Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their questions and comments on the local government reorganisation Statement.

I will begin with the timeline that has led us to the decisions announced on 16 July, because it is important that we understand how we have arrived at the place we are now. On 5 February 2025, the Government invited councils in 21 two-tier areas, together with neighbouring small unitary authorities, to develop proposals for local government reorganisation. That is not imposing a model from Whitehall; it is asking councils to come forward with their own proposals. Those proposals were received from councils on 26 September and 28 November 2025. The Government subsequently launched statutory consultations on them on 19 November 2025 and 5 February 2026, which closed on 11 January and 26 March 2026 respectively.

Between May and June 2026, the Government undertook further consultation in East Sussex, Brighton & Hove, and West Sussex to inform the consideration of potential modifications to proposals in those areas. Then, on 26 March 2026, the Secretary of State announced the first tranche of decisions, on Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; and Norfolk and Suffolk.

I will now set out the decisions announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July. These were subject to parliamentary approval. They were announced in Parliament on 16 July. There was another debate on the Monday of that week on the same subject. A Written Ministerial Statement was laid, and of course we are debating the decisions now in this House.

The Government will implement, subject to parliamentary approval, proposals for new unitary councils including: two unitary authorities in Derbyshire and Derby, put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove, the two- unitary proposal, including boundary changes requested by Brighton & Hove City Council, except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester City Council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by City of Lincoln Council, including boundary changes and leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham City Council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford, Cannock Chase and Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire.

In Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex, the Secretary of State has concluded that further time is required before decisions are reached. It is very important that we take the time to make the right decisions for those areas. To respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about when those will be made, it will be as soon as possible and no later than October. They will be worked on and decided as soon as possible.

I recognise that not all noble Lords, or all councils, will agree with every decision we have made. These are significant changes and they matter deeply to places. Each proposal has been considered carefully against the published criteria, consultation responses and all other relevant information, including consultation with other government departments. The Government’s responsibility is to take decisions that are sustainable, coherent and in the long-term interests of residents.

The reason for reform is clear. In too many places, two-tier local government is confusing for residents. It divides responsibility, slows decisions, duplicates costs and blurs accountability. Boundaries drawn for a different era too often no longer reflect how people live, work, travel and access services, or how they see their own area. That does not serve residents well, nor does it equip leaders for the future. That is why local government reorganisation is necessary: to create stronger councils with the scale and capacity to deliver better services, support economic growth and provide clearer accountability.

Across these areas, 134 councils will be replaced by 38 new unitary authorities. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. This will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about savings, the councils themselves have identified significant potential savings of around £1 billion by the end of 2032. These savings can be reinvested in the front-line services that people rely on.

Of course, local government reorganisation is not without its challenges. Transition has to be handled carefully, particularly where vulnerable residents depend on services such as children’s services, adult care and public health. That is why we are providing over £1 million in funding for every new unitary council, including £900,000 in capacity funding and up to £150,000 of additional funding to support children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Pace also matters. Council staff and residents need certainty, so moving forward now allows areas to prepare for elections in May 2027 and for the new councils to take on their responsibilities in 2028.

To respond to some of the other questions—I see that I do not have much time, but I will be as quick as I can—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to gerrymandering. That is absolutely not the case. I do not know if Members listened to the debate in the other House, but if this was gerrymandering, it did not work, according to some of our Labour Members at that end of the building. The decisions were based absolutely on the merits of the proposals against the six published criteria, consultation responses and other relevant information, and the proposals selected have backing from a range of political parties, not just Labour. Previous decisions did not set a precedent, and I stress that every decision we took was on the basis of the information. All local areas are different, as we often say in this House, and we had to take decisions based on the local circumstances, so they were taken individually and judged on their own merits.

The department ran an independent consultation to assess the proposals against the criteria set out, and the responses were an important factor in the decision-making process. The process is locally led, with councils having been invited to develop proposals for their own areas.

On the size of the local authorities, the 500,000 population figure has always been a guiding principle, not a fixed threshold. Ministers set this out publicly on at least five occasions. Our messaging has been consistent: there may need to be exceptions to ensure that new structures make sense for an area, including to support devolution, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

I make no apologies for the growth focus in some of these decisions. We need to harness the growth that we know can come from every part of our country. We have made our decisions according to the criteria, and some of those are focused on growth. We need to continue with that so that we can get the potential that this country has out to every postcode in the land.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will now have 20 minutes for the Back Benches. This time is just for Back-Benchers, and we want to hear questions, not statements. We will start with the Conservatives.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We will start with the Conservatives.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will come to that question at the end, if I may.

The Secretary of State commissioned Philip Rycroft to conduct an independent review of risks posed by foreign financial influence in UK politics. In March, we welcomed Mr Rycroft’s comprehensive assessment and announced immediate plans to accept two recommendations responding to urgent risks. A week ago, in your Lordships’ House, I said that the Government would publish their response very soon, and I am delighted to say I was right. They have now published their full response and, as noble Lords know, the Government have accepted all of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. I will come to the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made in a moment. I welcome the support—I would not say it is qualified support—from all the Benches opposite for Rycroft and our acceptance of the recommendations.

In response to Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will strengthen our political finance rules through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill. I should note, because this is an important point that the noble Baroness made, that the Minister will be writing to political parties to set out these measures in much more detail, and that letter will be publicly available on GOV.UK. I will come to the question of discussions and engagement in a moment.

We will introduce an annual £100,000 cap on donations and regulated transactions from overseas electors. It is materially more complex to trace the true source of political donations made by voters living overseas, and this creates a clear avenue for the channelling of illicit funds. There is a simple principle at stake here, which I think we all share: we want the people who make donations to political parties to have a genuine stake in the life of the UK. That is the principle we are seeking to achieve. A cap recognises legitimate participation while ending the risk of unlimited overseas money entering our politics. The noble Baroness referred to those risks, and the Government are very alive to them.

Recognising that risk continues when British citizens return to the UK, and therefore we are introducing a minimum residency period. The risk is very clear. An overseas elector returning to the UK must be here for a full calendar year before that cap is lifted, to prevent circumvention of the regime. Once the measures come into force, that minimum residency period will apply retrospectively, from the date of our original announcement on 25 March. I note the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made about retrospection, but the Government’s view is that there are clear risks and we should address them in the way that we have.

We will apply the same cap and the minimum residency period to anyone who moves to the UK after the date of the Statement and was not previously an overseas elector, to ensure these individuals cannot circumvent the rules before commencement. That is the risk. A modified cap will apply retrospectively and an annual cap of £100,000 per recipient will apply to donations they make between today and the date of the commencement of the measures, including any regulated transactions they enter into from today. On commencement, the cap and the minimum residency period will apply in the same way as for those who were formerly overseas electors.

As we previously announced, we will introduce a moratorium on all political donations of any amount made via cryptocurrency. The arrangements around crypto are simply too opaque.

Building on previous announcements, and in response to the review, we will go further to strengthen our political finance safeguards. We will amend the corporate donation test, so that it is based on post-tax profits rather than revenue, measured over five years to prevent double counting. We will introduce a new donor declaration to be made by anyone donating above a specified threshold. We will engage with the Electoral Commission and political parties as we develop the declaration, including an appropriate threshold. We are introducing a raft of transparency measures.

We will also strengthen rules and transparency on donations to candidates. Candidates will have to declare that donations to fund campaigning—as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said—made prior to formally becoming a candidate are from permissible sources. Donations in that period above £2,230 will need to be cleared. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, asked me about aggregation. We have no plans to legislate on aggregation at the moment.

We recognise how vital it is for the health of our democracy that we have a regulator that is fearlessly independent and, to the noble Baroness’s point, properly resourced to do the job that we are asking it to do. That is why, to ensure its independence, we are also repealing the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. Beyond political finance, we will take steps in the Representation of the People Bill and more broadly to implement these important reforms.

If I do not manage to cover everything in the time I have left, I will come back to noble Lords. On consultation, I do not have anything to add. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, gave a very adequate response on the history, so I shall not go over that again. I do, however, accept the noble Baroness’s point that we are trustees, not proprietors, of the political finance system. I take that very seriously. I take very seriously the risks of tit for tat—I said this in the debate last week—and the risk that future Governments might get into a prisoner’s dilemma.

I do not, however, accept that these reforms are partisan, hyper-partisan or otherwise. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is not a scenario we want to see. The Parliamentary Parties Panel of the Electoral Commission has continued discussions between parties. I assure the noble Baroness that I will, as this legislation proceeds—I will be taking it through your Lordships’ House—engage in a lot of detail with anyone who is keen enough to talk to me. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has already had the pleasure of my company on these matters; I bow to his superior knowledge. I can see him waiting to rise to his feet. On the resources of the Electoral Commission, I take the point that the noble Baroness made.

On a point from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, I take very seriously the question of online adverts and, indeed, misinformation online generally. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, nodding. I do not think any of us feel we have cracked it, to be blunt, and this is an area that we will have to continue to think about in relation to political representation, online advertising and so on. We will all be here on this subject for some years to come.

On foreign ownership of the media, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pack, will forgive me if I do not get drawn into that, but I take the point he made. I have already discussed our plans on aggregation.

On consolidation, I think I did answer this last week, but I am very happy to repeat my answer, which is that the Government want to fulfil the commitments they made in their manifesto. I was going to say “as a first step”, but I had better not say that because it might get me into a whole lot of trouble. That is our priority, and noble Lords can understand why. I understand the arguments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made the same arguments to me yesterday about consolidation.

On the 1695 Act, I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I commend the Statement, despite that absence in my knowledge, to your Lordships.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know that the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Minister—that means questions, not speeches or statements.

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. These regulations may appear to be a relatively straightforward implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, but they represent something much more significant. They change one of the fundamental democratic safeguards of our planning system.

Nobody on these Benches disputes that our planning system needs to work better. We need more homes. We need faster commercial developments and we need better infrastructure. We need a planning system that is efficient, proportionate and gives certainty to communities and developers alike. But we fear the Government are pursuing speed at the expense of democratic oversight, and I am afraid that, on this, I must disagree with the Minister.

Planning is not an exact science; it is an exercise in judgment. Planning officers, planning committees and inspectors are all required to weigh competing material planning considerations: the need for housing, economic growth, environmental protection, heritage, highways, design and the impact on neighbouring communities. The legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework provide the framework against which those decisions are made, but they cannot prescribe the weight and view for every one of those considerations. Ultimately, that is a matter of judgment.

In many cases, that judgment is relatively straightforward. That is why around 90% to 95% of planning applications are already determined by planning officers under delegated powers, with only a small proportion ever coming before elected planning committees. Of those that go to committees, the vast majority go in line with the planning officer’s recommendation. I cannot find national statistics, but for Central Bedfordshire, in the last 12 months, only one of the 56 applications that have gone to committee where the officer disagreed has been overturned on appeal. That is a very small number.

The applications that reach committee are often those where the balance of decision-making is finer: where they have a significant impact on a community, where residents have genuine concerns, where there are competing planning considerations to be weighed, or where substantial developments will have a lasting consequence on the character of an area. Those are precisely the cases where we need democratic accountability. People will not always agree with the outcome of a planning decision, but they are far more likely to accept the decision if they have seen the arguments tested in public by elected representatives who are accountable to the communities they serve. That is democracy in action.

These regulations, as the Minister highlighted, generate a national framework governing how authorities must discharge planning functions, and they significantly narrow the discretion that authorities have traditionally exercised through their own constitutions and schemes of delegation. As the Minister said, all Schedule 1 applications will include minor residential applications for nine homes or fewer, minor commercial and householder developments, and discharge of planning conditions and reserved matters for applications of up to 500 homes. Schedule 2 applications, which are largely all others, are presumed to be determined by officers unless, at the gateway test, both the nominated officer, who is normally the chief planner, and the nominated councillor, who is normally the chair of committee, agree that it raises

“an issue of economic, social or environmental significance to the … area”

or a significant planning matter

“having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations”.

That is a dramatic reduction in the democratic accountability of the planning system.

Let us look at Schedule 1. The Government suggest that these arrangements relate to minor applications, but this needs to be seen in context. An application for nine homes in a small village is significant. If you happen to be a neighbour, that is significant. What happens when a site is agreed with the suggested nine homes but is subsequently brought back with 15 or 20 homes under reserved matters? That is not an unusual situation. For developments of up to 500 homes, all reserved matters, discharge of conditions and Section 106 arrangements would be determined by officers.

When members of the public hear “reserved matters”, they think of the colour of the front door and so forth, and I would be very happy with officers determining that, but that is not the case. Those of us who have dealt with planning applications for a number of years know that reserved matters generally involve the layout, design, density, highways, landscaping, drainage, open space, how many community facilities are there and so forth. These are not trivial decisions. When the Minister was leader of Stevenage Borough Council, would she have been happy with a 500-home development in the centre of Stevenage and not having any influence on the decision being made?

This may be bad, but it gets worse. The threshold for some of those more major applications, which could involve thousands of homes, going to committee requires a “significant” issue. That is a very high planning threshold.

There are other practical considerations. Going to planning committee provides an intermediate step that allows local councillors to have a discussion with planning officers to get those extra things. I can relate examples in my own ward where we successfully worked with the developer to get a few houses moved in a different direction so that they did not overlook and to get some additional funding for recreation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am aware of the time.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is aware, so may he bring his remarks to an end, if he does not mind?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I will. I thank the noble Lord very much. This is time limited.

The planning system needs to strike a balance; this system does not. We need to ensure democratic accountability; there is no need to remove it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have just had advice that I can speak, otherwise I would not have.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness was not here at the start of the debate, I do not think she is able to speak.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion C1, in support of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Minister will be aware that, during the passage of the Bill, I have suggested on a few occasions that there should be a full review of the London mayoral governance process, because there is lots of learning since the original scheme was brought through that really should be revisited.

The Minister issued a letter to us this morning that, as I understand it, gave us this reason on changing to simple majority voting in London: the Assembly is actually a scrutiny function and not part of the mayoral budget process, and therefore that would not be right because it is not part of that policy-making responsibility. Indeed, in the Minister’s opening remarks she said that London is “fundamentally different” and “out of step” with others.

Does this not endorse my earlier proposal? Elsewhere in the country, in governance proposals that have been brought forward since, local council leaders are part of that policy-making process. That would give some opening for other people being involved. In London the current situation—the mayor has sole responsibility and there is a two-thirds majority for the assembly—means that it is unlikely to ever be challenged. Surely, London deserves better. Either it needs to be 50% or, as I suggested throughout consideration of this Bill, we need to relook at London.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an interesting point which deserves an answer. On this side of the House, our views were made very clear in Committee: we are on the side of democracy, we believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments relating to disqualification for being a mayor of a strategic authority. These amendments seek to prevent an individual from simultaneously being a councillor of a local authority and holding the office of the mayor of a combined county authority.

The noble Lord will know that existing law already prohibits council members of constituent councils in both combined authorities and combined county authorities from being elected or holding office as the mayor at the same time. This is provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These amendments would have the effect of almost mirroring that prohibition, in relation to combined county authorities only, for councillors of any local authority.

However, the Government are planning to replace all two-tier council areas with unitary authorities and hence replace all combined county authorities with combined authorities before the next planned mayoral elections in two-tier areas. This means that the prohibition would very likely not be required. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation: that as of today, existing legislation holds sway in this respect. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there are three very important amendments here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I have two caveats. The first is that it is quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million, and to manage that effectively. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has raised a slightly different issue, which is about community empowerment. We talk a lot about English devolution, but community empowerment is a much more locally based, neighbourhood concept. The problem that communities will face is that they will have no money to do the work that they would like to do.

I am very supportive of anything that can be done to assess how community empowerment is working, but my second caveat is that overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas. There are people who have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening—having an overview of what is happening. It seems to me that we should go to those people first to assess the success of the Bill when it becomes an Act, rather than going straight to central government and expecting it to do it all.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.

As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.

On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.

At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.

The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.

The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.

On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.

I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.

As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.

Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.

I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.

On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.

Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered, in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? These are all questions that the Government should answer and be held accountable for. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local councils and strategic authorities in the future will also have to be doing this work. But it is for the Government to look at the system as a whole and to ensure that it is delivering what it is intended to deliver in this Bill.

Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not be done just for the sake of it or to make life simpler for Whitehall. It should be done to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose, as we made clear on the very first day in Committee. Our amendments would allow just that and help to inform Parliament of how to move forward in the future. I hope that the Government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real-world outcomes of their efforts.

I thank the Minister for explaining how some of these challenges will be implemented. I need to read Hansard tomorrow to see whether we still have concerns. My overall concern remains—that there is still a lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first years after this big reorganisation of local government in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I spoke to Amendment 132 in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, but I just want to say that the Minister said in Committee that the reason why the Government want to stick with their own wording on Clause 44—a clause that we all support very strongly—was that they did not want to be too prescriptive regarding what areas should be looking at as health determinants. However, if we do not reflect what is known about the determinants of health, we will not be able to set down what we need to measure to evaluate the success of Clause 44, which is so important and which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, spoke about in connection with her amendments. I therefore urge the Government to look very carefully at these amendments to see whether some adjustments can be made that would make Clause 44 as strong as we all want it to be.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and health inequalities duties. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for her helpful contribution.

On Amendment 132, I stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities, which are the experts in their local areas, to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act. It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.

Setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of “general health determinants.” It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider

“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”,

and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall for her Amendments 133 and 134. However, these amendments would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State would be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirement for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the

“consistency of implementation of the duty”

is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally.

Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and have the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard. This would constrain local ambition. More broadly, alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations.

However, I reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities to understand the impact that it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it. With these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendment and my noble friend Lady Royall does not move hers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments. Ensuring that we have a holistic view of housing—not just the quality but the quantity of housing and the role that it plays in health—makes it easier for authorities to respond to this part of the Bill. Explicitly recognising the effects of diet and physical activity on our health is not contentious but will also help authorities to facilitate healthier lifestyles in their communities. I hope that the Minister will give his continued consideration to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all concern Schedule 25, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe that the schedule, as drafted, lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards.

The current test in the Bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that regulations can be made is “appropriate”. That threshold is notably low and subjective for the exercise of very wide powers. These provisions allow for conferral, modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard.

We on these Benches believe that replacing “appropriate” with “necessary and proportionate” would align the exercise of these powers with well-established public law principles. The amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued but to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed. The amendments do not prevent action but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and transparent.

I turn to the issue of consent. Amendments 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors before they exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As drafted, the duty is limited to consultation, which does not guarantee that local views will meaningfully shape an outcome. Given that these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures, it is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent.

A consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than being imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.

Amendments 158, 160, 164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In Part 1, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, despite later parts conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied. This risks creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government could be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment would ensure that all uses of these powers were guided by consistent and principled frameworks.

I turn finally to the amendments on pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes. As drafted, the Bill confers very broad discretion on the Secretary of State, with limited external scrutiny. Pilot schemes are by their nature experimental. It is therefore essential that they are subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements. The amendments would ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents were made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how the schemes are operating in practice.

The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely on the views of those involved in its delivery. Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of the requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but effective in practice.

Finally—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—the proposal would require all regulations under this schedule to be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, which would reinforce parliamentary oversight and ensure that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and transparent. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for all these amendments. I think that there are 26, so it might take a little time to reply with a depth of understanding.

Amendments 150, 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer a function on a strategic authority or to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. The statutory test as currently drafted in the Bill is already sufficiently robust. The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function. Introducing a more restrictive statutory test which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate could lead to central government being too cautious in using Schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in future.

Amendments 158, 160, 163, 164, 166 and 168 seek to apply the amended statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use Schedule 25 to make regulations to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary, as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The Bill introduces the statutory test in Part 1 of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule provide more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to Parts 2, 3 and 4.

I turn to Amendments 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the Bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people which the Secretary of State must consult before a decision is taken on the conferral or modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes affected mayors, strategic authorities, local authorities and any bodies or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function. In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by a decision on the conferral or modification of functions.

Schedule 25 allows the Government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time-consuming and complicated to implement, and allows us to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country. Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively have a veto which prevented the Secretary of State conferring or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic authority.

If individual authorities or mayors had a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, Amendment 161 appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and the London Assembly to provide their consent to the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside London.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook regarding the changes proposed in this Bill to the mayoral precept arrangements. As we raised in Committee, it is important to ensure value for money and that a mayoral precept is used not to compensate for cuts in government funding but to support delivery for an area. Additional responsibilities should not be placed on local authorities without adequate funding.

On Amendment 77, as was said in Committee, these precept arrangements were only recently and carefully set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 as a result of many long hours of debate in this House. The Minister has explained that these changes will allow mayors to precept for all an authority’s functions. However, stability is important to long-term confidence in local government finance, so we oppose revisiting this framework before the recent changes have had a chance to bed in.

Amendment 78 seeks to bring the precept arrangements in line with the amounts permitted for county councils and unitary authorities. While we accept that a mayoral authority is different from other authorities, this in itself does not justify an exemption from well-understood precept arrangements. In Committee, the Minister said the limit would make the value of a precept insignificant. Does that mean that the Government envisage yet more tax increases?

This brings me to Amendment 79, requiring mayors to explain to the public their reasons for any increases to the precept. This would apply whenever the mayor of a strategic authority sets a precept higher than the one set for the previous financial year. When people are asked to pay more, they deserve to know why, particularly given the current cost of living. To ensure full transparency and that this information is accessible, our amendment requires that a statement be published on the authority’s website, detailing the amount of the increase and explaining the purposes for which the additional revenue is to be used. This cannot be done in hindsight. The statement must be published before or at the same time as the precept is set. Again, engagement with the local community should not be treated as an afterthought. Unless we hear convincing arguments against this amendment, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 79.

There is a broader concern that this Bill would enable, intentionally or not, excessive tax increases on local people at a time when they can least afford them. I beg to move.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for the amendments on precepts. The precept reforms which Amendment 77 seeks to prevent will enable mayors to levy a precept across the full range of an authority’s functions, giving them greater freedom in how they resource and deliver their priorities. I remind noble Lords that mayors have had the statutory ability to issue a precept since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Importantly, it remains entirely for each mayor to decide whether to make use of it.

Under the current framework, any precept that is raised can be spent only on designated mayoral functions, rather than on the full suite of an authority’s responsibilities. This restriction is both arbitrary and unhelpful in practice. It could, for instance, allow investment in transport but not in skills related initiatives. Our intention is to equip mayors with the means to address barriers to growth and improve outcomes for their communities. To do this effectively, they must be able to allocate resources across all functions of the authority, not just a narrow subset.

Amendment 78 would automatically apply council tax referendum principles to strategic authorities. This would unnecessarily restrict mayors’ ability to determine how best to deliver for their residents and local economies. The Secretary of State already has the power to set referendum principles for strategic authorities, if needed. In practice, mayoral precepts are relatively small. If their increases were capped in the same way as council tax, the sums involved would be minimal in most areas, limiting their usefulness for supporting local priorities.

The Government have been clear that any rises in the mayoral precept should remain fair and proportionate. However, imposing the same limits as on councils would reduce local flexibility. This approach cuts across the spirit of the Bill and of devolution more broadly. Our aim is to empower mayors to invest in their communities, strengthen public services and support economic growth. The Government already consult annually on the local government finance settlement, which is the proper mechanism for considering these issues for authorities and taxpayers.

Turning to Amendment 79, as I have noted, the ability to issue a mayoral precept has existed in law since 2017, when it was introduced by the then Government. Whether to introduce a precept is a local decision and would need to be approved through the budget voting process within each combined authority or combined county authority. This includes setting out the precept amount and what it is intended to fund.

It is also worth pointing to the council tax billing requirements. Under the Council Tax (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2011, the information supplied with bills must include details of each local authority’s gross expenditure and its council tax requirement. It must also include an explanation of the reasons for the difference between the amounts. Where a mayoral combined or combined county authority issues a precept, it is covered by these provisions. This ensures residents can see both the amount of the mayoral precept and what it is funding. This information is also published on websites and if the taxpayer requires it, they can have it in a hard copy. As such, the system already builds in a statutory requirement for transparency and justification.

For the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group, and I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. However, we believe that there needs to be greater transparency in the approach to local taxation, to encourage not just accountability for financial decisions but also public trust. Therefore, if the Government do not wish to press ahead with their changes to their precept arrangements, I will focus on Amendment 79. This amendment is not asking for much. It reflects the simple expectation that any increases to taxation by the mayor are explained transparently and are accessible to the members of the public they serve. This requirement will support, not obstruct, good decision-making and management of local government finance. Therefore, on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I too declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing back this amendment. In Committee, we discussed how much of this Bill, despite its title, centralises rather than devolves. This amendment would enable a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a more local level. As other noble Lords have pointed out, strategic authorities cover large geographical areas, whereas parish and town councils have long been promoted in this House as vehicles for genuine localism and community empowerment. It is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have our own amendments to support the role of town and parish councils.

We support devolution. However, this amendment is not simply an amendment to devolve community empowerment. That is the first subsection in the amendment. There are further eight subsections, and we have some reservations on the details and complexities in these additional subsections. Delegating competencies or functions must be accompanied by clear assessments of capacity, resource and capability. It must avoid additional bureaucracy, and duties imposed must be practical in their implementation. That said, I thank the noble Lord for his efforts and for the spirit of this amendment, which we agree with. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to how powers can be genuinely devolved to local levels to support town and parish councils, and how local authorities can be enabled to exercise them effectively.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 6 on further devolution of powers. As your Lordships will know, one of the core aims of the Bill is to create a standardised devolution framework, with a consistent and coherent set of functions held by strategic authorities and their mayors. This amendment would risk undermining that objective. It would lead to functions being devolved in some places and not in others, making it harder for local residents to know who is in charge and what they are accountable for.

The noble Lord and others argued in previous debates that power should be devolved to the authorities best able to carry out that work. The Government agreed with that principle and are therefore conferring powers and functions through the Bill that are best exercised by strategic authorities operating across wider geographies: for example, strategic transport and spatial planning matters. I understand that part of the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling this amendment is a concern that there will be a transfer of powers away from lower-tier authorities to higher ones. It is not the intention of the Bill to strip powers from communities and councils and give them instead to strategic authorities. Indeed, the Bill provides new powers for communities, such as the new community right to buy.

There was a lot of talk about parish and town councils and I think everybody in this Room appreciates the work that local parish and town councils do, but this amendment would essentially force a new level of bureaucracy on local authorities. In Derbyshire, for example, there are 204 parish and town councils and a further 199 in Nottinghamshire. That would mean that the East Midlands combined county authority and its mayor would be engaging with over 400 councils. Were such an approach taken, it would place a considerable cost of consultation on an authority, as well as potentially crowding out time for other core strategic responsibilities. I think we need a plan that fits the bill for each of the local authorities concerned, not one kind of framework that apparently suits everyone.

We need to take into consideration that there are 10,000 parish councils in England, with more than 100,000 local councillors. The sector varies hugely in size, from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings, which I know a lot about from when I represented Sedgefield. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections 21% of seats were left vacant. Where we can engage with parish councils, we should do so. If we cannot, because of competence issues or a lack of councillors, we should look at other ways of doing it. That is exactly what this Bill will do. The new neighbourhood governance duty will bring decision-making closer to residents and aims to ensure that people across the country, no matter where they are based, have the opportunity to influence the decisions that mean most to them in their local areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for pointing out that issue. I am glad that she did. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I have concluded that the Government have no plan to empower local communities in the way that the Bill suggests: it talks about devolution and community empowerment, but I see little prospect of real community empowerment.

The Government need a plan to prevent the upward drift of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, talked about lots of parish and town council seats not being contested, but that is because they do not have decent enough powers to make it worthwhile for people to stand. People do not stand because they do not see what they would do. The Government have to be convinced that devolving power to communities can make for better governance in England. That is where I am. I am grateful for the Conservative Party supporting the spirit of the amendment, which I think means it will be abstaining on this—or perhaps voting against, but I think abstaining. I wish to test the opinion of the House because this issue is central to an English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, without it, will be neither of those things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.

There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.

We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.

This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.

As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that

“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.

Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.

Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

These are probing amendments, but they raise a fundamental question: are we content to concentrate power in a single office, or do we believe that local government should remain rooted in collective majority decision-making? This is not an argument against mayors; it is an argument for balance. If combined authorities are to command confidence, their decisions must reflect the will of the many and not the discretion of one. I beg to move.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.

Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful comments from the noble Baronesses.

Last week, the Secretary of State responsible for housing, communities and local government announced this publication, Protecting What Matters, which sets out the first steps towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom, focusing on three key pillars.

First, we will build confident communities. Cohesion relies on confidence in the social contract, yet when people look out from their doorstep, too often they see a future that they did not ask for. Put simply, there is a direct link between the degradation of the public realm and the division that we see happening in our communities. The Pride in Place programme will commit more than £5 billion across almost 300 constituencies to be spent through neighbourhood boards. This alone is not enough: we must meet our responsibility to protect young people. That is why this section includes tougher regulation of home schooling.

Secondly, we will build cohesive communities through a social cohesion measurement framework. This means consistent clearer metrics to identify risks early and to act quickly. We will set clearer integration expectations, based on British values, for existing communities and new arrivals, focused on a shared language, participation and respect for British values. We will develop a cross-government integration strategy and conduct a review of English language provision to identify best practice. Strengthening cohesion also means managing the pace of change. We will deliver an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and works better for communities.

We will boldly confront hatred in all its forms, head on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, said, Muslim communities are facing growing hostility, discrimination and abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels, and they now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes. We have a duty to act. However, we cannot tackle something if we cannot describe what it is. That is why we have announced that we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This makes clear what is unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims. By describing these distinct forms of hostility, the definition will increase understanding across wider society; give victims confidence that what they face will be recognised and taken seriously; and help organisations to take action, as the noble Baroness said.

By setting clearer boundaries around what is and is not anti-Muslim hostility, the definition helps create space for more open and honest discussion of sensitive but wholly legitimate issues. Critically, the definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech. It is about the unacceptable behaviour towards people, not the protection of belief systems. It will not impede the raising of concerns in the public interest. I take this opportunity to thank Dominic Grieve KC and the members of the independent working group who have provided advice to Ministers on this. I thank two Members of our House who have done a lot of work on it, the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lord Khan, who took on this work when he was in MHCLG. We will now work with various groups across society to consider how this definition can work most effectively in different sectors.

We remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have seen horrific antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad in recent months. Since coming to power, this Government have taken decisive steps. We have invested record funding for security at synagogues and schools, and millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities. We have changed the law to address pernicious protests by places of worship. In this plan, we are going even further by tackling antisemitic extremism and addressing antisemitism in schools and colleges, the healthcare system and the workplace. Work is under way across government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life.

Finally, our third pillar is building resilient communities. That means confronting extremism in all its forms. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, including by embedding the extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report with lists of the groups that meet the definition—to answer a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and transforming our disruption capabilities. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations; strengthen the Charity Commission’s ability to tackle extremist abuse; expand the reach of the visa taskforce; and promote safe, respectful campuses and workplaces.

Our universities should be beacons of free speech, but in recent years that has been undermined, as we heard in the debate in your Lordships’ House earlier today. We are now introducing new measures to tackle the rise in extremism on our college and university campuses since the 7 October attacks. That means strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, and providing oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and our ability to take robust enforcement action where needed. We will also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in workplaces and build on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act. By global standards, Britain is cohesive, and that underpins our economic strength, democratic resilience and national security.

I will try to pick up a couple of the questions from the noble Baronesses in the minute I have left. On the public interest test that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about, it is probably better if I send a full reply in writing. Broadly speaking, the definition does not create a new test. “Public interest” should be understood in its ordinary and commonly used meaning in UK law and policy: matters that serve society’s wider interests. There is no single person or authority who decides that, and the application of the definition depends on the context. The definition provides a framework, and decisions will be made by the relevant body in that context using their existing judgment and powers.

I have picked up the questions on schools and universities. There will be a curriculum on civic education for all levels. That is really important.

On stakeholders, we consulted with a very long list of stakeholders during this work. I can provide a list, if Peers would like to see that.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her comments. I am very proud of the multiculturalism in this country. I was at an iftar ceremony on Friday evening, and it was great to see members of the Jewish, Hindu and Christian communities, and others of no faith, there celebrating together. That is part of our culture. The Southport mosque incidents were absolutely terrible, but it was good to see the community come out and do the clean-up afterwards.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned attacks, both online and in person, on NHS staff. I commend my colleague Shabina Qayyum, the leader of Peterborough City Council. Since she became leader recently, she has suffered some of the most horrendous abuse. Shabina is not only leader of the council but an NHS doctor, and she gets abuse in both sides of her life. It is unacceptable and we have to do everything we can to stop it. I hope Members will support this action plan, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House would appreciate these rules being adhered to, in order to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We have not heard from the Lib Dems yet.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in the plan, including the agreement to produce an integration plan. It would obviously be very helpful if the Minister could tell us when that is expected to be produced. But it also includes a commitment to refresh the Life in the UK Test. Only last week, in the other place, the Minister for Immigration was unable to answer one of the test questions, namely, “What is the height of the London Eye?” More importantly, he was unable to justify the inclusion of that question in the test. Further, we discovered that there are questions such as, “What is the largest denomination in the United Kingdom?”, to which, apparently, the “correct” answer is £50, whereas, in truth, in Scotland, it is £100. So, the answer that is given is incorrect. We understand that that will last until 2027. Are we really going to have to wait all that time until the Government take action on a test that has received ridicule around the world?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

These amendments share a common thread—a shift away from the physical, open, and accountable practice of local democracy, where debate is in forum and in public. Devolution should mean strengthening participation, not distancing it. For these reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their amendments relating to council meetings.

First, on Amendment 218, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for raising this important issue, which she has rightly highlighted on numerous occasions in the House. I know that north Yorkshire, where she lives, is a large rural area, and I sympathise with her views on Sutton Bank. I live near there, just off the A19, and it is very steep; it is hard getting up there at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a snowstorm.

The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise democratic engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format.

Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised.

Likewise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his amendment on the issue of allowing councillors to participate in local authority meetings remotely. Noble Lords may be aware of the High Court judgment in 2021 that confirmed that local authority meetings, to which that case applies, must be in person and take place at a single, specified geographical location. This amendment would allow for councillors to join a meeting virtually, by video call for example, but only if the meeting was still happening in a physical room. It would not allow meetings to be completely remote. As I set out on the previous amendment, we are committed to giving local authorities the choice about how they hold their meetings. We would therefore not want to restrict any changes to just enabling hybrid meetings. Again, we remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this important flexibility for local authorities. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the open and flexible way in which he has drafted his amendment, I must ask him to withdraw it at this time.

I turn now to the other amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which would give the Secretary of State a power to allow members to vote by proxy at local authority meetings. In person debate and public participation remain fundamental to local democracy. However, we recognise that personal circumstances can, at times, make physical attendance difficult and create challenges for the continuity of local authority business. That is why we sought views through public consultation and, in response, confirmed our intention to plan to legislate in order to introduce arrangements that would enable proxy voting at local authority meetings. Such arrangements would support more diverse and inclusive local government while preserving the certainty and flexibility that local authorities need to set proxy voting arrangements which reflect local circumstances.

In the meantime, therefore, and where appropriate, substitute or pairing arrangements remain available. These arrangements continue to offer support to councillors during periods of absence while ensuring that the electorate are represented. Any arrangements to enable proxy voting at local authority meetings must strike a careful balance between maintaining transparency and accountability and modernising arrangements to support more diverse and inclusive local democracy. The noble Lord’s proposal for wide ranging central government powers to mandate and adjust proxy voting arrangements would mean Whitehall deciding operational details that are best decided at a local level. We have no desire to micromanage local authorities, as that would run counter to our approach to devolution.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I do not know which slippery slope my noble friend Lord Jamieson was referring to, but he did not address the issue raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Pack. If it is good enough for committees in both Houses that we meet in hybrid form, I fail to see why we cannot extend the same courtesy to local authority meetings in certain circumstances.

I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister that may not curry much favour in this Committee. If his Government were minded to delay the King’s Speech, there would be legislative time available, and the Government could then bring forward the proposals. If I have understood him correctly as saying that he is in favour of local councils having the opportunity to meet online in a hybrid format as well as in person, but not just now, that is extremely disappointing, obviously, given the contents and results of some of the responses to the consultation; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for sharing them. Some 86% and 91% of respondents were in favour, which shows that they are crying out for this. My noble friend Lord Fuller argued forcefully in favour of why these amendments are needed. Councils were able to meet in hybrid form and online in certain circumstances during Covid; if it was good enough for Covid, it should be good enough for the rest of the year.

I reserve the right to return to this theme on a future occasion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, with my other hat on, as the Whip, I just want to say that the next group is pretty long. We may not finish it by 9.15 pm so we may end up having to split the group. We may get to the single amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I cannot guarantee that. I am in noble Lords’ hands, but we have to stop at 9.15 pm.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We are definitely finishing the debate.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry; would it not make more sense—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

No.

Amendment 221 not moved.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 170 would require a mayor who holds fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, creating governance arrangements that mirror those already in place for policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raises a number of interesting and important points, as we have heard from this short debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of democratic accountability, as raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and on my noble friend Lord Fuller’s point about making sure that public services all work from the same geographic area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that; it might take a little longer, but I am sure it is worth doing.

During our consideration of the Bill, it has become clear that fire and rescue services are not listed as statutory consultees in the devolution framework. For me, that raises a number of important questions for the Government. As we have heard, fire and rescue services play a central role in public safety, resilience, planning and emergency responses, yet when decisions affecting land use, building standards, transport corridors or climate adaptions are taken without any requirement for fire service input, there is a risk of the safety and resilience considerations being added only after decisions have been made, rather than being embedded right from the outset.

In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees, whether the Government consider this omission appropriate, and whether steps are being considered to strengthen their formal role in devolution and governance arrangements.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.

Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.

If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Have the implications of the strategic defence review been taken into account in all this? Chapter 6 of the defence review talks about the need to mobilise a “whole-of-society approach” in response to the threats we now face, in which there will be more volunteer firemen and police, and civilian rescue will be expanded. That means that volunteers at the local level have to feel confident. If decisions will be taken a long way away at the top, I suspect we have not yet thought through how we will get the sort of volunteers and local resilience we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s point about whole-society resilience in the security review is quite right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There are resilience plans in all local authorities for such an incident, so these things are taken into consideration and reviewed constantly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have two comments on the noble Lord’s response. First, the fire and rescue service is no longer a statutory consultee. Anybody can respond to a planning application, but that is slightly different from being a statutory consultee. Secondly, commissioners are not accountable at the ballot box. Therefore, why would we allow the role to go down to not deputy mayors—I do not think there are such things—but the commissioners responsible, when they are not accountable at the ballot box?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am not sure whether there were any questions there.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I take this opportunity to put the question I asked in my intervention? For what reason are fire and rescue services not statutory consultees? The noble Lord indicated in his reply that they are, but they are not. It is driving people in North Yorkshire wild that all these highly flammable and highly combustible projects are being planted next to schools and people’s homes without the fire service being consulted.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

As I said, it may not be a statutory body, but being involved in a great deal of things on a statutory basis would be a bit of an onerous burden on the fire brigade. The noble Baroness mentioned the fires that could potentially happen. I have said that I will write to her about how the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire functions and works but, from what I can see and what I understand, there are requirements for the fire and rescue service to be there when required. It has a resilience role in all this, and it does not necessarily need to be a statutory body to do all these things when it can do them anyway.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Lord said that the budget, the strategy and the planning were passing to the elected mayor, so is the elected mayor undertaking assessments? For example, if, hypothetically, two of these battery storage plants caught fire and at the same time there was a wildfire on the North York Moors, would the mayor assess whether there are sufficient resources—water, manpower and equipment—to deal with those fires? Who will be responsible for planning that?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I repeat that the function of the mayor is for the budget and the risk plan, so he or she will take into consideration the potential problems that the noble Baroness mentioned. He or she is also responsible for the appointment or dismissal of the chief officer, and therefore that accountability stays with the mayor, who is the directly elected representative for the area.