require established mayoral strategic authorities to create local accounting officers. His amendment would designate the head of paid service as the accountable officer responsible for local spending, value for money and scrutiny. Although I agree with the importance of strong accountability and value for money, all mayoral strategic authorities already operate within an existing system of accountability, and that accountability is split between the “golden triangle” of statutory officers: the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer. These officers are accountable to their board and required to comply with the best value duty.

Strengthened systems are already in place for areas that have integrated settlements. This includes the mayoral strategic authority chief executive being responsible for core accountability processes within their authority, including responsibility for local outcome delivery and value for money. However, we are continuing to explore the local accounting officer model. We recognise that accountability to Parliament for the use of taxpayer money, which the accounting officer system provides, is a fundamental principle and not something to be altered lightly.

As part of our work on testing a strengthened accounting officer model, the Government are engaging with mayoral strategic authorities and other government departments. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of that work with a primary legislative change to introduce local accounting officers at this point. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will feel able not to move his amendment.

On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this proposed new clause would place a duty on the mayor of a combined county authority to establish a separate scrutiny committee for each commissioner they have appointed. As I have set out, mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the existing principles and processes described in the English devolution framework. This includes requirements that all combined authorities, and combined county authorities, must establish an overview and scrutiny committee, which provides local checks and balances. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a very important issue about being able to undertake pre-scrutiny. Overview and scrutiny committees are very capable of putting in place pre-decision scrutiny if they wish to do so. Some local authorities have that already, so it is not prohibited.

Further, the Bill ensures that the overview and scrutiny committee will have the power to recommend termination of a commissioner’s appointment. I can respond properly now to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the voting majority. To correct what I said earlier, a two-thirds majority of non-mayoral members of the combined authority or the combined county authority is required to accept the recommendation. Commissioners are also accountable to the mayor, who can terminate their appointment.

As Clause 9 allows for the appointment of up to seven commissioners, this amendment would risk institutions having to establish as many as seven scrutiny committees in addition to the existing overview and scrutiny committee that is already accountable. This would create significant additional labour and cost pressures for combined county authorities. There is a technical difficulty in that it would also apply a lopsided accountability system, as the amendment makes no reference to these seven committees applying to combined, as opposed to combined county, authorities. While we recognise that there is scope further to strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, we believe that this amendment would create unnecessary pressures on the existing system, and I therefore ask that it is not moved.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for a comprehensive reply to a comprehensive set of issues. It gives us pause for thought. I am glad that the Minister recognises the importance of pre-scrutiny. That is a fundamental issue, so if it can be better built into the Bill before it becomes an Act, that will be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I have just one thing to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. Last week, I mentioned the importance of guidance being published in advance of Report; it is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of the Bill, given that so much is missing from it. I therefore repeat my support for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that it would help us to have a better understanding of some of the detail that the Government are going to put into guidance before we get to the point of debating and voting on it on Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments relating to providing allowances for combined county authority members with special responsibilities.

Amendments 62 and 236 would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance before Clause 10 comes into effect, and would require a combined county authority to publish an annual report on its webpage outlining the allowances that have been paid to members with special responsibilities. I welcome the commitment from the noble Baroness to ensuring transparency in local government—a matter of paramount importance to this Government.

As a former council leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will know, as I do, that allowances probably attract more debate and discussion, from both Members and the public, than much of the other policy that we debate. That is why we will issue statutory guidance on complying with the duty under Clause 10 to produce and publish reports. The guidance will allow the Secretary of State to set clear expectations—for example, regarding the frequency of such reports and where they are published—to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in this area. In the event that further clarification is needed, the power to issue guidance provides flexibility for the Government to update their position.

I would also add that, because this amendment applies to combined county authorities only, it would create a divergence in law between the requirements imposed on them versus combined authorities. That would be inconsistent; it would not be right to treat the two types of authority differently on that basis. My understanding is that this statutory guidance will be published on Royal Assent. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister but we are back where we started, really, in that we would like to see the guidance before Report so that we can see whether the guidance is correct or whether it could include something else. I currently do not know this, and we will not know. So I thank the Minister for her answers, but we should try to get the guidance before Report; if we do not, we are going to be asking more and more questions on this in Committee.

I accept what the Minister says about combined authorities and county combined authorities. I will look at that again and, if we do not get this guidance, I will retable it on Report. At this point, I say to the Minister that this is an important issue, and it would be better if we could scrutinise it properly, at least on Report, but at this point I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 63 and 64 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, both relate to Clause 11 and the proposed changes to the mayoral precept arrangements. They are intended to elicit from the Government a clearer explanation of both the necessity and the principle behind the changes proposed in this clause. We want to see the prevention of uncontrolled mayoral precepts, the avoidance of tax rises through the backdoor and fiscal parity with existing local authorities. That is more important now, having heard some of the debates today.

Amendment 63 seeks to probe why the Government believe it necessary to revisit the precept arrangements that were set out only recently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. They were presented as part of a carefully planned settlement between central government, local authorities and the public, particularly in relation to accountability and transparency around local taxation. Those arrangements were debated at length in this House by noble Lords on all Benches, as the Minister and I know only too well, given the many hours we spent debating it.

Against that background, it is not immediately clear why the Government now feel the need to depart from that framework so soon after it was enacted. What has changed and what problems have arisen that they are now seeking to address? I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could first explain what evidence the Government have had that existing arrangements are no longer fit for purpose; secondly, whether local councils or mayoral combined authorities have themselves asked for these changes; and thirdly, what outcomes for precepts they are expecting or seeking to facilitate through these changes. It is right to be cautious about reopening settlements that have barely had time to bed in, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that this is not just change for change’s sake.

Amendment 64 addresses a related but distinct, significant concern: why mayors should be treated differently from other local authorities when it comes to limits on precept increases. As things stand, other types of local authority are subject to clear principles set out annually by the Secretary of State, which limit the extent to which they may increase their council tax without triggering additional scrutiny or consent. The amendment simply proposes that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities should operate within the same principles. Therefore, my question for the Government is very simple: what is the justification for the differential treatments?

Mayors exercise significant powers and command substantial budgets with high public profile. It is only right that those powers come with the same fiscal discipline and protections for taxpayers that apply to other tiers of local government. Without parity, there is a risk that mayoral precepts become a means of raising revenue, perhaps even for vanity projects or unfunded responsibilities, without the safeguards that residents elsewhere quite rightly expect.

This leads me to a broader concern that underpins both of the amendments in this group. Too often, we see responsibilities devolved without sufficient or sustainable funding attached. While devolution can and should empower local decision-making, it should not become a mechanism by which central government passes financial pressures down the line and leaves local leaders, and therefore local taxpayers, to pick up the bill.

If mayors are given additional duties without adequate funding, the inevitable consequence is pressure to raise their precept. From a Government who have sought to raise punitive taxes at every opportunity, this sounds very much like another tax rise through the back door. I do not believe that is what the public would understand as devolution or community empowerment. It is not consistent with the principles of transparency and accountability that we all should stand for.

The last two questions I have for the Minister are: for what reason do precept arrangements in the LURA need to be reopened, and why should mayors not be subject to the same precept arrangements as other local authorities? I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on both points, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on precepts.

Amendment 63 probes why the Government are changing precept arrangements, and I completely understand why she would do that. The changes to existing powers will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions, giving mayors more flexibility about how they fund mayoral priorities.

I remind noble Lords that the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, but it remains at the discretion of mayors how to use it. However, as it stands, mayors who choose to use the precept can spend it only on mayoral functions rather than on all the authority’s functions. This limitation is arbitrary and unnecessary. It could mean, for example, permitting spending on transport but not on health.

We want to give mayors the tools to tackle the obstacles to growth and improve the lives of people in their area, and to do this effectively, mayors must be able to spend across all an authority’s functions.

Amendment 64 would impose council tax principles automatically on strategic authorities. The Secretary of State can already set referendum principles on strategic authorities should they choose to do so. However, where used, mayoral precept rates are proportionately a small amount. Imposing a limit on how much they can rise in line with councils would mean that, in almost all areas, the value would remain insignificant and be ineffective for investing in local priorities.

The Government have made it clear that any increases to the mayoral precept should be fair and proportionate, but aligning maximum mayoral precept rate rises with other council tax rises reduces local agency, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Bill and of devolution. We want to see mayors who are empowered to invest in their communities, creating better public services and driving economic growth.

I took a quick look at some of the rates of mayoral precepts that are levied. It was interesting for me to see that in Liverpool in 2025-26, residents of band D properties were charged £24 extra for the mayoral precept per year. In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the figure was £36. It is a bit unfair to compare some of the other authorities because they deliver police services and they precept for those as well. But then I looked at some of the town and parish council figures, and the average parish band D precept is £92.22, which was a percentage change of 9.4% in the last year. So, the mayoral precept feels proportionate to me.

The Government consult on the local government finance settlement each year. That is the established and appropriate way of considering what is best for authorities and taxpayers each year, and we will continue to do so. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her responses and for trying to assure me about those amendments. However, she will understand that concerns raised in the short debate between us are not about opposing devolution nor about questioning the role of mayors but about ensuring that changes to local taxation powers are justified and consistent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising some very crucial issues on the levels of borrowing powers. I add to that my concern—made even more so by the fact that constituent councils will not be able to scrutinise the work of the mayor or commissioners.

In that situation, I hope the Government will not be anticipating that local councils will then be responsible for any overspending by mayors and the combined authorities because, otherwise, there will be a demand on the council tax payer. So can the Minister confirm that overspends caused by poor-quality work by mayoral authorities will not end up with the council tax payer having to bail them out?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her Clause 12 stand part notice, ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

All existing mayoral combined and combined county authorities have the power to borrow for all their functions. Unlike local authorities, the current process requires making a bespoke statutory instrument after an institution has been established. This process is highly inefficient. The Bill streamlines the process by giving the power to borrow to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities for purposes relevant to their functions. The power to borrow is still subject to safeguards. Clause 12 requires authorities to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before they exercise the power for the first time in respect of functions other than transport, policing, and fire and rescue.

I will cover some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about. First, in relation to agreeing a debt cap, in general the exercise of power will remain subject to consent from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, before it can be used for the first time, as I said. That would follow any internal processes, such as a debt cap agreement. The only exception will be where the new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities inherit fire, police or transport functions. In this instance, the power to borrow can be exercised immediately for these functions to ensure that ongoing financial arrangements are not disrupted.

In terms of how borrowing is agreed, any borrowing by a mayoral strategic authority is agreed through the annual budget-setting process and is subject to approval by the combined and combined county authority, operating within existing legislative, financial and prudential controls. While the mayor proposes the budget, borrowing cannot be undertaken unilaterally. Under the Bill, most budgets will be approved by a simple majority, which must include the mayor.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the budget, like all other matters, will be subject to the overview and scrutiny process, so there can be scrutiny of the budget in the same way that you would expect in a local authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about underwriting. Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his clause stand part notice.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. If I may, I will delve a little deeper into some of her comments. She said that the first time an authority borrows, it will have to get consent from the Secretary of State, with an implication that, at that time, guidelines or parameters would be set up. I think that is what I heard. I want to make sure it is not the case that, the first time you borrow, the Secretary of State says it is fine, and then thereafter there are no guidelines, or whatever. I appreciate the Minister may not be able to clarify that today, but if she could write to us, that would be much appreciated.

The authority can already borrow for fire and police. The Minister mentioned one other: transport. For those, there would not be any such guidelines, as I understand it from the Minister’s comments. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could come back to confirm whether that is the case or whether they would be subject to whatever guidelines may be given by the Secretary of State. That would be much appreciated.

We talked about budget controls. I am curious about that because it raises the point that the budget in effect has to be agreed by the mayor. I am intrigued as to what happens when the mayor and the combined authority are slightly at odds. What then happens in that process?

The Minister did not mention, as far as I am aware, the key question that I asked and that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was also concerned about: who in effect is the guarantor in the event that the combined authority cannot pay back its borrowing? I would be grateful if the Minister could come back with a response to that. Anticipating those answers, I will not press my opposition to Clause 12 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

65: Clause 13, page 17, line 8, leave out “this section” and insert “subsections (2) to (7)”
Member's explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the amendment of clause 13 which provides for the amendment of section 143 of LGFA 1988 and section 106A of LDEDCA 2009.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 13 will allow combined authorities and combined county authorities to make a transport levy on their constituent councils to cover any transport costs not met by grants or other revenue streams. Previously, the powers to charge a transport levy have been provided through varied and disparate regulations and orders. The Bill standardises and makes consistent the ability for combined authorities and combined county authorities to charge a transport levy. These minor and technical amendments correct new sections and amend cross references to protect the regulation-making powers for levies. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, these are technical and consequential amendments to the levies section of the Bill. It has been a long enough day, and I have already made my position on mayoral precepts and council tax very clear in the previous two groups, so I will not repeat myself.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in 2024, councils were on the financial edge and sat as part of a patchwork map that did not make any sense to anybody—it did not to me, and I have been involved in local government for 30 years. The consequences of that and 14 years of funding cuts were the crisis in social care, the decline of our high streets, and councils not feeling empowered to build homes or grow their economies. Inevitably, this contributed to a decline in trust, and division on our streets, as people felt they had no say in the area they see every day when they walk out of their front door. This is important because, in the past, it had always been true that people had more faith and trust in their local council than in the Government, and that was starting to slip away.

I do not think anyone can dispute that, in July 2024, local government faced a crisis. Across this House, we may have differing views on how local government got to this point, but we cannot just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years. We can commit to a better future and to doing something different for that, with local councils empowered to make the right decisions for their communities and with communities really feeling empowered because they have councils that look after the full range of services that support them.

Let me be absolutely clear: this Government do not take lightly the postponement of elections. Democratic accountability is fundamental and of course elections are not optional. The vast majority of elections will be going ahead, but we are undertaking the most fundamental reform of local government for generations, and I think it is important that we are doing so.

These temporary postponements, where they have been requested, are intended to help us move to unitary councils quicker and strengthen local democracy, not weaken it. They apply only where the councils themselves have demonstrated a clear case, where reorganisation is already under way and where holding elections now would risk the transition to new councils by introducing confusion and duplication, and by wasting money.

Governments of all political colours have postponed local elections during periods of structural reform, including under the previous Conservative Government, and there is clearly statutory precedent for doing so. What would be truly irresponsible would be to press ahead with elections for authorities that may shortly cease to exist, and when councils party to those elections have told us they could put at risk services being ready for the transition to new councils.

Some have argued that the Government are acting out of political convenience. That argument does not withstand scrutiny. The postponements are driven by local views and circumstances, not partisan interest. Indeed, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour councils have all come forward with concerns, on which we have acted. We have had that as formal feedback, but I have also had many conversations with local council leaders.

Those of us who have worked in local government know both the direct demands of running elections and the wider organisational impacts, including the diversion of critical senior officer time and focus during the pre-election period. Freeing up that capacity allows councils to prioritise service delivery and manage the reorganisation effectively. Running elections for short-lived authorities while simultaneously preparing for new unitary councils would impose avoidable expense while councils are focused on setting up new authorities and protecting front-line services.

Reorganisation, done properly, offers the opportunity to reduce duplication, clarify accountability and redirect resources to essential public services that have suffered years of neglect. Councillors’ terms are being extended for a clearly defined period, and fresh elections for the new unitary authorities will take place in 2027, once reorganisation proposals are agreed. Residents will have their say on stronger, more coherent councils, with one set of councillors with clearer responsibilities. This is a pragmatic decision, taken in partnership with local government, grounded in precedent and evidence, and focused on delivering better public services for the communities we serve.

I turn to the specific questions that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has mentioned the lack of a timetable several times, both here and during debates on the English devolution Bill. There is a very clear timetable. Something is clearly causing confusion here, but I will briefly set out the timetable again. For Surrey, there will be elections to the new unitaries in May 2026. In April 2027, the new unitaries will come into force. For the six devolution priority areas, the consultation is now closed. Decisions for them will be taken by March 2026. In May 2027, there will be elections to the new unitaries. In April 2028, the new unitaries will come into force. In May 2028, mayors will be elected to Sussex, Norfolk and Suffolk, Hampshire, and Essex mayoral combined authorities. For the remaining 14 areas, in February 2026, we will launch our consultation. By May 2026, the consultation will close. Decisions will then be announced around the time of the Summer Recess in 2026. In May 2027, there will be elections to the new unitaries and the new unitaries will come into force in April 2028.

We do not believe in imposing these things on local authorities, which is why we have done it in consultation, rather than sitting in MHCLG, drawing a map and saying, “That’s what it’s going to look like”. We have been working very hard with our local authorities. That is why we did not set the boundaries ourselves. We have asked local authorities to work together on geographies that made sense to them, which was absolutely the right way to go.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked about the delaying of elections and this not being a new phenomenon. I have set out before in the House that this has been done by previous Governments when they were doing reorganisation. We have always set and maintained a high threshold for postponements. As we have done before, we are responding to serious concerns raised by councils in the reorganisation areas that the 2026 elections were putting at risk their ability to deliver on local government reorganisation.

The noble Lord asked me about the funding for elections. Spend on elections is, of course, a matter for local authorities. Our announcement was in response to representations received from councils in local government. Postponement, of course, also avoids the cost of holding elections to councils that are proposed to be abolished.

The noble Lord asked me about the cost to economic growth. We need to take a clear view on this: where councils cover all the services in their area and are empowered to take on economic growth, the delivery of housing, transport powers and all the things that drive the economic growth of their area, the aim is to have councils that are able to deliver that for their communities.

The noble Lord asked me about the Electoral Commission, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I have had two meetings with the Electoral Commission in the last 10 days or so. We have had discussions. I spoke to the Electoral Commission only last week when the announcement came out about the postponement of elections. I have spoken to the commission extensively about the elections Bill, which is coming forward shortly, and we will work very closely together on that Bill. We have also had some very positive discussions around the capacity issues, because the commission had a view that the capacity issues we were raising were around the capacity of election teams; election teams in local authorities, particularly in district councils, are quite small. It is not that capacity that I think councils and councillors were worried about; it is the wider capacity of local authorities to manage such a significant, once-in-a-generation reorganisation alongside these sets of elections.

I hope that has answered all the questions, but I am happy to take any more.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to the some 250 councillors who could face seven-year terms under the Government’s plans. Four of the county councils are majority-Tory led, and they last held elections in May 2021. Noble Lords will have to cast their minds right back: Boris Johnson was Prime Minister; since then, we have had two Tory Prime Ministers and, thus far, one Labour Prime Minister; Suella Braverman had only recently been sacked as the Tory Attorney-General—for the first time. Politics is changing fast, and sometimes the Government are asking electoral officials to act fast also. The Gorton and Denton by-election is going to be held on 26 February, on the fastest possible timetable. As a measure of the degree of change in that, I note that, at the last election, the Labour Party got more than 50% of the vote, and a notional calculation for 2019 gives the Labour Party 67% of the vote in that seat, but the bookmakers today have the Green Party as favourite to win that by-election. With politics moving so fast, is this not a particularly dangerous time to be postponing elections and not giving voters a democratic say? Is this not damaging and dangerous, threating the whole concept of democracy by taking it away from people when there is so obviously a desperate desire for change?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am certainly not calling the result of the Denton by-election at this stage. I do not think we even have a candidate yet, so I think it would be unwise.

In response to the noble Baroness’s question on timing, we have been clear throughout that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. Many of the local elections that are due to take place in May will take place. We were very clear that if councils said they had no reason for postponement then we would listen to them, but that where a council voiced genuine concerns—we had significant evidence from those councils whose elections have been postponed—we would take it seriously. To make sure that everyone knows that this was not a rubber-stamp exercise, where anyone who asked for a postponement got it, there were two councils where we did not think the evidence was sufficient, Nuneaton and Bedworth and Pendle, and their elections are going ahead. We do not do this lightly. However, with an unprecedented reorganisation going on in local government, it is right that we took account of what local government was saying to us.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Like my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, as a councillor in central Bedfordshire I have already been through unitisation. That did not involve cancelling elections; in fact, we had an additional election after two years. We were able to do that because we had a proper plan that was locally developed and supported by residents. Is not the reason that elections are being cancelled that the Government do not have plan, do not know what is happening, and have not been communicating to councils and leaders what they should do or when they should do it? It is taking too long, and we end up in the difficult situation faced by council leaders of not knowing. Can the Minister commit that the Government will provide a clear timetable, as asked for by my noble friend, for local government reorganisation and for when elections will be held? Democracy matters; it is from where local government derives its authority.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am afraid it was the failure to bite the bullet and get on with this kind of radical reorganisation for decades that has meant that we have decided that we cannot go on any longer with a broken system. Services in local government are not sustainable, the finance system is not working, and we now need to make sure that we get local government on the firm footing it deserves, that we are distributing funding more fairly, and that councils are the right size and shape to be effective to deliver efficiently key public services, as the public that we serve deserve, and drive forward our economy, housing and transport in the way that we all want to see, right across the country. The current system results in confusion and waste. We have got to get on with the job. We have had to take this unprecedented step to make sure that we are taking account of what local government tells us about its need for resources.

On the timetable, I have just set it out again. I do not understand the confusion about the timetable. We have been very clear about it and we will move ahead with that. Local authorities are working, and have worked, very well within the timetable we have set out. We work closely with them on that, as on all the other matters related to the reorganisation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I too have been through this process. We are 15 months out from the next lot of elections and the new authorities, but these authorities do not yet know on what geography they are going to be based. To take Essex, it could be five or three, and the same is true with Norfolk and Suffolk, which could be three, four or five. Once you know that geography, I know, and I think leaders who went through what I went through will know, that one year is not a long time to deliver that change, particularly if you do not know what it is going to be at this time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I stated earlier, decisions on the six devolution priority areas will be made by March 2026. Their geographies will be decided by then. We are going out to consultation on the remaining 14 areas, and it is important that we do that. The local authorities have come forward with their proposals. We want to find out what the local views on them are, so they have gone out to consultation. That consultation closes in May 2026, and we will make decisions on the geography of those remaining authorities before the Summer Recess.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The Minister said, and I very much agree, that the officers, staff and structures of the councils that have asked for extensions are extremely stretched—I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. One of the alternatives would have been for the Government to provide the resources to ensure that those councils were able both to hold elections and to continue with the plans for reorganisation. Can the Minister say whether the Government made any calculation for what allocation of funds from the Government here in Westminster would have been necessary to allow those elections to go ahead? What would the cost have been if those resources had been provided?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With respect to the noble Baroness, putting in new resources at this stage would not really help matters. Councils have their programmes of work under way. They are all working very hard on the reorganisation programme, as they are on the transition. They have an enormous job to do on working out the transition for key public services and on how they are going to drive growth and housing programmes going forward and put new resources into that. When you have new councillors and council officers coming in, it takes quite some time for them to get up to speed and be able to deliver at pace. Councils have considered that very carefully and will have made their own decisions. That is why we had 29 of them submit requests to postpone their elections.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As there is still time, I will come back on a couple of things that the Minister said. The Minister spoke of the need for fundamental reform. Can the Minister answer the following questions that I have asked previously? What real additional powers, and what funding, will come to local government from the Government? Secondly, the Minister said that local government funding was not sustainable, so why, through the Government’s unfair funding proposals, will many councils suffer some of the sharpest cuts that they have seen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The fair funding formula that we announced this year has given local government a significant increase in funding. Having spent the 17 years that I was a council leader cutting budgets every year, I know that has been a welcome change for some of our councils.

On the new powers that local councils will get, I know that we are in the process of considering the English devolution Bill and that we will debate it tomorrow afternoon. The seven areas of competence that are included in that are just the starting point for devolution. We want to see a widespread devolution of things that are currently decided in Whitehall; we want to see them being decided in local areas by local people. Once those combined authorities are established, the mayors will be able to apply for further powers that they see as necessary for their areas. It is important that those are driven by mayors. We have seen that existing mayoral areas have different needs. Some areas have a much greater need for powers on skills, for example, while others have greater need for powers on health and transport, and it can be all three. It is very important that that is driven at a local level. The very wide-ranging competences that we have set out in the English devolution Bill will enable local governments to take the powers that they need to drive their local areas forward. That is a huge move forward, and I welcome it.

House adjourned at 8.28 pm.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House takes note of Holocaust Memorial Day.

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

My Lords, it is with great respect and solemn reflection that I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I rise today, I do so with a heavy heart and a deep sense of responsibility.

As noble Lords will be aware, gradually, as time moves on, we lose many of the first-hand survivors of the Holocaust who were so engaged in the education of our young people and the rest of us. With the permission of the House, I would like to read the names of some of those whom we have lost during this year. Eva Schloss, MBE, who died on 3 January 2026, was a co-founder and honorary president of the Anne Frank Trust UK and stepsister of Anne Frank. Manfred Goldberg, MBE, who died aged 95 on 6 November 2025, was a Holocaust survivor and educator. Manfred’s story is part of the Holocaust Educational Trust’s virtual reality Testimony 360 education programme. Harry Olmer, who died on 15 January 2026, was a Holocaust survivor and Holocaust educator. Vera Schaufeld died in January 2026, aged 95. Vera came to the UK on the Kindertransport and shared her story up and down the country, including with our staff at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Eve Kugler, BEM, was a Holocaust survivor who witnessed Kristallnacht and shared her story, again including with the staff in my department. Suzanne Rappaport Ripton died in June 2025. She was the founder member of the Holocaust Survivors’ Friendship Association, now Holocaust Centre North. Ruth Posner died in September 2025. She was an extraordinary woman who survived the Radom ghetto, slave labour and life in hiding under a false identity. By the end of the war, Ruth and her aunt were the only surviving members of their family. After a dazzling career in theatre and dance, Ruth decided to begin sharing her testimony as a response to rising levels of antisemitism in the UK. I thank all of those who share their testimony and help us remember, and who will continue to make their mark on our remembrance of the Holocaust and its victims.

Tomorrow’s Holocaust Memorial Day is not only a date in the diary for me; it is a moment I return to each year with humility and resolve: a day that makes me pause and reflect on the stories I grew up hearing, and the lessons my parents impressed on me about the horrors of hatred. Tomorrow, we remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered in the Holocaust, and the Roma and Sinti, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men and political opponents who were also persecuted and killed. Each one had a name, each had a story and each was loved. Behind every number was a human being whose life was cut short by hatred and a machinery of persecution that sought to erase entire communities.

We also remember those who, against all the odds, survived. Many rebuilt their lives in the UK and dedicated themselves to sharing their testimony, ensuring that future generations understood both the horrors they endured and the hope they managed to hold on to. Many of us in this room have been privileged to hear these survivors speak with honesty, courage and an often extraordinary generosity of spirit.

My own family roots are in the East End of London, once home to a vibrant and close-knit Jewish community. Even those of us whose families were not directly targeted felt the shock waves as news of the camps emerged. In homes such as my parents’ and grandparents’, the stories of what had happened were spoken about with a kind of hushed reverence: an understanding that something beyond comprehension had taken place. They taught us that, while we could never fully feel that depth of pain, we had an absolute duty to learn about it, remember it and pass the lessons on.

This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme, Bridging Generations, feels especially poignant as we move into a time when survivors’ voices are fading. Many have now fallen silent. Yet it is our responsibility to ensure that their legacy does not fade with them. Bridging generations is not an abstract concept: it is the quiet question from a child trying to understand why people were hated for who they were. It is the moment in a school assembly when a survivor’s words change the entire mood of the room. It is the recognition that truth, when spoken plainly, has the power to transform hearts.

The Holocaust did not begin with camps and crematoria. It began with words: with prejudice that became normalised, then embedded in policy and then allowed to flourish unchecked. It moved from insult to exclusion, from exclusion to persecution, and from persecution to genocide.

Memory is our safeguard. Forgetting is the first step towards repeating history. I feel a profound personal responsibility to ensure that these stories are never lost. That is why I am proud that, in 2024, the Prime Minister pledged that every student in the country should have the opportunity to hear recorded survivor testimony. By enabling every young person to access first-person accounts, we build resilience against distortion and denial.

The Holocaust Educational Trust’s Testimony360 programme will allow students to virtually meet survivors and explore historical sites using virtual reality. Long after survivors can no longer be with us, young people will still be able to hear their voices, ask questions and engage with history in a way that feels deeply personal and immediate.

The Holocaust Testimony portal, created by the Association of Jewish Refugees and supported by the Government, is another vital initiative. The portal brings together thousands of interviews with survivors, refugees, rescuers and liberators, providing user-friendly access to decades of testimony. Generations to come will be able to learn from those accounts. Initiatives such as Generation 2 Generation ensure that descendants of survivors continue sharing family histories, preserving the human threads that connect past and present.

When I was a council leader, I set up a Holocaust memorial event in Stevenage—it was over 15 years ago—and I have been privileged to listen to family and first-hand testimony at that event each year. A couple of years ago, I listened to Anita Peleg speak about her mother, the sculptor Naomi Blake. I remember the hush in the room as Anita played a recording of her mother’s own words. It was the kind of silence that falls when truth settles on the heart: heavy yet somehow illuminating. Naomi Blake, who survived Auschwitz and went on to create art filled with hope and renewal, embodied the extraordinary resilience of the human spirit. Hearing her voice reminded me that testimony is not merely information: it is a gift—of courage, of memory and of humanity.

Lord Lieutenant Robert Voss, whose parents escaped Nazi Germany, came to our meeting and gave an account of his paternal grandparents, who were murdered in the gas chambers of Sobibor in June 1942. That moment touched me deeply, and strengthened my resolve to ensure that these stories are never allowed to fade.

Other projects, such as Ordinary Objects, Extraordinary Journeys, a collaboration between the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the National Holocaust Centre and Museum, and the Jewish Museum of Greece, show how even everyday belongings can bear witness. A pair of glasses, a letter, a suitcase: these objects speak when words fall short. They provide a tangible link to lives interrupted and remind us of the profound human cost of antisemitism and hatred.

Restoring names to victims is another sacred responsibility. Yad Vashem’s project to identify the 6 million murdered Jews is a monumental effort grounded in the belief that every person deserves to be remembered. A name is the most personal thing we have: chosen with love and often carried through generations. For the Nazis, names became tools of persecution. For us, restoring them is an act of dignity, remembrance and defiance of those who sought to erase an entire people.

Yet today, all too sadly, Holocaust denial and distortion persist. We still see antisemitic slogans and graffiti on our streets and the trivialisation of the Holocaust in public discourse, online spaces and even protests. Antisemitism is not new to Britain; we know that it stretches back to medieval times and, tragically, that it has never disappeared. The Community Security Trust recorded more than 1,500 antisemitic incidents in just the first half of 2025. This rise demands a clear and courageous response. I pay tribute to the CST for all the work it does in supporting our Jewish community.

Education remains our strongest defence. Young people are bombarded daily with information, some unreliable and some deliberately misleading. We must ensure they have the tools to distinguish truth from manipulation and history from distortion. Teaching about the Holocaust is not simply about understanding the past; it is about shaping a future where hatred cannot take root so easily. That is why I believe that having the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre at the heart of our capital, beside Parliament, matters so deeply. It will stand as a daily reminder to decision-makers, visitors and future generations that this country takes its responsibility to remember seriously. There are differing views, and it is right that Parliament has debated them so fully, but I feel the duty my parents and grandparents felt to ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust are carried forward with honesty and integrity.

We cannot change the history behind us but we can shape the history ahead, and so I make this commitment: I will listen, I will learn, I will speak, and I will help those who come after us to do the same. I look forward to the debate ahead of us this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as ever on these occasions I am struck by the depth, dignity and sincerity of the contributions we have heard. I am not sure I can do justice to every powerful point made today, but I will do my best. I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on her excellent maiden speech and welcome her to the House. She reminded us of the way Coventry is linking its devastation in the Second World War and the hatred that led to that with the importance of speaking to our young people about peacebuilding and reconciliation. I am grateful to her for her words and hope she enjoys her time here in this House.

This debate is one that year after year brings out the very best in our House. It reminds us not only of the weight of our shared responsibility but of the compassion and the urge for moral clarity that unites us. We come together in remembrance of 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered in the Holocaust—as well as thousands of Roma, Sinti, disabled people, gay men, political opponents, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the victims of genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and Srebrenica. Their memories guide us, challenge us and call us to account. I particularly thank those noble Lords who have given their own personal testimony from themselves or their families today—the noble Lords, Lord Austin, Lord Evans and Lord Shinkwin, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard—and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her tribute to Harry Olmer. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, asked us in a quote, “Do you think all this is better forgotten”? I hope the fact that we are debating this today means that none of us thinks that at all.

At this point I pay tribute to Stevenage Liberal Synagogue, particularly to Terry and Gillian Wolfe and Rabbi Danny Rich, who have supported me in my attempts to continue to educate myself about the Jewish faith and the life of Jews in Britain today. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the Torah. It was an absolute marvel to me to watch Danny Rich pick up the Torah, which, in case people have not seen it, is the scroll that is unrolled in a synagogue. There is no punctuation and there are no spaces in it, and he explained to me how he navigates his way around that Torah. It has been a real education to me, and I am grateful to them for all of that.

A number of noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, spoke very powerfully about the continuing scourge of antisemitism. The noble Lord, Lord Massey, reminded us of what an ancient hatred that is, but, of course, with a current and very present shadow that hangs over us all. Antisemitism is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society, which is why we must all take a strong lead on tackling it in all its forms.

Sadly, we have seen how events in the Middle East are used as an excuse to stir up hatred against British Jewish communities. The horrific terrorist attack on Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, mentioned by many noble Lords this afternoon, was an attack on the British values that unite us all. We stand together with British Jews and with all Jewish people. We condemn unequivocally the hatred and poisonous extremism that has led to these attacks. As we think about that attack and the dreadful massacre at Bondi beach, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised powerful issues around 7 October and how we think of those and made a powerful plea that, as we face today’s antisemitism, we continue to keep alive the work that is being done to link the antisemitism we think of in terms of the Holocaust with what is going on today all around us.

I am grateful for the mention of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Penny Mordaunt: I am very grateful for their work in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, spoke powerfully about how we must confront failings in the organisations we are close to, even when it is painful—what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to as the very uncomfortable introspection that we need to undergo through our thinking about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right: speaking out is a duty for all of us, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, reminded us of the powerful words of Martin Niemöller.

Much of this antisemitism is feeding into some of the awful words we hear about Holocaust denial and distortion. The noble Lord, Lord Massey, spoke powerfully about denial, and the Government condemn any organisation or individual that attempts to deny the Holocaust. We are implacably opposed to people such as the revisionist historian David Irving and have spoken out recently against the Iranian Government, who are attempting to cast doubt on the facts of the Holocaust. The Government deplore attempts to deny the Holocaust, including those views expressed in a pseudo-intellectual manner. It is of course the case that if Holocaust denial is expressed in a way that is threatening, abusive or insulting and incites racial hatred, or is likely to do so, it is unlawful under the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, and others, said how important it is that these laws are upheld: they are there for a purpose and we must all make sure that they are taken seriously.

The noble Lords, Lord Massey and Lord Austin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the impact of the current conflict in Israel and Palestine. We profoundly welcome the ceasefire agreement, of course, and are working intensively to support the 20-point plan for peace. It is vital that both parties uphold the agreement as we implement phase 2 on governance, stabilisation and construction. We continue to mourn the devastating loss of life on 7 October and afterwards and the ongoing desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza. We are deeply relieved that all living hostages have now been released and we continue to insist that the body of the last remaining hostage is returned. Even with the hostages released, we recognise that the trauma and terror Hamas’s actions have inflicted on hostages and their families endures, and we continue to work with partners to maintain the ceasefire and ensure the provision of urgent humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza. Diplomacy, not more bloodshed, is how we will get security for Israelis and Palestinians, and that requires a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. Over time, only that will ensure long-term peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.

Much of the debate this afternoon has focused on issues around education and it is right that it has done so, particularly in view of the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned Dov Forman and Lily Ebert. I remember very well listening to Dov and to Lily. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the distortion of social media for young people and how it is almost as if they are trying to educate themselves but they are getting a distorted picture because of what they are picking up from social media. The Department for Education actively supports schools to provide high-quality teaching on the Holocaust through the funding of two core programmes and we are also funding a two-year programme, the Supporting Holocaust Survivor Testimony in Teaching programme. Lessons from Auschwitz gives students aged 16 to 18 the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau and funding for 2025-26 is £2,300,000. The Centre for Holocaust Education’s CPD programme supports teachers in their professional development, with the Pears Foundation and UCL contributing match and in-kind support of the same amount as the Government, which is £500,000. The Supporting Holocaust Survivor Testimony in Teaching programme will support schools in using recorded Holocaust survivor testimony in their teaching. Funding is being provided for that and being delivered by the Holocaust Education Trust.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry referred to what is I think is the most important thing in this education, which is when you get an outstanding teacher who can inspire and educate you on these topics. Then there is the much wider programme of support for tackling antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. Some £500,000 of this money has been awarded to the University Jewish Chaplaincy for student welfare on university campuses, where we know there has been particular difficulty. Training for university support staff delivered by the Union of Jewish Students began in November, with 600 sessions planned over three years, and the scholarship programme will provide in-depth training and a learning network, with delivery commencing from this month.

A tackling antisemitism in education innovation fund is launching shortly to promote tolerant debate, and successful projects will commence from April. The Department for Education’s Educate Against Hate website provides schools and parents with free quality-assured teaching resources, helping to navigate discussions over sensitive topics and aiding our efforts to end hate and prejudice in our schools. On 5 November, we published the final report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, alongside the Government’s response. The report’s recommendations for curriculum reform will help tackle hatred and prejudice by ensuring that, in areas such as citizenship and religious education, the refreshed national curriculum and its supporting resources reflect our modern society. There will be a renewed focus on improving young people’s media literacy, helping them think more critically about the content they consume.

There have also been incidents of antisemitism on university campuses, as we all know. There were 35 incidents reported to the CST in the first six months of 2025 in which the victims or offenders were students or academics, or which involved student union societies or other bodies. Of these, 16 took place on campus or university property and 13 occurred online. That is a drop of 64% from 98 higher education incidents reported in the first half of 2024, but each one of those incidents affects somebody deeply and for a long time. The total is twice the 17 incidents that were logged across January to June in 2023, which was not impacted by a trigger event in the Middle East. The Secretary of State wrote to university vice-chancellors in October, urging them to take steps to protect Jewish students from harassment. Where lawful protest crosses the line into harassment, intimidation and the glorification of terrorism, we expect universities to use the full extent of their disciplinary processes to take swift and decisive action to tackle it.

Turning to the commemoration on Holocaust Memorial Day, our national event, and education and community activities, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, spoke of the reduction in the number of events taking place in education establishments. According to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, in 2023, more than 2,000 secondary schools held commemorative events, but on 7 October that year, things changed. In January 2024, just a few months after the deadliest attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, the number fell dramatically to fewer than 1,200, and in 2025, the figure, which I think the noble Lord gave, was just 854 schools choosing to hold an event, so we must redouble our efforts in terms of commemoration here.

On our Holocaust memorial and learning centre, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, I agree that we must face our past. The Government are determined to deliver on the long-standing commitment to build a new national memorial to the Holocaust. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for all the work he has done on this.

The memorial will stand as a reminder to all in Parliament, and the whole nation, of our responsibility to remain vigilant against intolerance and bigotry. The new Holocaust memorial will honour the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust and all other victims of the Nazi persecution. There can be no more powerful a symbol of our commitment to remembering those men, women and children murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators than placing the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, prominent among the buildings and memorials that symbolise our nation and its values.

I want to reflect for a moment on the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on faith and belief in the UK. For millions of people in this country, their faith and belief identity is a crucial part of their lives, and our nation is enriched by a diverse tapestry of faiths and beliefs. The Government are committed to harnessing the power of faith for national renewal, helping us to make progress against our missions and improving social cohesion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke about the importance of leaders of faiths other than Judaism speaking out against antisemitism; that is a really important point. I say to my noble friend Lord Sahota on the Amritsar massacre—a tragic event and one quite separate to today’s debate—that previous Prime Ministers have called the massacre deeply shameful, and the incident is a shameful scar on British Indian history. I understand the pain that it still causes in our Sikh community, and I am happy to discuss it with my noble friend outside of this debate.

I express my deep gratitude to the remarkable organisations in the UK that work tirelessly to ensure that the Holocaust is remembered and, crucially, understood. Their work goes far beyond commemoration; it shapes minds, builds empathy and confronts ignorance. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I pay special tribute to Karen Pollock CBE, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, and Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE, chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. Their leadership has ensured that survivors’ voices continue to reach new generations.

It remains profoundly important that the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory within the national curriculum for history at key stage 3. This Government have made a firm commitment that it will remain a compulsory topic in the reformed national curriculum, including in academy schools when the reforms are implemented.

Our Department for Education continues its active support for high-quality Holocaust education through University College London’s Centre for Holocaust Education and its continuous professional development programmes and through the Holocaust Educational Trust’s transformative programme for 16 to 18 year-olds—which I mentioned earlier—and the survivor testimony in teaching programme.

As many noble Lords have touched on today, we are approaching a moment in history when no Holocaust survivors will remain to share their testimony in person. This is a profound and sobering reality. The survivors who have spent their lives retelling the most painful chapters of their past so that we might build a better future will not always be with us. That is why the responsibility now falls to all of us to redouble our efforts, to preserve their stories, to speak the truth when others distort it and to ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust are never diminished, never denied and never forgotten.

I thank noble Lords for the dignity, compassion and commitment they have brought to today’s debate. It has been a privilege to listen and take part in it. As we face a world where the comfortable world order so many of us have grown up with is disintegrating around us, it is even more important that we continue to remember these things. In this debate, we put aside our party politics for our compassion, our determination to remember and our common humanity.

I want to close with the words from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that we must pledge ourselves not to platitudes but to action. Listening to the debate today, I think that we are all determined to do that to make sure that this is not just about memories but about creating hope for the future that this will never happen again.

Motion agreed.

Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 December 2025 be approved.

Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 January.

Motion agreed.

Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 46th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this order delivers on the Government’s commitment to build a stronger economy in all parts of the country. It gives local authorities in England the tools they need to support local and UK-based businesses and to strengthen local communities through the power of public procurement.

The order enables local government authorities to reserve public procurement competitions for below-threshold contracts to suppliers based within the UK or their local area. Below-threshold contracts are those valued below the financial thresholds set out in Schedule 1 to the Procurement Act 2023 and which are subject to a much more limited set of rules than contracts valued above the thresholds. Those thresholds are set to align with the UK’s international obligations on public procurement.

These may be lower-value contracts, but they matter enormously. Between February and November 2025 alone, they accounted for over £1 billion of spend and represented almost two-thirds of the contracts awarded by subcentral authorities—I think that is Civil Service-speak for local authorities. Currently, local authorities are prevented from considering supply location when carrying out procurements by Section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988. That provision was enacted to prevent politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries through procurement—an essential safeguard that this order fully maintains. The order permits this restriction to be set aside only when authorities reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts to either UK-based businesses or to businesses based in a defined local area. Authorities cannot target specific countries, and political boycotts remain unlawful.

Before bringing forward this legislation, we listened carefully to local authorities. The previous Government consulted on a similar proposal in 2023, which received strong support in principle. However, authorities were clear that the proposed approach then—limiting reservations to a single county or a single London borough—was too restrictive. It was unworkable for combined authorities spanning multiple areas, for councils procuring jointly across boundaries and for parish councils.

This Government have taken a different approach. The order provides the greater flexibility that authorities asked for by allowing them to set the local area as their own area or the entire county or borough within which they are located, or to extend it to include any bordering counties or London boroughs. This matches the reality of how local government operates. Economic geographies do not stop at administrative boundaries.

Authorities can also combine this geographic flexibility with existing powers to reserve contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary, community and social enterprises. This means that an authority could reserve a contract to local SMEs or to UK-based social enterprises, maximising flexibility to support their communities in the way that makes the most sense.

Transparency remains paramount. When authorities use these powers and advertise the opportunity, they must clearly state in their procurement advertisement what area the competition is reserved to.

The order also amends the Procurement Regulations 2024 to require that authorities state the relevant area in any below-threshold tender notice that is published. Suppliers will know up front whether they are eligible, and the public can see how their local authority is using its powers.

Statutory guidance has been published to support implementation and was prepared in consultation with the Local Government Association. The broader policy of enabling authorities to reserve competitions for below-threshold contracts had cross-party support during the passage of the Procurement Act. Labour welcomed it in opposition and local government has asked for it consistently. The order empowers local authorities in England to support local economies, strengthen UK businesses, and create opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises, all while maintaining essential safeguards against political boycotts. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene briefly. First, I declare a long-gone interest: I was a county councillor many years ago. I always believed, as did my local authority, that, whatever one did in terms of procurement, the overall aim and need was to obtain best value for money in any contracts of any size, so I have slightly mixed views about this order. On the one hand, as the Minister said, it is very important that we support our native suppliers and contractors as far as is possible when it comes to work, particularly below the threshold. I would like the Minister to clarify that low threshold when she responds.

However, it seems that there are one or two questions here. First, this order would give a local authority the ability to determine a defined local area. Is that within the particular boundaries of the local authority? I see that there is provision here for that to include bordering authorities. Bearing in mind the nature of unitary local government nowadays, that would be an enormously large area. Does this mean either that you can choose to have a very small defined area, such as a particular town or village that contains certain traders who may be able to be part of the procurement, or, more generally, that it would be a wide area? Does the advertisement that will be placed, which is required, have to give reasons why a defined area has been chosen?

My only worry there, in looking back at the history of local government, is that a selection procedure that aims at a defined area within a local authority surely could—I am not saying that it would, but it could—be used politically in certain circumstances: for example, in a political operation where a number of procurements were made available in certain parts of a local authority area that happened to have a particular political complexion. There does not appear to be much of a safeguard against that here, so I would like some reassurance from the Minister on this point.

I mentioned the advertisement. I would like to know a little more from the Minister about the nature of that advertisement, as well as the reasoning that there has to be in it for doing what the local authority has chosen to do. The Minister is right when she talks about boycotts regarding countries; that is a very difficult area indeed. Again, we must be very careful that there is no indication here of a boycott, in the hands of politicians, against a particular country—or, indeed, to come back to the low-threshold procurements, of a boycott against particular individuals, firms or people who are being ruled against, either because they have different political views or because they have some other discriminatory situation with which they might not comply.

I am sorry to raise these few doubts in my mind. Although I see the intention here as very positive, I want to be absolutely sure that, in its delivery, it will not only maintain support for local contractors and local services but continue on the basis with which I started: providing council tax payers with the best value for money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate seeking—quite rightly—some clarification.

I will refer first to the below-threshold limits, because I think that that would put this in a context that might be helpful. The below threshold for local authorities is £207,720 for goods and services and £5.193 million for works; that is the threshold that applies here. I should add that central government has had similar powers to these since December 2020, so we are doing something for local government that central government has had for some time.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, spoke about best value in procurement. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said: it is my belief that best value should definitely include the social value of local procurement, which is why the Government were keen to take this step as soon as we could. It brings jobs locally and helps local businesses. That can be very much added into the best value equation for local people.

On the definition of local authorities, there is a flexible definition of what a local authority is. To refer to the questions that have been asked, it is for the local authority to determine what that local area will be. The order has been drafted to take account of changes that will be made by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill regarding local government reorganisation and authorities’ geographic areas of responsibility. Strategic authorities are already covered by the order, and combined authorities and county combined authorities are already listed as best value authorities under Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. This order applies to all best value authorities.

Importantly, for strategic authorities, a designation applies to particular combined authorities and combined county authorities; the underlying corporate entities remain the county authority or the county combined authority. When they receive a strategic authority designation, they continue to be best value authorities and, therefore, to be covered by this order—so no amendment to the order will be needed. It is intended that this measure is future-proofed, which will include new local authorities formed as part of the reorganisation process.

On the advertisement issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, I understand his point about this having the potential to be a political matter, but these are economic decisions taken in terms of the contract. It is hard to see a situation where a local authority would take a decision about where it was going to have its boundary in relation to politics, because that will change; you might very well cause yourself a future problem if you were to do that. These decisions should be taken as economic and financial decisions for the council concerned. Of course, the advertisement must state the area to which the contract applies, so it has to go out in public with that.

I hope that I have covered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about definition in my response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Local authorities will be able to determine in a flexible way what their local area is; they can set it as their own area, or the entire county or borough in which they are located, or they can extend it to bordering English counties or other areas local to them as they see fit, or to London boroughs. If you are in the south of my county, you will have London boroughs on your southern border, so you may wish to extend it to them as well.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I would like to be clear about this, because I have not understood what the Minister said. The order does not say that a metropolitan district council, as a single authority, can join another authority to theirs. In other words, if a metropolitan district council, such as Calderdale, as a single authority wishes to procure a contract, can it invite bids from a neighbouring council which is not a London borough or a county? That is what the Minister just said that they can do, and I think it is not specified in the order. I think we need to be very clear about this, because it is not just about strategic authorities; in my case, the strategic authority is 120 miles long, and that is not a local area.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Councils can procure either singly in an area that they have determined or jointly with an area that is next to them. I am not sure that I can be any clearer in setting the proposal and I am not sure where the confusion is arising.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The confusion lies in Article 3(5)(a)(ii). The point is that it refers to one relevant authority— not more than one—that seeks to procure a contract. The sub-paragraph says that

“where there is one relevant authority which intends to enter into a relevant contract”,

it can do so only in

“the area of that authority”,

which means its own area, or

“any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border that area”.

There is no mention at that point of a neighbouring metropolitan council.

If it would help the Minister, I would be very happy to have a response in writing, as long as it is posted in the Library. I am in favour of this happening, so do not want to hold things up, but would like to be clear about whether the councils—I live in Tyne and Wear—can work together in procurement. Can one relevant authority procure, but advertise the contract in a neighbouring authority, even if that neighbouring authority is not a part of the procurement process? You can do it in London and when you are next to a county but, at the moment, according to this order, you cannot do it in an urban metropolitan area.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take away the issue that the noble Lord has raised, review it and write to him on it, but it looks clear to me that the order says

“where there are two or more relevant authorities which intend to enter into a relevant contract … the areas of those authorities, or … the areas specified in (i) and any of the areas of the counties or London boroughs that border those areas”.

I think that it is clear, but I will take it back, review it and come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has spoken in the debate.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I want to say a quick word. I think one of the problems, as far as I can see, is the word “counties”. Changes in local government and so on mean that I, for instance, reside in North Yorkshire, which is a county, but next to it is West Yorkshire. That may cause a problem in terms of interpretation. I am sorry; I do not want to complicate the Minister’s position, but it would be very helpful if she could write to us about this point, because defining it as just counties and London boroughs does not help with the other structures in local government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are discussing a matter of semantics here, but the confusion might have occurred because, under the Local Government Act 1972, “county” includes metropolitan authorities. That might be the issue, but it is only fair that I set that out more clearly in writing to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to frameworks —and, yes, councils can still jointly procure under this process. He spoke about VCSEs. We will, of course, keep all matters under review in that way. I hope that this is a real opportunity for VCSEs; over many years of procuring contracts, I have often heard them say that not enough consideration is given to the possibility of VCSE delivery, so I hope that this will expand the opportunities for VCSEs.

The noble Lord spoke about the restriction that meant that this was not implemented before. Again, we did not go out to consultation because the consultation had already been done. I do not know why the previous Government took the decision to change tack and not implement it, but the response to the consultation was very clear that the previous proposals would be too restrictive, which is why we made these changes and brought them in, in the way that we have.

I just want to say that I said the term “subcentral”, but it is not a term that I would ever use myself. I will make sure that it does not appear in any of my future appearances before the Committee.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I want just to clarify the point that I tried to make about consortiums. I want to make sure how the consortium will function where maybe people are looking, shall we say, to give some local focus. If you end up in a consortium, which might be Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Kent, will you be able then to say, “We’ll only accept bids from people from Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Kent” because they are not coterminous, not neighbouring? I am not expecting an answer now, but perhaps the Minister could kindly give it some thought and just say whether, if one enters into a consortium, the footprint can effectively be the consortium?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the answer is yes but I will come back to the noble Lord in writing. The threshold might step in there because, as I have set out, there are limits on the threshold for this process.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want just to clarify one small point. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council areas that border each other but, where there is a river between them, there is a question of whether the border is the middle of the river. I just want to say that because, when I read this, I realised that there are lots of rivers where councils work across the river together and they ought to be in a position where they can procure jointly.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think administrative boundaries take account of rivers generally, so I hope that there being a river in between you would not get in the way of you procuring jointly with your neighbouring area. At some point in the past the Boundary Commission would have taken account of that river and said which area it lies in; as we know, rivers tend to go in and out of different counties.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

As regards changes in local government, the River Tyne, for instance—which I know extremely well, being a Geordie—was always the border between Northumberland and County Durham. Of course, the Tyne and Wear authority encompassed the whole thing. But at the same time, a number of rivers have management operations in which the board is made up of different components of a number of interested local authorities, which are not necessarily local authorities that are, as it were, on one side or the other of that river. I do not know whether that confuses this even further—I suspect that it does.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is enough flexibility in this order for local authorities to determine these matters, to put their heads together and decide how they want to operate in procurement terms. That is what is intended in the order; I hope that is what happens. No doubt it will get tested at some point, but I hope that it works as we intend it to.

As we all know, local government has been asking for a very long time to have this flexibility to issue and award contracts locally. I hope that this order will give local authorities that flexibility. We all want to support local and UK businesses through the procurement that we do for people in our own areas.

I thank colleagues across government who have developed the policy, particularly at the Cabinet Office and in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I thank the Local Government Association for its support. I have had support from both the Cabinet Office and MHCLG today. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this order and I commend it to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reorganisation of local government. We have now received proposals on this issue from all areas and from councils across the political spectrum. It is only right that we listen to councils when they express concerns about their capacity. Local leaders know their areas best and are best placed to judge their own capacity.

On the noble Baroness’s question about the timescale, if she is referring to the timescale for the reorganisation, we have been very clear with local authorities about when we wanted their proposals in. The priority areas are moving ahead at pace now, and we are going out to consultation on the other areas in February. We will be come back to them before the Summer Recess to let them know of the Secretary of State’s decisions.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government appear set on disregarding the Electoral Commission’s views, which were that

“we do not think that capacity constraints are a legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”.

However, as that seems to be the course that we are set on, can the Minister confirm that county councillors in places such as Sussex will have their term of office extended only by one year, and that the Government will not end up extending their term of office by two years until the new councils are due to come in? An extension of two years would mean that councillors elected for four years would end up serving a term of seven years. Can the Minister unequivocally rule out any possibility that councillors will end up serving seven-year terms?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s point about the Electoral Commission, we wrote to the Electoral Commission to notify it, and last week I met the commission to discuss the matter. On elections to county councils, our intention is to hold elections for the shadow authorities in 2027.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question is asked in the light of the result of today’s Horsley by-election for Derbyshire County Council, in which the Green Party took the seat from Reform with 43% of the vote. Reform had 35% of the vote, the Conservatives 14% and Labour 4%. Given that the political landscape is clearly changing, and people’s political views are changing very fast, is it not right that every community in the land should have representatives who reflect their current political views?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If those elections are agreed for cancellation, the councillors who would have been due for election will already have an electoral mandate. The councils have decided whether they wish to go ahead with the elections. This is about the capacity of the councils; it is not a political issue.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, this Government have, rightly, condemned some of the ethical standards of the previous Government. They have prided themselves on setting up an Ethics and Integrity Commission, whose work includes, inter alia, ministerial standards, the Electoral Commission, and, above all, the Nolan principles, one of which is accountability. Which of these codes, commissioners for standards and so on has the ability and the right to enforce the Nolan principle of accountability and ensure that elections take place?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness about accountability and the Nolan principles. It is also the duty of councillors to make sure that they can provide the quality of public services that we expect of our councils. If they are struggling with capacity, it is for them to come forward as part of this process and let us know that that is the case.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will perhaps recall 1968 and the GLC coming into consideration. To the best of my knowledge and memory, those procedures were terminated temporarily, and then local elections went ahead. The key point is accountability of those who have been carrying out services for the public over the last couple of years or whatever it is. There should be a judgment on that, which is what these elections are all about.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, it was up to councils to determine how they responded. The vast majority of places that were due to have elections will have them. Where councils have responded that they feel that it will cause them some difficulty as part of the reorganisation process, the Secretary of State will give due consideration to that.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, there has been all-party consensus on the postponement of elections in the past—for example, in World War II, for foot and mouth disease, and for Covid—but there was no such all-party agreement in this case, and no such extenuating circumstances can be justified. But, if there were, would it not be right for Parliament to have a say on whether elections can be postponed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisations are in progress. It can prevent costly and distracting elections for short-term posts that may soon be abolished. For example, between 2019 and 2022, the previous Government postponed elections in Buckinghamshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset, and Weymouth and Portland. This responsibility has been delegated by Parliament to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, on Monday at 5.38 pm, the Minister gave details of letters that had been sent to four councils—Norfolk, Essex, Southampton and Oxford—and said that they were expected to reply by 10 am the next day, indicating their views. The Minister was asked just now about the timetable that is being followed. Given that we are now well beyond the limited timetable that was given to those four councils, why is it not possible for the Government to give a timetable on which they will take a decision for those who are entitled to a vote on 7 May?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Secretary of State wrote to four councils following the responses that came in on 15 January because it was not clear from their responses whether they were requesting a postponement. That is why there was a short-term deadline for them to reply on that specific issue. The Secretary of State is now considering all the views provided before he makes the final decision, and he will make that decision as quickly as possible. He is very aware of the timetable needed for elections.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there seems to be some form of collective amnesia on the Benches opposite? I well recall, as an employee of the Greater London Council, that the 1985 local elections in Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, the West Midlands, et cetera were all cancelled for the political convenience of the Government at the time, without particular reference to democracy. They just believed that they were in the right in getting rid of those councils, and that was simply it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right to say that there is a precedent for cancelling elections. I have been involved with local government for a very long time. At many times in the past, there has been tinkering at the edges of reorganising local government. If we do not reorganise local government, it will not be sustainable for the future. This is the biggest reorganisation of local government for over 50 years. We have asked the councils, if they wish to postpone their elections, to let us know about that. We are now considering their responses.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, later today, the House will debate the children Bill, which proposes an enormous increase in the duties and responsibilities of local authorities. How will postponement of elections help the preparation for those changes, given that they will be working while hoping, but not knowing, that the structures necessary for them to be implemented will exist?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the process of reorganisation and devolution has gone forward, a key aspect that the department has focused on with our colleagues in local government has been a smooth transition of key public services such as children’s services. We are reassuring ourselves as we go through that process that all the areas where reorganisation is taking place have a clear plan for the transition of their service from one organisational structure to another.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I am an academic and am interested in clear language, among other things. I was horrified when I first read the Bill by the looseness of its language. Devolution has already been mentioned. The PACAC report some three years ago on the governance of England noted that

“we … refer to what is currently taking place in England as ‘decentralisation’”

rather than devolution, but it is not really effective devolution. This Bill carries on what its predecessor under the Conservative Government was doing in providing a mayoral strategic structure throughout England.

“Local”, “community” and “neighbourhood” are used extremely loosely throughout the Bill. The use of “strategic” implies something that is not local and has to be seen separately from it. Incidentally, in talking about strategic authorities, we enter into the structure of government in the United Kingdom and are talking about constitutional matters—although, with the odd absence of constitution that we have in this country, Governments can muck about with local government in a way that no other constitutional democracy that I am aware of can.

I regard community as very local. In France, the commune is the village, and each commune has a mayor. I think about the ward represented by my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton; she has five or six separate communities within the one ward. Neighbourhoods are parts of towns or cities, and a neighbourhood is somewhere you can walk around, but the Bill uses those terms to cover much larger areas. That raises questions about its relationship with central government, in setting up a network of strategic authorities.

I have submitted a later amendment that refers to a mayoral council for England; that indeed has been set up by prime ministerial fiat, but is only a pale shadow of the structure for the Council of the Nations and Regions and the mayoral council associated with it, which Gordon Brown usefully proposed some years ago. If we are to have real devolution, there will have to be some mechanism for negotiation between strategic authorities and central government. That is why the absence of any reference to the fiscal issue here also indicates that we are not really dealing with devolution.

The last thing I want to say is that, according to all the opinion polls, we are in a situation in which public trust in national government is remarkably—horrifyingly —low. Public opinion polls also say that public trust in local government is less bad than it is in central government. Strong local government, with councillors whom your average voter might actually know, is one of the ways that one holds democracy together. Colleagues like the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, find themselves trying to represent 15,000 people per ward in a district like Bradford; that is not really effective local democracy. It is very hard for the councillor to know all the electors, let alone for the electors to know the councillors. When we come to the question of town and parish councils, and devolution from strategic authorities to the levels below, we will wish to emphasise that.

I signal that, as we talk about the context of the Bill and strategic authorities, we must first be clear how those strategic authorities relate to central government and, on the other side, how they relate to the single tier of effective local government and to the town and parish councils in which we hope your ordinary voter will find some sense of identity and participation.

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

Before I comment on the amendments in this group, I send my very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We had an online meeting with her last week, and I know how frustrated she is not to be able to be part of this Committee’s work at the moment. I hope that she will be able to return to work with us in due course, so please convey our best wishes back to her.

I thank all noble Lords who have continued to engage with me since Second Reading and for the amendments that have been submitted. This House does great work on Bills, as I have experienced on both occasions that I have taken Bills through the House recently, and I am very grateful for that engagement and the work that has been done between Second Reading and Committee. I will start with a brief introduction of my own.

The Bill will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Westminster to mayors and local leaders, enabling them to unlock growth, transport and infrastructure and deliver the change that we need in our local areas. It will deliver our commitment to a fit, decent and legal local government as the foundation of devolution by establishing, for example, a new local audit office that will transform our broken local audit system. We have committed to transfer power out of Westminster to all levels, which is why the Bill will also empower our communities via a new duty for local authorities to establish effective neighbourhood governance, bringing decision-making closer to communities, and a new community right to buy, which will help our authorities to have the power to do with the assets that they value what they think is the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like briefly to contribute in the hope that I can be helpful to the Minister at this point. There is a list of areas of competence in Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, told us that this was a probing amendment. By implication, I think that that means some thought can now go into the list of areas of competence.

I just want to add one new thing. I was a board member of a regional development agency, One North East, for a number of years. There is a difference between the list of areas of competence that we had and this list. Let me explain. We had a rural role and a role in culture and sport, particularly capital investment. We had a clear role in tourism and in energy. We had no role in public safety, health, well-being and public service reforms, or community engagement and empowerment, and we did not directly address issues of poverty, although we did indirectly by the nature of what the RDA was trying to do. I wonder if the Minister might take on board all that has been said and look at those areas of competence. I hope that they are not seen to be a final list. In my view, they are not a final list but a very good basis for discussion. I hope that the Government will be willing to do that before Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments on the areas of competence and for what has been a useful and helpful discussion on the subject. Many of the amendments in the group seek to probe the list of mayoral competences and I understand why noble Lords would want to do that, but I want to be clear that the areas of competence are deliberately broad to enable a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of strategic authorities. They are intended as a framework that mayors can adapt as their local areas determine where they should place the emphasis.

Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to create a distinct area of competence of “community engagement and empowerment”. It is important that all tiers of local government work to deliver for their communities, as we all know. Strategic authorities, like any other tier of government, will be empowered to engage with those who live and work in their areas. Those already in place do so effectively.

Indeed, many existing combined and combined county authorities already use their powers to engage with their communities to ensure that their work meets local needs. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority has an established region-wide engagement platform, known as Your Voice, to strengthen dialogue with local communities. Through this initiative, alongside wider public engagement activity, the authority is gathering views to inform decisions on how its devolved funding is allocated.

The York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority has invested £1.9 million to support community building projects across the region. Funding has been given to buildings which play an important role for communities, such as the village halls in—I always hesitate to use the Yorkshire pronunciations, so forgive me if I get this wrong —Great Ouseburn and Kettlewell.

The areas of competence have been framed to enable a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including community engagement and empowerment. In this sense, it will be embedded within and throughout all the existing areas of competence. These competences are deliberately flexible. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about any power in the Bill, but we intend for it to be a framework; I will reflect on that point and come back to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, made a point about action and impact, as opposed to the broader framework. I refer him to the Pride in Place funding that does exactly as he was describing; it is £20 million of funding for each of 250 neighbourhoods. This is a long-term project, over 10 years, to make sure that each place is able to shape the things that are important to it. I refer the noble Lord to that important project, which shows how we are working with communities—not to them—to move forward the kinds of projects that he was talking about.

Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to create distinct areas of competence for

“reducing poverty and socio-economic inequality”,

and food security. She will not be surprised to hear that I share her objective of addressing poverty, socioeconomic inequality and food insecurity. The Government remain firmly committed to tackling these issues by addressing all the factors that underpin these challenges that we see in communities.

The areas of competence already enable strategic authorities to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality in a cross-cutting manner, via skills and employment support, economic development, investing in transport, tackling health inequalities and in many other ways. The same is true for food security. In Greater Manchester, the combined authority is taking concerted action to tackle food inequality and poverty through initiatives such as No Child Should Go Hungry, which has provided thousands of emergency food cards to residents. At a strategic level, mayors will take account of all the needs of their areas, and locally relevant information, such as the land use framework that colleagues in Defra are producing.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to add energy to the existing transport and local infrastructure area of competence. The noble Lord and I have spoken about this Government’s energy plans and I have written to him today. With his permission, in a moment, I will quote briefly from that letter because I think it would be helpful for noble Lords to have a bit more detail. On the role that we intend strategic authorities to play in this space, while I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not believe at this stage it is necessary. As noble Lords will know, the themes of the areas of competence are, as I have said, deliberately broad in scope and include thematic policy areas such as local infrastructure and environment and climate change. Energy cuts across all these, as well as other areas of competence. Importantly, strategic authorities can, and will be able to, address their local communities’ energy needs through the areas of competence. Indeed, many are already doing so.

On future strategies, the Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work reviewing the benefits of local energy planning for meeting national goals, several of which will lay out our approach for local renewable energy. The forthcoming local power plan will be owned jointly by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. That will outline our shared vision for the local and community energy sector. We are continuing to develop the local power plan with Great British Energy and updates will be provided soon. Similarly, the warm homes plan will cover housing retrofit and heat network zoning and will be published shortly. There will be more details in that plan on heat network zoning. The secondary legislation, rather than this Bill, will provide the necessary framework to empower local authorities to act as heat network zone co-ordinators under the Energy Act 2023. That is just a bit more information on those areas. For example, the Liverpool City Region is working to establish Mersey Tidal Power, with the aim of delivering Europe’s largest tidal power project by 2030, capable of powering up to 1 million homes. In the west of England, the combined authority has implemented its local energy scheme, which is funding community-led renewable projects.

Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, seeks to add tourism to the existing economic development and regeneration areas of competence. The Bill already makes provision for strategic authorities to support the tourism industry. Clause 41 extends local powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. Combined authorities and combined county authorities can use these powers to promote tourism and host events attracting visitors to boost local businesses such as hotels and shops. Many existing combined authorities and county authorities are already making use of these powers. For instance, the West Midlands Combined Authority is investing £120 million into an economy, trade and tourism programme, supporting over 250 businesses and 10 major sporting and cultural events. This example demonstrates that prescribing an extensive list of industries and sectors within the area of competence is not required. The areas of competence will empower mayors and strategic authorities to determine their own priorities in the application of their powers, and many are already doing so to address local issues such as tourism.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would remove transport and local infra- structure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. I note from the noble Baroness’s explanatory statement that her intention in tabling this amendment is to probe how the power to borrow will work for mayoral strategic authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was probing this during his speech. All existing mayoral strategic authorities already have the power to borrow for all their functions, including transport. Clause 12 will confer the power to all future mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities have full discretion over the exercise of borrowing powers and allocation of resources, subject to obtaining the requisite support from their constituent members via the budget voting process.

Like the rest of local government, strategic authorities must also operate within the prudential framework— I think all noble Lords here would expect that. This framework comprises statutory duties and codes intended to ensure that all borrowing and investment is prudent, affordable and sustainable. It provides robust mechanisms for oversight and accountability. In practice, this amendment would remove transport and local infrastructure from the areas of competence for strategic authorities. That is clearly contrary to the aims of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry, but the Minister does not seem to have mentioned this: I think we are also probing where LRS would fit in and what level they would be if they are going to continue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will finish what I am saying, then I will see whether I can answer the noble Baroness’s question.

Including public safety within the areas of competence is important for several reasons. First, it enables devolution of further public safety functions. For example, consideration is currently being given to the role of strategic authorities in resilience as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to be completed by March next year.

Secondly, it allows mayors to delegate certain existing functions relating to public safety to a commissioner; where the mayor is responsible for policing, they must appoint a deputy mayor for policing to whom policing functions are delegated. Additionally, the inclusion of public safety within the areas of competence allows a mayor who is responsible for fire services, but not for policing, to delegate certain fire-related functions to a public safety commissioner.

Thirdly, it enables the mayor to convene local partners and collaborate with other mayors to tackle questions of public safety—something all residents would expect them to do. There is a wide range of activity in which we would expect mayors to participate.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will seek and assume powers within their area of competence and then be held to account. One of the central aims of the Bill is to move away from the current patchwork of powers and piecemeal devolution of functions. To that end, the Government’s ambitious new devolution framework will set out a coherent and consistent set of functions.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out specific functions and the voting and governance arrangements that strategic authorities will automatically receive at each level of the devolution framework, categorised under the relevant area of competence. For example, the duty to produce a local growth plan is categorised under the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence. The Bill allows for new powers and duties to be added to the devolution framework over time, ensuring that it remains adaptive and responsive to future needs and policy developments. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities will also be able to request and pilot new functions so it will be possible to test and evaluate outcomes ahead of adding new functions to the framework.

Finally, I turn to accountability. Combined authorities and combined county authorities—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while the Bill clearly allows for additional functions and powers to be given to mayoral strategic authorities, the specific question was whether the Bill has a power to enable the areas of competence list to be amended.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I heard the noble Lord’s question. I responded earlier that I will come back to him on how this works within the Bill, so if that is okay, I will do it in writing and share it with other Members of the Committee.

Combined authorities and combined county authorities are required in law to establish both an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. Also, all strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. The Government remain committed to strengthening local accountability and scrutiny, and we are exploring models such as local public accounts committees; we will provide an update on our proposals in that regard in due course.

I hope that, with these reassurances and explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Perhaps I might come back to the issue of food security. In her answer, the Minister talked about access to food, which is obviously a crucial part of food security and very much related to poverty, but I do not think she really talked about food production and local systems of food distribution, which tie in with the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—particularly in terms of vegetables and fruit. We are talking about health, as well as pure calories, here. Do the Government see looking to produce as much food as possible locally as an important part of the new strategic authority?

Back in the depths of Covid, I chaired an online event on research from the University of Sheffield demonstrating that Sheffield could be self-sufficient in vegetables and fruit, growing in the green areas of the city. That is just a demonstration of the possibilities: if you get local attention on solving these issues, we can make real progress.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Baroness is pushing her point strongly, but I will stick to the answer I gave: those areas of competence already enable a very wide framework to tackle poverty and socioeconomic inequality—including food production, if that is where the mayor chooses to go in a particular area. The issues raised by the noble Baroness are cross-cutting aspects so putting them into one of the competences would mean that you would not be able to work so effectively across those competences, including on things such as skills and health inequalities. It is right to leave the framework of competences as broad as possible to allow people to determine the best way forward at a local level.

There is other work going on in Defra, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, in relation to land use frameworks—as well as all of the other issues around how we account for local food production—but, from the point of view of this Bill, the competences and the broad framework that they offer give the widest framework for local authorities to tackle needs in their areas.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

I know that the Minister cares a lot about these issues around community engagement, which is always encouraging to people such as me. As a social entrepreneur, I have spent my life at the other end of this telescope. I now operate with a team across this country, in some of the poorest communities, grappling with local authorities and the machinery of the state.

To be honest, we and some of our business partners find a lot of this state machinery very broken indeed; it is very difficult to make it work in practice. What people such as me are trying to suggest is that there needs to be some humility. It is difficult. I am aware that lots of colleagues in this Room have spent a lot of their lives in the public sector—I get all that; it has been my privilege to work with some rather excellent CEOs of local authorities and in the health service, as well as some who have not been so good, if I can put it like that—but there are real challenges with this machinery, whatever we say. I am experiencing them at the moment in one town in the north, where our Civil Service is not understanding the granular, practical detail of transformation and innovation—or what those things look like—and is in danger of putting old men in new clothes.

So, with the opportunity that appears before us in this legislation, let me explain why we need to create, at a granular, local level and in place, learning-by-doing cultures that pay attention to how we work with the public, local authorities, the health service, charities and the social sector—that is, how those interfaces work in practice to deliver. I suggest that it is because, at the moment, although the words all seem fine and lots of people care about this, when you try to do this stuff—as my colleagues and I do—something quite different starts to appear. I fear that, if we are not careful—and unless we grip some of that difficulty and some of the things that some of us have got a lot of grey hairs from trying to do—there will be lots of meaning well, but very little will change, in some of our poorest communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for those additional points. In this Room there are many people from local government, who have spent many years working to make sure that what he called the machinery of state is not interfering with actually delivering at local level. What we are trying to do with the Bill is to make sure that we continue that, but no doubt we will have many discussions about whether or not it is going to work.

It is very important that what we do is driven by local people at local level. The Co-operative Councils’ Innovation Network, which I started with my right honourable colleague from the other end, Steve Reed, about 15 years ago now, sets up pilot projects to show exactly how you start with the impact at local level and then work up to what needs to be done in the machinery to make that work. That is what I want to do but on a national scale, and I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I raised a minor point around paragraph (a) in Clause 2—“areas of competence”—which refers to “transport and local infrastructure”. My point is about the wording. That could perhaps be taken to mean local infrastructure related to transport. That is probably not the intention of the Government and this is local infrastructure in general, but perhaps there is an opportunity to clarify that wording.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows, because we have had the conversation, that I feel that the order of that wording is a little unfortunate. We will reflect on that because it does look as though it is infrastructure related just to transport. That is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill is intended to reflect that the competences will include local infrastructure and transport. If that local infrastructure relates also to transport, well and good, but it might be other infrastructure. So I will reflect on that and come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. What has emerged quite clearly is that there is a huge desire across the Committee for a proper devolution framework that is both ambitious and workable, and one that truly empowers local leaders while ensuring clarity, accountability and coherence.

I want to come back to competence because there appears to be some confusion. My noble friend Lord Porter raised the fact that local authorities already have a general power of competence. Therefore, I want to be clear: what do we mean by competence in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raised, what matters for the public is delivery. For that to happen, local authorities, mayors and strategic authorities need to have the responsibility, the powers and the funding. My noble friend Lord Lansley, in helpfully referring to the White Paper, said that a competence is a strategic mandate “to do”, as opposed to the general power of competence. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could clarify—not necessarily now—exactly what we mean by an area of competence and what that means in terms of responsibilities, powers, funding and the ability to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned energy. Over a century ago the last energy revolution of neighbourhood gas and electricity was rolled out by local authorities because they had the power and the funding—they did not have the responsibility but they took the responsibility—to do so. By the sounds of it, many noble Lords here would like local authorities to be in the same position again to be able to do things at the local level.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned tourism, which is absolutely crucial to delivering economic growth, particularly in certain areas, such as Bedfordshire, where we have the delights of two national zoos and various other things.

My noble friend Lord Lansley and other noble Lords raised the very important issue of empowerment. It is partly because of the need to try to delve into and understand this that my noble friend Lady Scott and I tabled some of our amendments. Amendment 2 seeks precisely to understand what is meant by the devolution of transport powers; I appreciate that the Minister provided some clarity on that. Amendment 5 is about public safety; that term has significant implications, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. My noble friend Lady Scott raised the important issue of LRFs and where they will fit in the future. The importance is around how this will work in the future and the clarity as we go through this process. It is not just about what areas people are competent in but what powers, funding and responsibilities they will be given to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to these amendments, I have a point of clarification: I believe that my noble friend Lord Parkinson was referring to Bristol, not Ipswich.

The amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would add the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence. The noble Earl has long been a vocal advocate for the cultural and creative sectors; his contributions to these debates and their economic, social and civic value are well recognised by the Committee. The case made by the noble Earl is compelling, as is the case made by the noble Baroness.

Cultural policy is most effective when it is shaped locally, with the flexibility to reflect the distinct histories, assets and ambitions of local areas; we have heard this from pretty much every noble Lord who has spoken today. Taken together, these amendments ask an important question: what role do the Government envisage for culture within the devolution framework? The Bill as drafted is silent on this point. Many combined authorities already treat culture as a strategic priority; local leaders would welcome clarity that they may continue to do so within the new statutory framework.

As with earlier groups of amendments, the issue here is not simply whether culture matters—few in this Committee would dispute that, I think—but whether the Government’s model of devolution is sufficiently flexible and ambitious to allow strategic authorities to support and grow the cultural life of their areas. These amendments invite the Government to set out their thinking and explain whether the omission of culture from Clause 2 is deliberate or merely an oversight. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 6 and 51, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for Amendment 10. These amendments seek to create a distinct area of competence for culture; and to enable a mayor to appoint a commissioner to this additional area of competence. As noble Lords will be aware, we had long discussions about this matter during the passage of the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

When I was thinking about this, I thought I would have a look at what was going on in Hertfordshire, my own county, which calls itself the Hollywood of the UK. That might be disputed territory, but that is what it calls itself. When you look at the economic impact in Hertfordshire, there was film and TV investment of £3.7 billion, and 4,000 direct jobs, but 7,000 to 19,000 jobs if you include supply chain and freelance workers. There were major new investments, such as Sunset Studios in Broxbourne, which brought £300 million a year into the local economy; Sky Studios Elstree has an estimated value of over £3 billion over the first five years; and then there are Warner Brothers, Elstree Studios, and all the rest.

I know that is the economic dimension of this, but the whole ecosystem starts with local arts and grass-roots infrastructure, skills and training, and inspiring a new generation of creatives to go into the industry. Mayors and strategic authorities can, and already do, play a very important role in these areas. That is precisely why the Bill’s existing areas of competence have been framed as they have. They are deliberately broad, enabling a wide range of activity to fall within scope, including cultural, creative and heritage activity.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for correctly highlighting the power of these activities to tackle some of the divisions we are seeing in society; they play a very powerful role in that respect. My noble friend Lady Griffin highlighted the importance of skills enabling the culture industries to thrive, which illustrates the cross-cutting nature of the competences because skills in the creative industries and elsewhere are included in the competences as we see them.

For example, Clause 41 extends a broad power to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors to their area. That power sits under the “Economic development and regeneration” heading. This demonstrates how these activities are intended to be captured without the need to list them in a separate policy area. Indeed, many authorities already fund and support culture and heritage initiatives using their existing powers.

The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a point about the West Midlands and Birmingham. As we have already had north-west and Yorkshire examples, I will use the example of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which invested £4.1 million into arts and culture projects as part of the legacy funding following the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games.

However, I take the noble Viscount’s point that for local authorities this has been a very difficult time when they are faced with the difficult choice between whether they fund the adult care services and the children’s services or arts services. That is why this Government have started to work on the fair funding of local government so that we can get local government’s confidence back that there is the possibility to invest.

The provisional 2026-27 settlement will make available £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England. That is a 5.7% cash-terms increase compared with 2025-26. By the end of the multi-year period, we will have provided a 15.1% cash-terms increase, worth over £11 billion, compared with 2025-26. The reforms ensure that this funding is allocated fairly and that the places and services that need it most are supported. It is for services such as adult care and children’s services, but it will also ensure all areas are able to deliver at the kinds of cultural services that we have been talking about.

In my own area, I hung on to the Gordon Craig Theatre in Stevenage. In spite of successive cuts in funding, we recognised its value to our community, not only in terms of our strong cultural life but to skills and our economy. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, called recognising the long-term strategic benefit of what that brought to our community. While I am talking about specific places, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned Bradford, and I congratulate Bradford on its fantastic year as City of Culture. It has done an amazing job, and we look forward to that continuing in Bradford and elsewhere around the country.

On commissioners, I note that they are an optional appointment for mayors to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role, and it would therefore be reasonable, for instance, for a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration to also lead on a strategy focused on culture and the creative industries.

However, I note the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who is a great champion in this area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I would be very happy to meet them and discuss this further before we get to Report. I hope that with these reassurances, the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for their amendments on rural affairs, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

I will begin by responding to Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which seeks to create a distinct area of competence for rural affairs. Strategic authorities cover a range of geographies in England, from highly urbanised areas, such as the West Midlands Combined Authority, to more rural geographies, such as the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority. Mayors and strategic authorities will be empowered to support all communities within their geography, including rural communities.

It is for this reason that the areas of competence are deliberately broad in their definitions. The topics that they cover are matters which apply to all communities—for example, transport and local infrastructure or housing and strategic planning. We have heard lots of descriptions of why those topics are particularly important in rural areas, but they will be important in different ways to the way that they are important in urban areas. It is right that, at local level, local leaders are empowered to deal with them as appropriate in their area.

Many existing combined and combined county authorities are making use of powers which have not been badged as rural functions to support their rural communities. For example, the mayor of the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority, David Skaith, is making use of transport functions to build the foundations for a working rural bus franchising model across the area. It aims to deliver a better bus service for areas that currently see only one bus a week—more of that later. Were a specific competence for rural affairs to be included, it could run the risk of encouraging rural areas to be considered in isolation. By that, I mean we do not want rural areas to become a silo that is only one person’s responsibility; we want it to be a responsibility across all those competences. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I now turn to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seek to ensure that mayors appoint a commissioner where any of their area is classified as a majority or intermediate rural area. I point out to the noble Baroness that, although the structure of the rurality funding in the formula has changed, it has not been taken out; it has been reallocated with the fair funding formula. We have built sparsity considerations into the fair funding formula. The way it has been done has been changed and it has a different name, but we have included consideration of sparsity in that funding formula.

To turn to her amendment, commissioners are an optional appointment for mayors to help bring additional expertise to support delivery in a specific area of competence. Mayors are able to shape the exact brief of the role. It would be reasonable, therefore, that a commissioner focused on economic development and regeneration could lead a strategy focused on the rural economy, for example. As I have outlined, rural matters cross multiple areas of competence. Commissioners will not be precluded from addressing these rural considerations in their work. In practice, it would be possible for a mayor to appoint a commissioner to an area of competence that has a rural relevance in the area, such as environment and climate change, and then give them a locally appropriate title, such as deputy mayor for the environment and rural affairs. These amendments would also mandate the appointment of a commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose whether to appoint a commissioner or not.

Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, would require strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities. The Government fully recognise the importance of rural communities and are committed to ensuring that they benefit from devolution.

Mayors already have a strong track record of using their powers to support rural areas. For example, in the north-east, Mayor Kim McGuinness is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural taskforce to ensure that rural and coastal communities are fully represented in investment decisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, highlighted housing issues for rural areas. I am very grateful to him for his work on the Devon Housing Commission and his continual advocacy, when I am dealing with housing matters, that I keep considering the needs of rural communities. That has been really helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about broadband infrastructure in rural areas. I visited colleagues of hers in Cromer recently, who were very keen to stress that among the other issues that coastal communities are facing. It is really important, but the Government’s view is that adding a statutory duty may create unnecessary complexity without delivering additional benefits. We want the benefits to come from the overall structure and empowering our mayors to act in the best interests of their communities.

I turn to the amendment to Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I fully agree that transport is vital to rural communities, but this issue is already well addressed through existing powers and investment. The Bus Services Act 2025 strengthens local leaders’ ability to protect services, and from 2026-27 more than £3 billion will support better bus services, including nearly £700 million per year for local authorities. Importantly, for the first time these allocations take rurality explicitly into account, recognising the higher cost of serving remote areas.

The noble Baroness mentioned biosecurity; I will respond to her in writing on that. She also referred to her earlier remarks on food security. To add to my earlier response, the good food cycle published in July 2025 sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system for growth, health, sustainability and resilience. There are 10 outcomes in that cycle, on healthy and more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply and vibrant food cultures. It has a set of near-term priorities, including securing resilient domestic production, generating growth elsewhere in the food system which supports positive public health and environmental outcomes, and improving food price affordability and access—in particular, targeting costs that lead to food price inflation and supporting those who most need access to healthy, affordable nutrition. I am happy to write to her further on that if it would be helpful.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for making the special effort to provide that extra response, but that is what Westminster is doing. I am talking about what local authorities and strategic authorities can decide for themselves to do in their local area, not relying on a direction down from Westminster.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I take the point. That project is being supported by the Food Strategy Advisory Board, including extensive engagement across government. I will take back the point that that should include all tiers of local government, as the noble Baroness makes a fair point.

Through rail reform, mayoral strategic authorities will have a statutory role in the design of local rail services and all tiers of local government will benefit under the new Great British Railways business unit model, taking local priorities into account. The noble Baroness also referred to cycleways. I am very proud of where I live because my town was built with 45 kilometres of built-in cycle infrastructure. This is an important opportunity for our new towns as we develop the work of the taskforce. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, will again be interviewing our Secretary of State in the Select Committee tomorrow on these and other matters. Gilston, which is a garden village near Harlow, made provision for a cycleway. We have to think about that. While we agree on the importance of these issues, the amendment is unnecessary because this Bill and other government activities will already enable authorities to secure improvements to rural transport without imposing an additional legal duty.

Finally, Amendment 260 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on rural areas before any regulations could be made using the powers in this Bill. Ahead of the introduction of the Bill, my department assessed the impacts of regulatory policies within it on businesses and households, urban and rural. This impact assessment was given a green rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee, indicating that it is fit for purpose. It would not be proportionate to complete another impact assessment solely for rural areas, given that our original assessment applies to those as well.

May I just refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron? He referred to the importance of the rural voice being heard across government. I completely agree. The mainstreaming of rural affairs across competences is vital, as is the freedom for mayors to address their local issues in the best way to tackle their local challenges.

In talking about bus services, the noble Lord reminded me of when I did a review of the universal credit system a while back. I was sent to Blandford Forum in Dorset. Some of the people who were working on their skills with the jobcentre had to visit the jobcentre every day. The problem with that was that the bus fare was £9 and there was only a bus to get there, with no bus to get home again; you may have wanted to improve your skills but it was very tricky to do so because, although you could get there, you could not get back home again. That was one of the big flaws in the universal credit system. Of course we want to keep track of people who are trying to develop skills, but there are difficult issues around that in rural areas.

When we discussed London-style bus services across the country—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will remember it well from the then levelling-up Bill—it raised the eyebrows of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. My noble friend lives in Cumbria, so London-style bus services are quite a long way from the service she gets in her local area. I understand the issues, but I think that enabling mayors —and their commissioners, if they choose to do it in that way—to address their local issues is the best way to tackle local challenges in these areas. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She referred to an impact assessment. We used to use the tried-and-tested method of tabling an amendment to ask for an impact assessment to be prepared. If the department has prepared an impact assessment, would it be possible for the Minister to publish it while this Bill is going through? That would be immensely helpful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Let me just check with my civil servants so that I do not say something I should not say. I believe that it has been published; I will send the noble Baroness a link to where she can access it.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and to my noble friend the Minister for her response.

I am of course delighted that mayors are empowered to support every part of their constituency; it must be their aspiration that they do so. It is very good that there are such broad areas of competence. I warmly welcome the great examples from Yorkshire and the north-east cited by my noble friend. However, I firmly believe that this Bill must be, and must be seen to be, relevant to and beneficial for all areas of our country. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, it is the case for many mayoral areas that, in population terms, such a tiny proportion of their constituents are from rural areas; it would be very easy to overlook their needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about rural-proofing. That is absolutely vital. I wonder whether we could have some discussions before Report on how there can be some sort of rural-proofing in this Bill. Personally, I would favour a duty that could be included in order to ensure that the needs of rural areas will be properly addressed. I recognise that it will be the desire of all mayors to ensure that they are properly representing and addressing the needs of all their constituents, but I fear that that might be very difficult when funding is stretched, as it is bound to be. I would like to see some means of ensuring that the needs of rural areas are properly addressed; perhaps we could discuss that further before Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for this amendment, which seeks to ensure that new strategic authorities have the capability to take on additional powers. I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that all strategic authorities are strong and effective in delivering their devolved responsibilities; of course, that is a goal that this Government share. However, this amendment would create an express separate requirement on the Secretary of State, adding complexity to the process of establishing new strategic authorities—much of that burden was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—that, in my view, potentially risks their autonomy without providing an equivalent benefit.

I assure the noble Lord that the Government are building on the capability and capacity of new strategic authorities to ensure that they can deliver the new devolution framework. Let me give him a little detail around how that is working. The Government support the improvement of strategic authority capability by funding the Local Government Association to deliver a sector support programme, which is available to both strategic and local authorities; that includes training for both officers and elected leaders, support in attracting new talent, and guidance on topics such as good governance and assurance. We will continue to review that offer to make sure that it remains fit for purpose.

The Government are also seeking to facilitate greater take-up of secondments by civil servants into strategic authorities to ensure that those authorities benefit from the widest range of capability available. We are keen to support areas establishing strategic authorities to get on to a firm footing and to be best equipped to start delivering improved outcomes for all local communities. We are doing this through the provision of a checklist that sets out the key requirements they will need, information sessions with a number of key government departments and a series of master classes for areas on a number of different topics, such as developing a local constitution and risk management. As an example, when a new combined authority or combined county authority is established, there is a year-long transition period when public transport functions remain exercisable by the constituent councils while the new authority creates an effective transport team.

We are very aware of the issues raised by the noble Lord, but I hope that he agrees with me and that my reassurances are sufficient for him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as ever.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, got me going: she talked about her rose-tinted glasses and I had visions of the infamous Rose Garden treaty. I thought that this would be a new version of the Tory-Lib Dem alliance, but she dashed my hopes there and then.

I appreciate the Minister’s point. I think she mentioned “levelling up”, but this amendment is to try to give effect to levelling up. It is not to lock people out; it is to make sure that levelling up is delivered for them. I think that there is possibly somewhere where we can meet there.

As ever, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for her genuine support. I am pleased to hear from the Minister’s remarks that there is some work to be done. I would like to have further discussion, perhaps with the LGA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. There may be something that we could work on, or at least tip our hats to—I do not know. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

However, from the point of view of this Bill, I agree with the principle of devolving those services that should be for local people to organise, but the revolutionary idea of putting in law that it has to happen is a bit too far for us.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 13, which seeks to ensure that power is moved away from central government—we all agree with that—to strategic and local authorities. The amendment would place a new statutory duty on strategic and local authorities to

“consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level”

of government. Should the strategic authority or local authority believe that to be the case, they must

“act so as to enable such devolution”.

I am afraid that this amendment runs counter to the spirit and purpose of the Bill, and risks creating a patchwork of powers across England, with strategic authorities and local authorities holding different sets of powers depending on where they are in England. We believe that allowing different tiers and areas to hold different responsibilities would blur accountability, make it harder for the public to understand who is responsible for what, and weaken value-for-money assurance for investment by increasing duplication and misalignment. The amendment also risks devolving powers to bodies without the capacity to deliver them effectively—which is part of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott; people need to be willing to accept the duties—and could impose disproportionate and impractical consultation burdens on strategic authorities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not want to give the idea that the parish and town councils across this country would not be able to do it. Some will, but some will not. I know town councils and parishes that run better services than district councils ever did.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was highlighting the fact that the noble Baroness spoke about the willingness to adopt services, which I believe is important.

The devolution framework is designed to eliminate risk by ensuring that mayors and strategic authorities are given a consistent and coherent set of functions, to ensure that strategic authorities can make strategic decisions and deliver policies that span multiple local authority areas. It is important that all tiers of local government work together in the interests of their local communities. That is why local authorities are embedded within the decision-making structures of combined authorities and combined county authorities as full constituent and voting members. A blanket requirement for a strategic authority to meet tiers of local government is a significant administrative burden; for example, in North Yorkshire alone, there are 412 parish and town councils. There is nothing wrong with expecting mayors and local authority leaders to communicate with them, but imposing that approach could place a considerable cost of consultation on them and potentially crowd out the time they need for their core strategic responsibilities.

I take the noble Baroness’s point about town and parish councils. We are introducing a system of neighbourhood governance, and it is important that we have our debates on that when the time comes. We will, I am sure, debate the role of town and parish councils, but including them in the Bill would have indicated to them that the Bill will have some impact on them that it is not intended for the Bill to have. I totally recognise the work that our town and parish councils do around the country: it is important and I know that we will have those discussions when we get to those elements of the Bill.

On Amendment 13, it is important that we do not interrupt the Government’s intention to give a consistent and coherent set of functions to strategic authorities and that their work dovetails with what our local authorities are doing. I hope that that has reassured the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to clarify one of the statements she made. This is a devolution Bill. She implied that she wants clarity that all functions are done at the same level across the country. To my mind, the whole purpose of devolution is that you do it at the level that is most appropriate. That may be very different, for instance, in Yorkshire compared with Stevenage. My noble friends from Yorkshire and Lancashire have disappeared, so I cannot refer to them. It may be that there is a brilliant parish council that can take on more responsibility—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned Salisbury—whereas, in another area, we may say, “Well, no, that’s better done at the unitary or strategic level”. Devolution is about that local determination of how services are delivered at the best level for the best results for residents. I want to make sure that the Minister was not implying that that is not the case.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have set out clearly in the Bill—with the competences, for example—where we see strategic responsibilities lying and where local council leaders will be responsible for the services they deliver. As we go through the local government reorganisation process, we will have unitary authorities across the country delivering those services. What we do not want to do is muddy the waters by saying that there will be some areas that have different strategic powers from others. That is why we have set out the competences in the Bill.

It is not about what you deliver at local level because the strategic competences allow that to be flexible across different geographies and demographics. It is about ensuring that the strategic level is delivered by the combined authority and local services are delivered by the local authority. I do not think it would be helpful to muddy those waters by having the picture be different across the country.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister asked whether I was satisfied by her responses; I am actually more worried now than when I started. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just said.

I will give an example of where the Government are heading for great difficulty. Let us take the area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. “Local” is not defined—I think my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will come back on the issue of definition at a later stage. I understand that strategic transport and major capital infrastructure, such as on a new railway line, is a strategic matter for a strategic authority, but I hope that transport and local infrastructure does not mean that every traffic-calming scheme in every residential road of a local authority has to be signed off by the mayor. I am keen for the Minister to be clear about what these terms mean because the Bill is not clear.

I jokingly referred to the powers I am proposing being revolutionary. They are very different, but they are an attempt to get everyone to understand that if you have a devolution Bill and think it is about devolution, it has to be devolution from the strategic authority where the mayor and the authority think their powers could go to local government. That debate has to be had. It is not, as the Minister said, about ending up with a patchwork of powers. Of course there will be differences in local areas. That is a positive, not a negative thing. Let us not call it a “patchwork” because that means that Whitehall and Ministers want to run 56 million people in England. In the end, having a standard system that everybody must fit into will not work. It will be a cause of great difficulty.

I am encouraged by some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said—that there are correct things in it, there are principles and it is well intended. The test of successful devolution is a willingness to devolve power from yourself rather than demanding it to yourself. The test is for the strategic authority to say, “We think the powers we have in this area could well be carried out by a local authority, so let’s talk about it”, and say to the local authority, “You in turn must decide whether you need to undertake these powers directly or can devolve them to others, including town and parish councils”. I do not believe that the Government will ever succeed with community empowerment plans unless they empower communities. This Bill is not doing that.

Paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill says:

“The Bill will introduce a requirement on all local authorities in England to establish effective neighbourhood governance, to move decision making closer to residents, empowering ward councillors to address the issues most important to their communities at a local level”.


What it does not say is that that would not include the planning process or a whole set of services that local people might want to have some say in. The Government cannot make statements like that without then delivering the means to increase community empowerment. I will not give up on my Amendment 13. True devolutionists must follow their desire to give power to others to use in a country of 56 million people. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I speak on this group of amendments concerning Clause 3, which addresses the creation of single foundation strategic authorities. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook are probing in nature, and we have also given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.

At the heart of our concerns is the familiar theme that we have returned to throughout the Bill, and I suspect we will again—the balance of power between central government and local communities. Too often the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create, reshape or direct local government structures with minimal checks, consultation and accountability. That is not the model of devolution that we believe in.

I also ask the Minister for clarification on the role of single foundation strategic authorities. Will all unitary and counties not in a combined authority be offered the opportunity to be a single foundation strategic authority? What powers and funding will they be given and how does this compare to combined authorities, mayoral and foundation mayoral authorities? Where will a single foundation strategic authority fit in the landscape? Could it be forced into a combined authority?

Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is sensible and necessary. It would require the Secretary of State to consult all levels of local government in an affected area before designating a single foundation strategic authority. Indeed, I would go further. Consultation should involve not only local authorities but local residents. If we are serious about localism and empowering communities, rather than simply rearranging governance structures, the voices of the people who live and work in those areas must be heard.

Amendment 15 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook probes whether the affirmative procedure alone is sufficient scrutiny for the Secretary of State’s powers under this clause. Given the scale of the decisions being taken and the potential impact on local governance and accountability, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament should have a more substantial role in overseeing these powers.

Throughout this Bill we have systematically sought to remove or constrain the Secretary of State’s ability to create new authorities or confer new powers without proper consultation or local consent. Clause 3 as drafted continues the pattern of centralisation. For that reason, we have tabled an amendment opposing the question that Clause 3 stands part of the Bill. We believe that the Government must provide far greater clarity about how and when these powers will be used and what safeguards will be in place.

As I said earlier, this is a theme that we will return to later in the Bill. For now, I hope the Minister will reflect on the strong arguments made today for a more genuinely localist approach, one that respects local government, involves local residents and ensures that decisions about local government are not taken unilaterally by the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, for their amendments on single foundation strategic authorities. Clause 3 provides a power for the Secretary State to designate a single unitary council or county council that is not covered by an existing strategic authority as a single foundation strategic authority. Any future designation of a single foundation strategic authority will be subject to the consent of the council involved. For this reason, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, is not a necessary requirement.

I appreciate the intention behind the proposal. However, it would not be proportionate to impose an additional requirement to consult every level of local government within the proposed area of the single foundation strategic authority. The principal body affected by the designation will be the old unitary county council and no designation can be made without the consent of the relevant council.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, probes whether Clause 3 should be included in the Bill. Clause 3 is vital to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its ambition to ensure that everywhere in England can benefit from devolution. The Government recognise that non-mayoral devolution to single local authorities can serve as an important foundational step, allowing areas to see early benefits from devolution, while considering all options for unlocking deeper devolution by working with neighbouring local authorities in combined authorities and combined county authorities, over the longer term.

The second amendment in the group, Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, probes whether the affirmative procedure is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s power to designate a council as a single foundation strategic authority. I should reassure the Committee that this is in line with the long-established practice whereby secondary legislation is used to establish new institutions and to implement agreed devolution agreements within areas.

In addition, the use of the affirmative procedure ensures that no designation can be made without the approval of both Houses. As I said, we want local authority designations to be done at the local level; that is the provision, I believe. However, the Government recognise that, in rare cases, non-mayoral devolution can serve as an important first step. To access further functions available at the mayoral tier, single councils will need to work across a wider geography.

I will let the noble Lord know about the issue of funding in due course in writing, if that is okay. Establishing those single foundation strategic authorities will accelerate the transfer of powers out of Whitehall to local government so that local leaders have a greater say over decisions in those areas.

With these reassurances, I ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Janke, to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister said that the affirmative procedure had to go through both Houses; I understand that. We have set up unitary authorities through secondary legislation up until now, and this Bill has never been needed. However, I am not quite sure what happens with a local authority that does not want this. Is there a power through the affirmative procedure for the Secretary of State to insist that a local authority, which does not want to become a single foundation authority for whatever reason, will have to do it? Will that go through the affirmative procedure or not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Government have made our intention very clear: we want to see unitary authorities established across the country. We want that initiative to come from local areas themselves. Some areas may be more comfortable going into the single foundation authority first, before they take the step to go into a combined authority; that is what the provision in the Bill is about. We want to make sure that there are unitary authorities across the country. In extreme circumstances, I believe, the Secretary of State has a power to make sure that it does happen, but that would be very much a power of last resort; we would not want to use it unless there could be no agreement any other way.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister kindly said that she would write to me about funding, but I had two other related questions. First, will all authorities be able to say, “I want to be a foundation authority”, or is that going to be limited in some way? Secondly, if you are a single foundation strategic authority, could you still be forced into a combined authority at a later date?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

For most local authorities—I have spoken to a great number of them over the past few months—the attraction of taking your unitary authority and going into a combined authority is the ability to have the greater powers that that level of devolution will accrue to the area and the communities for which you are responsible. I think that it will be the exception rather than the rule that people will want to be a single foundation authority, but they may be more comfortable with using that as a first step then working it out for themselves. This has happened to a certain extent through the whole devolution programme. Where people are in a unitary authority, they will look around them to see which of the surrounding authorities work best in terms of their economy and public services, as well as which model makes more sense to their local community, before they decide which way to go; if they wish to take some time to do that, the Bill makes provision for that.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I do, however, feel that there is a distinct lack of local input into the proposals in this Bill; that is one of the symptoms of the approach the Government are taking. They seem to be taking the view that they have decided what will be imposed on the country and are not particularly concerned about what local people think about it. I point to the regional assemblies, where they did the same thing and incurred huge hostility and a lack of trust from local people—not least in arguments about geography and local differences that took up quite a lot of government time and energy.

I think what the Government are trying to introduce here is uniformity, rather than devolution, and they will find an unwilling reception for their attempt to impose uniformity. People do not want mayors, who are very often seen as the outpost for central government; they also do not want local change imposed from Whitehall. I wish the Government luck with the Bill. Local government reform is a very sensitive business and maybe if Sir Humphrey were here, he would be saying that the Government are being very courageous. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for the present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There were a lot of amendments in this group, but we whipped through it very quickly, so I thank noble Lords. The amendments in the group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seek collectively to remove the Secretary of State’s new powers to direct the creation or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change the public want to see, led by local leaders who know their areas best. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution.

As I have said, I have been involved in local government for a very long time. We have tinkered around with this issue for a very long time indeed, and it is time we provided some certainty and stability. Our engagement to date with councils across England has demonstrated the appetite for devolution within local government. I have spoken to many of them and visited many areas that do not currently have those devolution arrangements.

Devolution, of course, should be locally led wherever possible, and the Government remain committed to working in partnership with local government to deliver that vision. At the same time, we have been clear that we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas accessing devolution—that would be very difficult for those areas—or risk creating devolution islands. The backstop mechanism in the Bill will allow the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how to access devolved powers. That will ensure that all of England can benefit from devolution and nowhere is left behind.

Chinese Embassy

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, it is deeply regrettable that this Urgent Question was not answered by the Security Minister in the other place, given that it was asked by the shadow Security Minister. In light of her significant experience in your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness the Minister is of course aware that, here, Ministers answer for the whole Government and not just their department. Accordingly, when I go on to ask a question about security issues, I am sure that she will not disappoint us by saying that this is a live planning matter that cannot be commented on.

With that in mind, the United States has said that it is deeply concerned by the new Chinese mega-embassy, given its now-revealed secret rooms and its location. Can the Minister say whether our allies, including the United States, back the approval of the embassy?

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

My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, so I will say that it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application. He would expect me to say that and I say it on behalf of the whole Government, not just MHCLG. National security is the first duty of government more generally. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision in this case.

As the noble Lord knows, the Government regularly engage with representatives of foreign Governments, including the United States, to discuss a broad range of issues. Details of those discussions are not made public.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is a material circumstance that this will be the largest Communist Party of China building in Europe? It will co-ordinate transnational repression in the United Kingdom and espionage on an industrial scale, including electronic and human surveillance, and initiate bounties on British passport holders resident here in the United Kingdom. When the Prime Minister visits Beijing, instead of congratulating China on having planning approval for its embassy, should he not inform the Chinese authorities that we will put China on the foreign influence registration scheme, prosecute those putting bounties on British passport holders resident in the UK and tighten international repression laws here in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand noble Lords’ frustration about our not yet being able to answer some of the questions about which material considerations have been taken into account, but they will be when we determine the application. This is a decision for planning Ministers, independent of the rest of government. Planning Ministers must take decisions following the quasi-judicial process that is completely right and correct for those decisions and based on evidence and planning rules. On transnational repression, we will not tolerate attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, can we now come to some degree of reality? Embassies are for relations between states; they do not imply approval of states. Furthermore, spying activities have emanated from embassies right the way back to ambassadors being expelled from this country for being part of plots to assassinate monarchs, let alone the regular expulsion of Russian spies from the Russian embassy. Can we be very clear about the size of the embassy? Large countries tend to have large embassies, and China is a very large country. That is just a fact. Can we deal with this practically rather than with overexaggeration?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend raises the size of the embassy. That will be taken into account by the decision-making Minister as a material planning consideration.

In relation to China’s presence in the UK, it already has seven diplomatic buildings in this country. It is not new for it to have a presence here; this is about a particular planning application for a new embassy. Decisions will be taken according to the material planning considerations. I am sorry; I know it sounds a bit like Groundhog Day, but I am afraid that is what you will get from me, whichever way the question is framed.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, most Londoners know just how difficult it is to get a tiny little extension approved for the back of their house. Why on earth does a foreign embassy need such a huge building in such an important area? Even the United States of America does not have such a huge embassy. Aside from security issues, does she not agree that this is a ridiculous application?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has a view on that, but the Ministers taking the decision have to determine the application as it stands. The documents were submitted correctly to Tower Hamlets Council and the decision is now being considered in MHCLG. It is a decision for planning Ministers. It is open for any party to make representations about the case, the matter the noble Baroness raises or anything else. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making the decision.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I appreciate all the constraints, and any expertise that I had is extremely out of date, but does the Minister agree that it is conceivable that those responsible for keeping an eye on the Chinese embassy might prefer it to be concentrated on one site, rather than spread over eight, nine or 10 all over London?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a matter for the security services and not for planning.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is very keen on talking about material planning considerations, and she has already said that the size of the embassy is one of those. May I ask about one of the other planning considerations, which has caused a great deal of concern: the proximity of the embassy to important data infrastructure? In considering the material nature of the planning consideration, has a full risk analysis been carried out on this issue, who carried out that risk analysis, and were any mitigating issues suggested by that risk assessment?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As is usual with a planning application, all interested parties were able to submit representations to the planning inquiry when that took place, and they have subsequently been able to submit representations to the department as it considered this application. There were submissions from the Foreign Office and the Home Office and I am sure that very due consideration will be paid to those, in the original process and as the matter moves forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Mine is also a material planning question. Given the human rights abuses in China against the Uyghurs, the Tibetan people, the Hong Kongers and many others, large protests can be expected outside the embassy, and we surely want to facilitate those protests—the right for peaceful protest here in the UK. Police have expressed concern that the site is not appropriate for such protests. Is this being taken into consideration?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The police, like other interested parties, are able to submit their information to the planning inspector and, now, to the Minister who is making the decision. When the decision is taken—and my understanding is that the final decision will be made on or before 20 January—all the relevant submissions will be made public.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a resident of Tower Hamlets, I point out that the first Chinatown in the UK existed in the East End of London, not far from where the current building is proposed—a building that has been largely disused for approximately eight years. Therefore, does the Minister agree with me that the important issue here is that we apply and enforce the same laws and principles as we would with any other country?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point: if we were considering this planning application for any embassy, we would consider it according to the propriety guidance that exists around planning applications, which is very strong, and strictly according to the material considerations that need to be taken into account for planning. That process is broad and wide and allows all interested parties to submit the information that they feel is relevant to the planning application. It is then for the decision-maker to decide which of those should influence their decision.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, we have been told that security is a planning issue—that it is relevant to it. What are the criteria by which security is to be measured in this context?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are two elements of security: one is the security of the building itself and the other is the security of the site. Where those are material planning considerations, they will be taken into account as they should be, as will any submissions from the Security Service, the police and others when the planning application is considered.