English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will be moving on to talk about community right to buy and assets of community value. We are clear that communities should be able to identify assets of community value and ensure that they are protected. We are looking to give communities greater power to take on those assets. We are clear that every community will have those assets that they value. This Bill will ensure that we give them the power and the tools to protect those assets.

I will move on to another key amendment that we are making on Report. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of our cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and the growth of our economy, yet for too long hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London. It will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.

The amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing policy for hospitality venues within London’s night-time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to “have regard to” when carrying out their licensing function. The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the Greater London Authority will become a responsible authority in the licensing process.

The amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London for borough licensing applications of strategic importance.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the new power that the Government are looking at. I had a meeting this morning with two of my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). In some areas, we are seeing licensing policies that are having a detrimental impact on local communities. Does the Minister agree that in the proposals she is outlining there is still a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard-working councillors are working with the community to determine which licensing applications come forward?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. We are clear that the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority, and such things as licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. This measure creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call things in, in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas of strategic importance. In so doing, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done—the mayor is elected—must be done with the support of the local community.

I will turn to planning and empowering our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

The principle underpinning new clause 2 is straightforward: equal powers must come with equal accountability. Over recent years, combined authorities have been entrusted with significant and growing responsibilities—on transport, housing, skills, regeneration and more. Many of us support that trend, but with those responsibilities has come the power to levy a precept on local taxpayers, who are already grappling with rising bills and who have every right to expect that their money is being managed prudently and transparently. Pushing more and more on to council tax payers, as this Government have done, releases the Government from sustained funding. More and more responsibilities will be piled on to mayors, and that is not sustainable for the long-term future of our local government family.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the shadow Minister for discussing the issue of council tax, which I am sure he will agree is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. If he is honest, he will recognise that successive Governments have dodged this issue by placing it in the “too difficult” box, including during the last 14 years. Does he agree that maybe this is something that the previous Government should have looked at?

[Paul Holmes]

If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.

New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.

I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill back. On a happier note than that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), I think this Bill does outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first Bill to have “community empowerment” in its title, which shows the Government’s commitment to push on it. The Minister and I are fellow Labour and Co-operative MPs, and I am very excited about the community right to buy. I pay tribute to the many across the co-op movement who have been fighting for this for many years. I am mindful of the time, so I want to reflect on three specific areas.

First, new clause 25, tabled by my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, including on how local councils will respond to technical errors. Our Committee heard representations from the CIL Injustice group, which represents dozens of homeowners who have been unfairly charged CIL for home extensions, self-build and other small projects, even though CIL is intended as a levy for large-scale developments. Councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly, but the impact of these charges are life changing for some residents. We heard evidence of homeowners facing unexpected bills ranging from £40,000 to £200,000. We heard that some councils are applying a zero-tolerance approach, with the threat of imprisonment if these bills are not paid. Ultimately, we are seeing homeowners suffering real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they have been charged for something they should not have been charged.

To the credit of the Minister for Housing and Planning, he told our Select Committee that the CIL regulations are

“not intended to operate in this way”,

and that the Government are

“giving very serious consideration to amending them”

to ensure no one is unfairly charged. However, that was back in July, and in a letter to the Committee earlier this month, he was unable to provide an update on the plans to amend the regulations. He told us that the Department

“has not issued any formal or informal communications”

to councils about charging CIL. New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, would require the Government to take the steps urgently needed to address the unfair CIL charges. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up, gave the House an update on when the review of CIL guidance is coming, or if we can expect any secondary legislation to address this. We understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but a clear direction should be issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants in this way and that they should clear up the paperwork to stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of pounds of charges.

Secondly, new clause 31, on the tourism levy, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). This new clause would give established mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation in their area. Importantly, subsection (6) would require that money received from this levy is paid into the general fund of the authority, so it would be going directly to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the Government to go further with fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of local councils in many areas, but we are very clear that the one omission from the Bill is fiscal devolution down to our local colleagues. Our report on the funding and sustainability of local government finance, which we published in July this year, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax-setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy. I understand that, as the Minister outlined, anything to do with taxation is down to the Treasury and is not something for HCLG Ministers to look at, but I hope they are actively having such conversations with Treasury Ministers.

We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient.

Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.

In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.

It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.

In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.

The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.

Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.

[Florence Eshalomi]

On the losses to the council, does my hon. Friend recognise that for many councils the costs of additional street cleaning, refuse collection, signage and lighting all add up when an event is granted a temporary licence, and for many councils there is no compensation for that?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I absolutely understand and support the Government’s approach to supporting businesses, but good businesses are not supported if the fees for temporary events notices and other licences do not keep up with inflation. Where there is a flood of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, it causes a huge burden on the local authority, for which it is not funded. In fact, in Hackney there is an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone.

We need enough fees for enforcement while not overburdening business—we have to get that balance right. The best businesses will understand the costs of enforcement, refuse collection and the other issues related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, and will see the importance of that balance being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name.

As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.

[Florence Eshalomi]

We should declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman and I both served as London Assembly members for south London—the best boroughs. He speaks about there not being accountability of the mayor. Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.

New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.

New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.

It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.

I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.