English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for speaking. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular. I strongly support the stand part notices on Clause 59 and Schedule 27. The reason has been explained. This is a devolution Bill about community empowerment, but the Government are removing the right of local people to decide for themselves what system of governance they want.

We have this devolution Bill, but the Government decide the form of local governance and say that there will not be a committee system. Where are we now? We are in Parliament, operating as a Committee. I have spoken on this issue many times in recent years. The reason why I believe that we should encourage committee systems is that they decentralise power but, more importantly, they enable scrutiny to take place at the point of decision-making. All too often, scrutiny in local government takes place after the decision. We will debate this further on our eighth day in Committee but I think that this is a fundamental right. I just want to keep the right of a community to create the structure that it wants. That right lies in the Localism Act 2011.

I very much hope that we will come back to this issue on Report. However, there are rumours that we may not get a Report stage and may end up in wash-up prior to Prorogation, because there are not many weeks left. We have a further day in Committee on 5 March and we have to leave an interval to reach Report. Can the Minister tell us whether we are going to have a Report stage? Also, if we are going to have a Report stage, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will bring this back, because that would give us the power to say to the Government, “You have to think again on this issue. Do not tell local people in all local authorities what model they are required to adopt”.

In the Explanatory Notes, there are explanations for why the Government are undertaking this, but, frankly, they are spurious. They claim that there is evidence, but I do not know what the evidence is. In the end, why do we not just trust local people to make decisions? Otherwise, 56 million people in England will continue to be run out of London and Whitehall.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.

As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.

I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a most interesting group of amendments, and there is deep food for thought in what should come back to the House when we get to Report.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I must say that I had not understood the figure of 50,000, but at the very end he clarified that that could be a matter of discussion. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has covered that issue as well. A difference between my party and that of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Gascoigne, is that they are both trying to give excess power to the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked at the very beginning of this group why we had not supported his previous amendment a few weeks ago on the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether an authority was fit to undertake additional powers. Our concern was that these matters should not lie with the Secretary of State, who would have power to make these decisions without necessarily having the right degree of accountability for it. It is better to give the power to local electorates.

In the end, I am not sure that local communities need to be protected by the Secretary of State from the level of tax to be paid. I think that the local ballot box is the protection at that stage—so I hope that, when the noble Lord thinks about bringing this amendment back on Report, he bears in mind that the major power lies with the local electorate.

My noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lady Janke both raised issues around fiscal power and the understandability and accessibility of financial matters for local people. This is of fundamental importance; it is about devolution. We need to have a transparent negotiation of fiscal powers of government. I accept totally that this is a process—it does not happen overnight—but I hope that the Government’s consultation on powers over tourism tax will be positive. Local areas are going to have to be more responsible for the level and nature of the taxes that they raise to pay for local services. We look forward to an outcome of the negotiation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised a very interesting question about the business rate supplement. I want to think further about that, because it is a very interesting suggestion. We have to have the detail right. One thing I have noticed about raising taxes locally is that, if people know what it is that the extra money that they are paying is going to be spent on, there is a direct relationship, which you tend to get with parish and town councils and with some kinds of business rate supplements. I think there is potential here for further thought.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we will take this away and think further about the possibilities for driving ahead on a system of business rate supplements supported or underpinned by clear consultation with local areas and a clear attachment to a specific project. Then, the general public will be more amenable to what councils are trying to do and how the funding is going to be provided.

My name, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Janke is on Amendment 190. I hope that the Minister will be positive about thinking through bringing forward proposals for fiscal devolution because, for devolution to work, you have to give greater powers over fiscal policy to the constituent parts of England. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group of amendments. We keep coming back to the same sorts of issues as in the previous group. We were talking about devolution in relation to health, and fiscal devolution and trying to extract money out of the NHS.

Now we come to a different level of fiscal devolution, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne raised the point that a lot of people outside the London bubble are frustrated. I emphasise that it is not just in the north; I was on the south coast in Southampton this weekend, where there are lots of frustrated people. I can assure you that if you drove along the pothole-encrusted roads of Bedfordshire, there are lots of frustrated people there as well.

This is important because people care about their communities and they want their communities to be better. They care about place, and you cannot create great places by diktat from Whitehall. I recall saying that two or three times earlier in this Committee. That means you need real devolution and real powers. It also means real fiscal devolution; we have a number of suggestions on fiscal devolution here.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Scott made the point that parish councils, particularly small parish councils, are very close to their communities. People can easily see what that extra £10 or £20 or £50 is being spent on—such as extra grass cutting or improvements to the village hall—and they are quite amenable to it. As you start moving away from that and you start breaking that relationship, it becomes much more difficult.

One of the great dangers with fiscal devolution, much as I believe in it, is that central government—I am not making a political point here, but I am blaming Whitehall and the Treasury—see that as an opportunity to raise tax by the back door. We have seen government regularly passing additional responsibilities to local government with a short-term grant and then expecting the council tax payer to fund that burden.

One of the big issues that we have in local government at the moment is that a lot of responsibilities have been passed down; responsibilities are then growing quicker than the tax base, which means many of these issues of place are facing a fiscal squeeze. We have this dichotomy or dilemma: we may want fiscal devolution, but how do we avoid central government cost shunting?

My noble friend Lord Fuller was implying the same thing. It is great to have fiscal freedoms for parish and town councils, but we do not want cost shunting from overpressed district, unitary and county authorities. How do we protect against that cost shunting, where people see higher tax bills but no benefits? Place is important. I am desperately keen for genuine fiscal devolution, but how do we protect our residents from, in effect, cost shunting from Whitehall down the line?

I will talk briefly about some of these amendments. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment is really important, because it is not just about the Secretary of State making a judgment—that is what the Secretary of State would do anyway, if he were to devolve powers—but placing a burden on him to say that he genuinely believes that a council has the financial resources, financial capacity and management resources to do what is being entrusted upon it. It is not just a case of going, “Get on with it. Bye. It is not my fault; it is your fault”, then, a year later, not giving it the money that it needs to deliver those things.

Forgive me, because I cannot remember whether it was from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I accept his point. However, the contra argument is that it places a burden on the Secretary of State to make sure that it is feasible. We need to think about that very important distinction.

The other point to make is that we are going through reorganisation here and we need to ensure that this is not shuffling the deckchairs on the “Titanic”. It has to be about meaningfully improving services for our residents and about better value for money. We should not have reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake, which is why I think this amendment is the right approach.

We have had a number of amendments on fiscal devolution, but I will not go through them all. I have a concern about cost shunting and we have to protect against that. We need to give people real fiscal powers in order to deliver better services for their residents. What we do not need—some of the announcements that have been made today are like this and our Government were the same—is to have to appeal to the Government to get funding to do something. That means the Secretary of State is still in charge and that you are not determining your local priorities but, by the way, all the councils will do it because they want as much money as they can for their residents to deliver as best they can.

This must be underpinned by a real understanding that there are both costs and benefits from devolution, and that the funding arrangements are fair and transparent to local government. One of the biggest fears I have in local government is that the resident and local taxpayer does not see what their funding goes on, because far too much of it is dictated by the Government. These are responsibilities and duties with no funding and no powers, which is something that I might come back to on the next group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.

I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing

“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.

This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.

First, Amendment 133

“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.

Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?

If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,

“including when disposing of it”,

in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it would be unhelpful if regional and local government continued doing their own thing. I think that this is an important debate and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, but the Government might look at the powers that existed with regional development agencies until 2012, in terms of spatial development strategies and the land use framework, when a lot was done. They might revisit that to make sure that everyone going off to do their own thing—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—is avoided.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the Clause 12 stand part notice, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, is intended to probe. We recognise that mayors and mayoral combined authorities will, in practice, need the ability to borrow to deliver infrastructure, regeneration and long-term investment. Borrowing can be a sensible and necessary tool. Our purpose today is not to deny that reality but to seek clarity from the Government about how this power will operate in practice and what safeguards will accompany it.

We would welcome further detail from the Minister on a number of points. First, what caps or controls do the Government envisage on mayoral borrowing? Will these mirror existing prudential borrowing frameworks for local authorities, or will a different regime apply? Secondly, what is the Government’s expectation of the purposes for which this borrowing will be undertaken? Are there limits envisaged on the types of projects or expenditure that may be funded through borrowing? Thirdly, who ultimately underwrites this borrowing? In the event of financial difficulty, where does the liability sit? Does it sit with the combined authority itself, with constituent councils or perhaps with central government?

Finally, what checks will be in place to ensure that borrowing decisions are subject to appropriate scrutiny and transparency, locally and nationally? Devolution must go hand-in-hand with accountability. Granting borrowing powers without clear safeguards risks storing up problems for the future—for local taxpayers and potentially for the Exchequer. I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on these important points. I beg to move.

[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?

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

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this statutory instrument, which I support and which will be hugely helpful for local taxpayers in the generation of local jobs. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate; I look forward to the Minister’s response to all the points made by the noble Lord. I would say just two things. First, we are talking here about procurement contracts below the threshold. Secondly, I believe that best value can include the generation of local jobs as a consequence of that procurement process; there has to be an allowance for that.

I want to ask one specific question of the Minister, which I hope can be replied to now. It touches on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate: the definition of local area. I have not understood it; nor have I understood why there is reference in the Explanatory Notes to the consultation that took place in relation to combined authorities. My immediate reaction when I read this statutory instrument was that I did not understand how combined authorities fitted into this structure. It is quite difficult to see how that would work.

In particular, in Article 3(5)(a), the local area is defined very clearly. It is stated that,

“where there is one relevant authority”—

let us say one council—

“which intends to enter into a relevant contract … the area of that authority”

is the whole of the area of that authority. My understanding of this is that a council cannot subdivide its area; it has to be within its whole area. However, it can also be “the area specified” as

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

I have not understood why the counties and London boroughs are pulled out in this order as being a special case when the metropolitan districts are not in the old metropolitan counties—from my perspective, in the north-east of England, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire. If one council decides to enter a procurement process, is it forbidden to define its local area as a neighbouring authority or part of one?

For the sake of choosing a random example, if Bradford Council decided that it wished to procure as a single authority, would it be able to run the process including a neighbourhood area such as Calderdale, Kirklees or Leeds? I have not understood this; nor have I understood why this issue is not addressed in the context of the Bill on English devolution that is going through, where this issue is not mentioned at all. Procurement does not appear in that Bill. It seems to me that there is a need for clarity on why the combined authorities are excluded and why the London boroughs have become a special case. All metropolitan areas should be a special case.

Beyond that, I am happy for the Minister to write in reply, if this is seen as at all complicated, but we need absolute clarity here now; otherwise, when people start to implement the order, there is going to be confusion about what they are allowed to do. Otherwise, I am in favour of this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

We are generally coming to a fairly positive view across the parties on this instrument. It makes a notable change to the long-standing restrictions in Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which were originally designed to prevent local authorities taking account of non-commercial considerations, including location of supplier, when awarding contracts. As the Minister clearly outlined, this order proposes to disapply that restriction in a narrow set of circumstances, allowing local authorities, best-value authorities and parish councils to reserve below-threshold contracts either to suppliers based anywhere in the United Kingdom or within a defined local area.

The intention is clear: to give local authorities greater flexibility regarding their local economies, their local supply chains and, where appropriate, the use of local SMEs and VCSEs. Many of us recognise that that is a positive move for local government on small-scale contracts. However, it would be helpful to get further clarity on some issues. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Shipley, raised the issue of the definition of boundaries. Is it sub-local? Does it include metropolitan boroughs and so on? I would like assurance and clarity on that, as well as on what level of flexibility there is.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I hope the Minister will be in a frame of mind to accept the amendment that I too have signed. The case has been very amply made by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, and I will seek to be brief as I possibly can. I believe that the Government will not deliver the objectives of the Bill unless they raise the status of planning within local authorities, and I believe it should be a statutory requirement, as it has been in Scotland since April 2024, for there to be chief planning officers in each local planning authority reporting directly to chief executives.

The reasons have been clearly stated both now and in Committee: good decision-making in planning requires well-qualified and professional planning officers at a very senior level who can integrate development management and development planning.

As we have heard, given that more decisions are going to be delegated to officers, the public interest, I think, requires that the quality of decision-making be sound and must generate great confidence within the general public. I think that this amendment would actually deliver that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said a moment ago, a chief planning officer would be an authoritative source of advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just said, there is a new recognition of the value of planning in local government, which will deliver this Bill—it can deliver this Bill—but only if the status of planning has been enhanced. The key way to do it is to have a statutory chief planning officer in each local planning authority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I support this very sensible amendment. We need to ensure that every local authority has the support of a professional, well-qualified head of planning—a chief planner. If we are going to have sensible planning, we need this. I recall a comment earlier—but I do not remember who said it—about the hydra of planning; it becomes more and more complex, and this Bill, frankly, is not helping particularly. Having a qualified head of planning, a chief planner, is critical if we are going to maintain and develop planning, as other noble Lords have said. I do not think I need to say any more—I am just puzzled why the Government are not accepting this.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I was interested to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I note his concerns and hope the Minister will respond to them, but this is such a fundamental issue that it is important that I state that we support the substance of the levy as set out. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said that there is a general acceptance by the industry, despite some of the problems that the Minister will need to address.

I support entirely every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the conclusions that he has reached. I share his concerns about the speed of action—it has been too slow—and the fact that for many leaseholders, nothing in practice has changed. As we have heard, there are deadlines, of 2029 and 2031, which are not far off. However, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that the Treasury might be willing to increase the level of loans to the department. I very much hope that that will prove to be the case.

I have two specific questions for the Minister before I say a few further words. First, I have not understood from the Explanatory Memorandum why there is a three-year review period, as opposed to a shorter one. In the context of what the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, said about speed, reviewing after three years seems to be too long a period. Secondly, why does the purpose-built student accommodation have a threshold of 30 bed spaces for exemptions, as opposed to some other number? Why was the figure of 30 decided on?

These are vital regulations, as they implement one of the cornerstones of the Building Safety Act that was the response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As we know, the purpose of the levy is to provide funding for remediation that is essential in many residential properties in order to assure the safety of residents. This statutory instrument provides the considerable detail needed, including, for example, exemptions for small developments and social housing, which seem to us to be reasonable.

It also seems right that the levy is based on square metres of floor space, that brownfield sites will have a levy at a lower rate, and that the levy varies according to general property values in a local authority area. The Government broadly have the approach right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, so rightly identified, the problem is that many leaseholders are still being penalised by freeholders and managing agents where properties have not yet been remediated. The penalties imposed are via the substantial increases in service charges and, on top of this, innocent leaseholders are paying huge household insurance costs. Will the Government review their approach to defining those buildings at risk? These are not the same as the assessment made by the insurance market, and it is leaseholders who then pay the price, as well as finding that the value of their property has plummeted.

In conclusion, will the Government commit to a review of at-risk properties and the external wall system assessment to provide some hope for leaseholders caught up in a nightmare that is not of their making?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. Fortunately, we do not have many high-rise buildings in rural areas.

In response to the Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025, the principle is absolutely right that those who have profited from residential development should contribute to the cost of making homes safe. It is both fair and necessary. This levy was set up by the Building Safety Act 2022 under the previous Conservative Administration, and it is an important part of wider efforts. I make very clear that we support this, but some issues need addressing.

The Government anticipate that the levy will raise approximately £3.4 billion over the next decade to help fund remediation of historic safety defects, including dangerous cladding. For too long, thousands of residents have lived in buildings that they know are unsafe. They suffer the stress and emotional toil of being in an unsafe building and, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, they are unable to sell and to move on with their lives. The situation is not of their making. My noble friend made a number of points, and it is crucial that this is done faster and better. I would very much like to know whether the Minister believes that the two deadlines of 2029 and 2031 will be achieved given that, as my noble friend pointed out, around half have not even started. I cannot remember the exact phrase—

Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It may be that RPI is the right way of doing it. I do not know why he took RPI there and not CPI. However, the issue is: why, in fact, are the Government not going to peg the £15 million to inflation? At what point will that figure then be adjusted because inflation continues to rise? We have to have a debate about that fact, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for explaining the RPI figures since 2014. Clearly, it may be that £15 million is the correct figure, but I would like to know what assessment the department has made of the implications of that figure on the number of local authorities that will be taken out of the full audit requirement?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, again, I raise my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which, just being slightly boastful, is a council that for the 10 years I was leader had its accounts audited and signed off every year within the deadline and was one of the few councils to do so.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The instrument raises the threshold, as has been discussed, to £15 million in annual income or expenditure. Public bodies below this will no longer need to have the full audit and can follow the streamlined annual governance and accountability return—AGAR—process.

This reform is in response to the long-standing and well documented challenges that England’s local audit system faces. It is worth noting that this is not a new policy initiative. The foundations were laid under the previous Conservative Government, who published the consultation in December 2024, setting out proposals to overhaul the local audit framework. The consultation highlighted widespread concerns around audit capacity proportionality and long-term sustainability. A formal response was subsequently published on 9 April 2025. I ask the Minister to update the Committee on progress towards implementing the remaining elements of this broader strategy.

We believe that the instrument before us is a pragmatic and proportionate reform. It recognises that many smaller authorities do not carry the same level of financial risk as larger bodies and should not be burdened with audit requirements that are both costly and unnecessary where they are unnecessary.

The Government have suggested that this change will ease the financial and administrative burden on smaller authorities, reduce the pressure on the over- stretched audit market and allow scarce audit resources to be better focused on higher-risk councils where scrutiny is most urgently needed. We note that 55% of the consultation respondents supported raising the threshold, indicating that the proposal carries a degree of support from within the sector itself.

In closing, I would be grateful if the Minister could address a few further points. First, what safeguards are in place to ensure that smaller authorities, no longer subject to the full audit, continue to operate with high standards of financial transparency and sound governance, which I think addresses the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was raising? While £15 million is a sensible threshold, will other factors be taken into account, such as the debt levels of councils? A council that is heavily in debt, even if it is just below the £15 million threshold, is clearly at much higher risk than one that is just above it and has no debt.

Secondly, will the department be issuing updated guidance to support these authorities as they continue using the AGAR framework? As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, are there other consequences that are not in this paper, and that are coming as a change to this definition, that we are not considering today and should be considered?

Finally, can the Minister provide an update on the progress of the wider local audit reform programme, as set out in December 2024? In particular, will she address the issues of proportionality, risk-based accounting and focusing that limited resource on higher-risk areas and not on low-risk, bureaucratic processes?

I have one other question; I apologise. Can the Minister update the Committee on how the Government are addressing the shortage of local government audit practitioners?

These are my last few sentences. We support this instrument in principle. It is a sensible step forward towards a more proportionate, risk-based local audit regime. However, I raise those various issues. We need to ensure that there is robust oversight, transparency and regular review, to ensure that public accountability is not diminished in the process.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 62, I will speak also to Amendments 63, 65 and 66. In Committee, I raised some problems with the way the Bill was drafted for joint tenants in respect of notices to quit under assured tenancies defined in Clauses 21 and 22. It was anticipated in Committee that the issues raised would be examined further, and I thank for the Minister for having done this.

The problem was that where joint tenants had a breakdown in their relationship, there could be unforeseen consequences for one joint tenant, who might be unaware, for example, that a notice to quit had been served by the other joint tenant. I am grateful for the assistance provided by Citizens Advice, whose front-line staff identified this problem and proposed solutions, and for the work done by the Minister and her department in drafting Amendments 64 and 67, which I welcome.

I look forward to the Minister’s explanations of Amendments 64 and 67 in the expectation that I will then seek to withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to joint tenancies and the procedural requirements for serving and responding to notices to quit. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, seek to ensure that the provisions in Clauses 21 and 22 apply expressly and fairly to all assured tenancies. The spirit of these amendments is to promote transparency and fairness, ensuring that no tenant is left unaware of or disadvantaged by unilateral actions.

As we have discussed in this debate and in Committee, joint tenancies are an important and increasingly common form of tenancy arrangement, particularly among families, couples and shared households. Given that multiple tenants hold equal rights and responsibilities, it is only right and fair that the Bill reflects this reality by requiring all parties to be kept informed of significant developments affecting their tenancy.

These amendments propose sensible procedural safeguards. The requirement that any notice to quit served by one joint tenant be communicated in writing to all other joint tenants is fair. Similarly, where a landlord serves notice, all joint tenants should be notified promptly. It is also noteworthy that some amendments specify that certain agreements, such as those shortening notice periods or withdrawing notices to quit, must involve the consent of all joint tenants rather than just one. This is a balanced recognition of the collective nature of joint tenancies and the importance of mutual consent in such decisions.

As the Bill continues to evolve, it is our shared goal to ensure a rental market that is fair and workable for all parties involved. Although we fully understand and respect the intentions behind these amendments and welcome the constructive debate they have sparked, it is important to consider the practical implications. Requiring unanimous consent or detailed notice procedures could, in some circumstances, add complexity or delay, especially in situations where tenants’ circumstances change rapidly. Therefore, although we support the principle of ensuring fairness and transparency in joint tenancies, we urge careful consideration of the balance between protecting tenants’ rights and maintaining workable, efficient processes for landlords and tenants alike.

Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely supportive of these three statutory instruments and thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The consultation that took place on the three proposals supported what the council in Cornwall and the combined authorities of East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire proposed, so it is right to transfer responsibilities to those bodies.

As the Minister said, it will mean that decisions on adult education provision, including skills training, reflect the needs of the combined authority or council areas. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two issues. In the consultation in the east Midlands on the transfer of functions, 1,534 people were against the proposals, with 2,504 in favour. Can the Minister explain, if only for the record, why so many people were opposed to something that seems entirely sensible? Was there a problem or had there been some misunderstanding about what was being proposed?

More importantly, there is going to be an issue, given that these three proposed transfers of functions are adding to quite a number that are already in existence. How will the Government assess outcomes and success? Devolution is supposed to improve services and outcomes. There are tests that the Government could apply: I would like to think that one of those is a reduction in the rate of NEETs—young people who are not in employment, education or training. Do the Government identify a reduction in the NEET level as something that devolution should deliver, given that local people are best positioned to assess how skills, training and educational opportunity can be improved?

A second test might be about the number of young people with disabilities who are employed. That is important, because we should use all the talents of young people that we can, and the NEET figures are simply too high.

The third test I suggest to Ministers is to reassure Parliament in future, first, that the structure that will be put in place will link effectively with employers in identifying future skills needs; and, secondly, that the providers of adult and further education—and, indeed, those of mainstream education in the school system—are all talking to each other, as well as with the council and the combined authorities, to ensure that effective decision-making is happening. This is because it is very difficult to identify future skills needs. It is comparatively easy to identify current skills needs, but identifying skills needs five or 10 years from now, say, is a great deal more complicated. I am interested in what feedback systems the Government have in order to enable all the bodies with devolved powers and responsibilities to teach each other and learn from each other, so that we do not have skills shortages and so that future planning for our skills needs is as effective as it possibly could be. Will there be a regular report to Parliament on outcomes?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a current Central Bedfordshire councillor. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these important statutory instruments. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I, as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, am always supportive of further devolution to local government. His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the principle of devolved adult education functions; indeed, we were the architect of many of these devolution arrangements when in government.

Local authorities, with their proximity to learners and communities, are often better placed than central government to identify and meet local needs—and, in particular, to tailor them to local circumstances. With the necessary support and funding, this policy, when implemented, can play a vital role in promoting economic growth, social mobility and lifelong learning. However, we must scrutinise not just the principle but the practice. It is around the practice—particularly the funding, as well as the accountability arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned—where there are some serious concerns.

These instruments will enable the named authorities to assume responsibility for adult education provision funded through the adult skills fund. We are told that this is a step forward for localism; that this will mean the tailoring of provision to local priorities; and that, although 62% of the ASF is already devolved to mayoral combined authorities in Greater London, this extension will now bring the same arrangements to new areas. On paper, this looks really positive. However, in reality, it contains some troubling contradictions. The Government are promoting local empowerment while simultaneously cutting the very funding that underpins it—something that, unfortunately, we see all too often, with the passing on of responsibilities but not of full funding.

It is important to be clear: there is a 3% reduction in the devolved adult skills fund. That is not an abstract number; it is a reduction in actual spending power in adult education for the very communities that these authorities serve. As Dr Susan Pember, the policy director for HOLEX, rightly noted, this move is short-sighted and risks dismantling the sector at a time when adult education should be playing a central role in driving economic recovery and personal resilience.

There are three areas where I believe the Government owe the Committee greater clarity. First, on funding transparency, what proportion of the devolved adult skills fund will be available for local decision-making, and how much is already earmarked for nationally set statutory entitlements? If local authorities are being asked to deliver ambitious education plans with only a fraction of the budget under their control, this is devolution in name only.

Secondly, on the strategic skills plans, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly noted that, although these SIs referenced the SSPs, the detail is sparse. What mechanisms has the Department for Education used to assess the quality and readiness of these plans? Can the Minister assure us that each authority has demonstrated clear capacity and strategy to deliver?

Thirdly, on the wider context of post-16 education, we note the uncertainty surrounding the future of T-levels, apprenticeships and other crucial routes into training and employment. Adult education does not exist in a vacuum. Can the Minister explain how these reforms sit with the Government’s broader post-16 education strategy and how continuity and coherence will be maintained?