Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Bach and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I rise to express deep concern over this statutory instrument, which marks yet another step in the Government’s rushed approach to local government restructuring. While we continue to support meaningful devolution that enables local communities to thrive and prosper, we are concerned about the process being followed and the sweeping changes being imposed top-down on our local authorities. Quite simply, devolution should be locally led, and these measures are not. We believe that no council should be coerced or pressured into restructuring by a top-down diktat from Whitehall. It is wrong for the Government to adopt a divide-and-rule approach to local government.

I turn to the effect of these measures. This statutory instrument is not just a procedural shift; it is a clear manifestation of the Government’s top-down approach to restructuring local government, with little or no consideration for local consensus. We are particularly concerned about the unprecedented delays—up to three years—and the prospect of existing councillors serving up to a seven-year term. The Government’s decision to bypass any public consultation on this is a significant failure. I ask the Minister: why were the public not consulted on these changes? How can the Government justify proceeding with such a major overhaul without having meaningful engagement with local communities first?

Local councils themselves were given a mere deadline of 10 January 2025 to submit expressions of interest for restructuring, with no further opportunity for public consultation or engagement with those who will be directly impacted by these decisions. The entire exercise has been rushed: from the publication of the devolution White Paper to a minimal feedback period of only four weeks, which included the Christmas break. District councils were never properly consulted either and residents have not been asked for their views. Local government experts have warned:

“We are dealing with the worst white paper for local government in living memory and one which treats it with cavalier disregard”.


That was from the “Local Authority” podcast of 26 January 2025. Will the Minister please respond to what I consider to be serious concerns?

We have heard that this statutory instrument claims to postpone the May 2025 elections, yet this is far more than a postponement. We believe it is an outright cancellation for these councils—specifically, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Thurrock and West Sussex—all under the guise of the devolution priority programme. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for these new elections, including county, unitary, district and mayoral elections, taking into account any changes to ward boundaries?

While I am on the subject of boundary changes, the long-term implications of such changes are a matter of great concern. As we move forward with the creation of new authorities and the restructuring of local government, the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be crucial in determining how these changes are implemented. Will the Minister outline the timetable for these boundary changes? We need to know when the Local Government Boundary Commission will begin its review and how long it will take to finalise the new boundaries for the affected councils. If she cannot answer today, please will she write to me with all those details?

Can the Minister also provide any assurance that the Local Government Boundary Commission’s recommendations will be made publicly available well in advance, allowing local councils, residents and other stakeholders to fully engage with and review the proposed changes before they are finalised, as has always been the case? Without clear communication and ample time for consultation, we risk a lack of transparency and fairness in redrawing the boundaries.

Given the concerns I have raised today, some noble Lords may be wondering why I have tabled a regret Motion and not a fatal Motion, such as those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pinnock. We are the Official Opposition and there is a long-standing convention under successive Governments of all colours, and recognised by the major parties at least since the 1950s, on the constitutional relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the House of Lords to scrutinise and, where appropriate, revise legislation—and, ultimately, to respect the will of the elected House. But that does not detract from the concerns I have raised today.

While we all want to work collaboratively with local government to ensure that these changes are beneficial for our communities, the current process has been rushed and lacks the necessary consideration of local views and the needs of local communities. We urge the Government to pause, reconsider the pace of these changes and offer a clearer, more structured plan that involves local authorities and their residents in shaping the future of what is their local government.

If the fatal Motions fall, I shall be testing the opinion of the House on my regret Motion.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this Government’s plans for devolution. For years and years, the local government map has needed to be changed. That is a fact, but no Government have attempted to do it for many years.

Changing local government is not an easy task and requires political parties, and of course local authorities and the Government themselves, to look further than just at their short-term political advantage, so that England can enjoy a modern and effective local government system that has real power and influence, while taking some of the power away from the centre. This takes time and I commend the Government’s approach. The matter before the House today is of importance, but I really do not think that it is an attack on the principles of democracy. Those who say it is are mistaken.

I will make one further point before I sit down. The Government have proposals that had to be put in by 21 March—last week. They want and need time to consider them, and to come up with views and proposals themselves. I think that will be by the end of the year. It is one of those proposals that I want to talk about.

I want the Government to consider, when they make their proposals, something that, if acted on, will put right what I consider to be a serious mistake, or accident, that occurred many decades ago in the 1970s in England. Some noble Lords will remember the dividing up of English cities into metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Very sensibly, many cities had their boundaries increased so that they could accord with reality. They could have the space and the geographical diversity to offer their residents all that a city should, including space for new housing, green spaces and facilities of all kinds.

Examples of metropolitan cities which were properly extended include Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield. However, the non-metropolitan cities were not so lucky; their boundaries remained precisely the same. In many cases, these are boundaries that are now over 100 years old. This has led to city boundaries sometimes being totally artificial, with nowhere to build up housing. Any reasonable person using their common sense can see how ridiculous some of the boundaries are for cities at present. I should add that I have been a police and crime commissioner for an area that had unitary authorities, a county council and district councils. I have also been a local councillor in both a city and a district.

Leicester is a classic example of a non-metropolitan city at that time that suffered, as others did, from the ridiculous decisions taken in the 1970s. Its present boundaries are genuinely ridiculous. It is one of the most tightly constrained cities in the whole United Kingdom. Its boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 100 years. It has no chance of delivering, for example, the extra housing that is vitally needed. The population density is enormous compared with the cities I referred to that were lucky enough to have their boundaries extended. The figures speak for themselves. In Sheffield the population per square kilometre is 1,200 people. In Leicester, the population per square kilometre is 5,000 people. That is totally wrong.

I make these points in this debate because the Government will have to make their decision on issues such as this when it comes to the right time to make those decisions. I want to give the Government a chance to make the right decision as far as cities and other parts of local government are concerned. That is why I think the Government deserve our support tonight.

Residential Leasehold

Debate between Lord Bach and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are doing everything they can. They are making sure that, as she has said, the perpetrator pays, and they have put large amounts of money into this. It takes time to work through the remediation of these buildings, but we are working at pace and pushing the industry the whole time to ensure that it makes these buildings safe as soon as possible.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

The Minister agrees that some leaseholders will need advice, but who is going to pay for that advice? Do the Government think they might extend legal aid to cover it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, we do not intend to extend legal aid. For leaseholders who are considering what to do in future, we have made it very clear that it will be in this Parliament, and they just need to wait and take advice at this time until we can get these changes in place.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Bach and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Committee stage
Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers a number of matters relating to combined county authorities, combined authorities and local authorities, including NHS functions, the conferral of additional functions on combined authority mayors, the fair funding review, trade union liaison and bus services.

I start with Amendments 89 and 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Together, they would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on proposals for the devolution of health functions to authorities and subsequent reports at 24-month intervals. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the existing provisions for reporting on the conferral of health functions on to a local authority, combined authority or combined county authority are sufficient. The regulations that would confer health functions on to a local area would be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum setting out why the functions are to be conferred. The regulations also require parliamentary approval, giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the impact of such a conferral of functions. Also, under Section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, the Secretary of State has to publish an annual report about devolution, including listing any functions—including health functions—devolved to areas in the preceding 12 months.

The noble Lord’s explanatory statements say that these amendments are intended to probe our

“commitment to transferring NHS responsibilities to local government”.

To clarify, our devolution legislation is enabling legislation. Where an area is interested in the conferral of health functions on to a combined authority, local authority or combined county authority, it is possible to do this via secondary legislation. To date, the only area that has taken up this opportunity is the Greater Manchester combined authority, as we have debated; however, in principle, other devolution bids can include these same requests.

Section 18 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 sets out which health functions can and cannot be devolved. As noble Lords have mentioned, the kinds of functions that can be devolved include the joint local commissioning of health services. In contrast, the kinds of functions that cannot be devolved include, as noble Lords might expect, health service regulatory functions vested in national regulatory bodies responsible for such functions. Let me be clear: the devolution of health functions does not alter the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the NHS. As this Government have consistently made clear, they are and remain a priority for us.

Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Government to co-operate with trade unions representing employees of combined county authorities that have responsibilities for transport. I support the noble Baroness’s sentiment here that it is important that we engage with trade unions representing transport employees of CCAs. It will, however, be the combined county authority itself as the employer that will be involved in recognising and collectively bargaining with any trade union representing staff at that workplace.

The Secretary of State will not be party to that relationship. Therefore, placing an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to co-operate with a trade union representing those staff risks undermining the relationship between the combined county authority, as the employer, and the trade union. I do not think that this would be appropriate; it is for local agreement. More generally, the Secretary of State consults with a large number of groups, including trade unions, on issues that affect local transport in combined county authority areas.

I shall move on to the Clause 58 stand part debate. Turning to the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Shipley and Lord Bach, and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Clause 58 introduces a new process enabling mayors of combined authorities to take on new public authority functions via a request to the Secretary of State to deepen devolution, in order to remove barriers and give our local leaders more powers to drive the economic, social and environmental improvements locally that their residents, businesses and areas need. It is, however, deliberately limited in scope.

The provision relates only to the transfer of other public authority functions; namely, those currently carried out and funded by organisations other than local authorities such as government departments or their agencies. It makes no change to the consent regime for the transfer of local authority functions, as set out in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, because we fully recognise that local agreement is key to successfully transferring such functions either to be delivered across a wider geographical area by a combined authority or, in some circumstances, to be exercised by the mayor individually.

We have also included an additional safeguard on the use of this provision to make sure that the voice of local authorities is still heard. In making any request for new functions to the Secretary of State, mayors will need to set out the views of their constituent councils and then provide a rationale for proceeding, if any of them disagree. More broadly, this clause also retains the long-established principle that we have had for all combined authority legislation that deepens devolution through new powers; that is, that it must be subject to what has often been referred to as to the triple-lock of consents. It must be consented to locally—in this case, by the mayor with the input from the constituent councils—agreed by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament. I hope my explanation provides noble Lords with further information such that they could reconsider their opposition to this clause.

On Clause 59, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bach, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Shipley, and many others, the levelling up White Paper, which was consulted on widely, included reference to mayors of combined authorities taking on police and crime commissioner functions where policing boundaries were coterminous with those of the combined authority. It also committed the Government to taking steps to remove the barriers to more combined authority mayors taking on PCC functions. Clause 59 amends the existing provision by removing the requirements of consent from the combined authority and its constituent councils to the transfer of the PCC functions to be exercised by the mayor. This will enable the Secretary of State to make an order providing for a combined authority mayor to take on PCC functions for the combined authority’s area, subject to mayoral consent only.

PCC functions can be exercised only by the mayor. Combined authorities and their constituent councils have no role in the exercise of PCC functions. Therefore, the clause makes it clear that only mayoral consent is required for a transfer. These changes are designed to enable more mayors to take on PCC functions where this has been agreed; for example, within a devolution deal, in line with our White Paper commitment. The transfer of PCC functions to a combined authority mayor would not only preserve the democratic accountability established by the PCC model but can also offer wider levers to prevent crime. Powerful local mayors—

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I thank her for what she has said so far, but I want to ask her why there is no need for consultation of any kind under Clause 59. She praised the consultation that was necessary under Clause 58 and made it part of her argument. Why is there none in Clause 59?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that is because, as I said, the role of the PCC does not impinge on the roles of the constituency councils. It is purely a role for the mayor. When you are looking at things to do with health, you are probably including the care roles of many councils.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

Each district council has to have a community safety committee, which is made up of district councillors, others and the local police—it is very much involved in policing. As has been said earlier, and used as an argument by the Government, every police and crime panel must have someone from each district council in the police force area. There is a clear link between the constituent councils. Given that link is so important, how can the Minister really argue that on Clause 58 consultation is necessary but on Clause 59 it has nothing to do with the districts or the county?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I did not say it has nothing to do with the districts or the county—

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Lord Bach and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I have said, we are doing everything we possibly can, first, by having mandatory reconsiderations in-house with a separate team, but also by providing holistic decision-making support so that we can make sure we are working with people and that as few as possible cases go to tribunal.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

Why, according to the latest official statistics, were there 36,000 social security and child support cases outstanding at the end of June this year and why did it take, as has already been mentioned, a mean average of 39 weeks—a figure that is going up—to dispose of them at tribunal? Does the Minister understand that the removal of legal aid for welfare benefits advice has led to fewer cases being sorted out and resolved well before they reach tribunal? Will she advise her colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to do something immediately to restore some modest legal aid in this area?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, legal aid was not available for representation before the First-tier Tribunal ahead of its reform, anyway; it was only available for advice and preparation. Tribunal proceedings are designed to be straightforward and accessible to all. They are inquisitory, not adversarial and the tribunal panel is trained and experienced in dealing with a wide range of applicants with individual needs. The DWP is supporting people—there is no need for legal aid in these tribunals.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Bach and Baroness Scott of Bybrook

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

First of all, I make the House aware of my job as a leader of Wiltshire Council, which is on the register of interests. I have looked at these clauses on collaboration of emergency services and I would have preferred the Government to have been stronger. On considering the opportunities to collaborate, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there is a lot of good collaboration already going on, not just between fire and police but with local authorities as well. In Wiltshire, there are police stations in all the main hubs; they are not just front offices. We have guns and CS gas and response cars outside. That has meant that some of our major police stations have been able to close, saving huge amounts of public money. In Wiltshire, we also do all the police’s IT and we manage their project management. It is quite usual to see the chief constable and the PCC in my offices, working together with my officers. That is good collaboration. This should continue and the Government need to encourage more authorities to do that more readily.

There are, however, barriers to further collaboration. In Wiltshire, we would have loved to have joined both fire and police under our PCC. That would be the best use of public resources, not just financial, but people and assets as well. But we cannot do that now, because Wiltshire fire and rescue, earlier this year, joined with Dorset fire and rescue. Dorset police work with Cornwall and Devon. Wiltshire police work in collaboration on major crimes with Avon and Somerset and Gloucester. There are two PCCs—the whole thing is a muddle. The barrier is that there is no co-terminosity between different public service authorities and this is, I think, probably getting worse. If Wiltshire or any other authority were to ask to change the joining up of fire authorities or police authorities to make them co-terminus with the local authority, would the Minister listen to that request so that we could perhaps have properly joined-up public services? Health is a thing on the end; I think that is a more difficult discussion. In Wiltshire, we could get fire, police and a local authority working very closely together, saving huge amounts of money. Can we look at the areas that are barriers to doing that?

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. This group of amendments is very interesting, as is the first part of the Bill with these early clauses on statutory collaboration. It would be hard to find anyone, anywhere who does not believe that collaboration between the emergency services is a good thing. At any time, not just at a time—as at present —of economic uncertainty, it must be advantageous for services to work closely together, not just because of the savings that may be made but because it is better for the members of the public who need the help or assistance that the emergency services can give.

On whether a statutory requirement is necessary, I remain a little sceptical. It may help, it may not. What really matters, it seems to me, is whether the collaboration is—to use the phrase—bottom-up; in other words, comes naturally and is not forced. My feeling is that that is happening more and more around the country. In the Leicestershire area—Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland—collaborative programmes have been started and others are planned for the future. We have to take a chance with them. They may not always succeed, and we have to be aware of that.

I was grateful to the Minister and her officials for meeting me this morning to discuss such a scheme in Leicester called Braunstone Blues, which is still in its comparatively early days. Its origin lies in the excessive number of 999 calls made to the emergency services by some individuals and families living in that general area of the city, some of which could not be classed as emergencies by any standards, but were made none the less. They, of course, involved cost resources, both financial and human. As a consequence of that, the police, fire and rescue services, ambulance service, city council and health authorities got together to run a programme that involves visiting and, if necessary, helping people in that area. They are given advice about the unnecessary calls, of course, but help is also offered beyond that with other issues and concerns. This joint work has begun to show results but there is a long way to go.

The point I am attempting to make is that this is exactly the sort of bottom-up collaboration which should be encouraged. If the Bill has the effect of encouraging collaboration, with or without these amendments and with or without a statutory basis, that is very much to be welcomed. I, too, look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to the questions that have been asked.