English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, but I am puzzled, because the Bill is very much in line with the direction in which the last Conservative Government were taking us, and I had thought that she was then a Minister. I have not forgiven the last Conservative Government for the artificial institutions they imposed on Yorkshire in the face of resistance from all the councils in Yorkshire. I have not forgiven the Conservatives either for starving local government of funds, without which it is impossible for local democracy to work.

The White Paper and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill set out the problem it was trying to address, saying that:

“England is one of the most centralised countries in the world”,


that there is a serious and “long-term decline” in public trust in politics, and that three-quarters of our citizens feel powerless to influence decisions affecting their local area. It states that Westminster politics faces a

“wider feeling of disempowerment and distrust at a local level”.

The Liberal Democrats fear that this alienation from democratic engagement feeds into a broader disillusionment with democratic politics and democratic parties as a whole.

The changes the Bill proposes will not meet these challenges. Strategic authorities are not local government, nor are many unitary authorities of 500,000 people or more. Local communities—the word “communities” is thrown around a great deal in the Bill—are found in our towns, villages and urban neighbourhoods. The White Paper promises that the Bill will

“empower communities to take back control from Westminster”.

Instead, it takes power and representation further away from local communities, giving it to mayors, who are responsible for several million people. It promises that the new authorities will cover

“areas that people recognise and work in”.

That may fit England’s metropolitan areas, but it creates unrecognisable and artificial authorities elsewhere. This is decentralisation, not devolution. The Secretary of State retains extensive powers to direct, intervene and alter the new arrangements. These are executive powers, without continuing scrutiny from Parliament—“elective dictatorship” is the charge that the late Lord Hailsham made about an earlier Labour Government.

The 1997 Labour Government, in co-operation with the Liberal Democrats, devolved powers to Scotland and Wales. Labour’s half-hearted plan to devolve some powers to regional authorities collapsed with the defeat in the north-east referendum, in which Dominic Cummings played as negative a role as he later did in Brexit. A Tory-Labour consensus has since emerged that fewer, larger local authorities are cheaper and easier for central government to work with, and that elected mayors are far more to be trusted than elected councillors. It became the conventional wisdom that these bodies should be as uniform as possible in size and functions, with a minimum of 500,000 people for unitary authorities, which is significantly larger than London boroughs—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—for some unexplained reason, with subregional strategic authorities significantly smaller in population than London.

This does not reflect the complexity and distinctiveness of England’s different regions. What suits London and Manchester will not easily fit Devon and Cornwall. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, again that the last Conservative Government disregarded the overwhelming consensus of Yorkshire’s local leaders that we would prefer a regional framework to take powers back from London and imposed combined authorities and mayors on the moors and dales of North Yorkshire, as well as on the reluctant combination of urban Hull and rural East Yorkshire. The Bill will complete the imposition of the new strategic mayoral model across the country.

Moreover, it will ban the further introduction of mayors in unitary authorities on the spurious grounds that uninformed voters might be confused by the duplication of titles. French and American citizens manage all right with elected mayors at multiple levels, but English voters are clearly not able to understand.

The Bill is constitutionally incoherent and democratically deficient. Labour’s 2024 manifesto said almost nothing about English local democracy, except that:

“As recommended in the Report of the Commission on the UK’s future, we will establish a new Council of the Nations and Regions”,


and that, in the long term,

“Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.

We already know that serious reform of the Lords has been kicked into the long grass. The new Council of the Nations and Regions is a shadowy body, with the Mayoral Council for England tagged on as almost an afterthought.

We all agree that too much of our Civil Service is based in London. It is in London because that is where too many decisions about local policy and spending are made. The Bill does little to shift policy decisions out of London and nothing to ease the financial crisis of local government, nor to strengthen the ability of mayors or unitary authority leaders to negotiate fiscal priorities with the Treasury and central government. An alternative second chamber might well begin to rebalance UK politics away from overdependence on London, but that is far too radical an idea for Labour to pursue, for all that Gordon Brown recommended it.

The Bill’s answer to the problem of public mistrust and alienation is to offer an elected mayor for a distant strategic authority, accompanied by up to seven commissioners who will be

“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”,

who will

“act as extensions of the mayor”.

Once in office, strategic authority mayors will be almost as much elective dictators as Prime Ministers. This places excessive trust in mayors and excessive distrust in councillors.

Many of the most effective and useful Members of your Lordships’ House are former councillors. When I first joined the Lords, I rapidly learned to respect their experience and their understanding of how policies are implemented on the ground. Councillors are the elected representatives closest to our alienated and disillusioned citizens. The councillors I know in West Yorkshire, representing wards with 10,000 to 15,000 voters, struggle to get to know the different communities and issues within their enormous wards. This Bill will leave them with even less chance of representing the interests of their voters as it transfers powers upwards from local government to strategic authority mayors.

Clause 60 imposes a duty on local authorities to make

“appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance of any area of a specified description”,

which it calls a “neighbourhood area”. There is no mention of any direct elections here for neighbourhood representation. Presumably, it envisages area committees of councillors for several wards, roughly the size of a parliamentary constituency. Under that, the vast majority of our citizens will not personally know or recognise any elected representative. Repeated reductions in local authority budgets and programmes have left swathes of our cities without any significant contact with democratic institutions or public services. No wonder so many of them are distrustful and suspicious, and inclined to vote for those who tell them that democracy is a conspiracy.

Labour believes that it is delivery that matters, not participation in public life. Liberal Democrats believe in active citizenship as a fundamental part of democracy. We will press for really local councils to be an essential part of this new structure. It should be a matter of concern for Labour that town councils exist most often in prosperous communities and least often in inner city communities where discontent with democratic politics is at its strongest.

There is a glaring contradiction here between this assumption of passive citizens and the weight the strategic defence review places on mobilising all our citizens in their local communities to strengthen national resilience and respond to threats to national security. We discussed the SDR’s call for a whole-of-society approach in this afternoon’s Questions. The concept follows Swedish and Finnish models—two countries with strong local government and much higher levels of public trust in government. We will never manage to build a whole-of-society approach to national resilience and to the response to threats if most of our population feel left outside democratic life.

The proposal to reintroduce the supplementary vote is a classic example of the half-hearted Labour approach to democratic change. This was Jack Straw’s reluctant compromise for London mayoral elections. He intended it to help Labour by capturing Liberal Democrat votes, thus maintaining the two-party competition between Tories and Labour. Now—as I am sure we all know—we have a five-party system in England, as the polls have consistently shown since last year’s election, and we need to move to a system which reflects the diversity of electoral opinion rather than the conservatism of the current Labour Government.

There are of course proposals in the Bill that we welcome: the much-needed restoration of an effective system of local audit, and the powers to take buses into firmer local control, for example. My noble friends will speak further on these and other clauses. I welcome the Government’s willingness in the Commons to accept some reasoned criticisms and incorporate them in government amendments, and I hope we will see a similarly constructive dialogue here. We on these Benches will do our best to improve this ill-thought-through Bill, while maintaining our commitment to a structure for English governance which would be more democratic and more attuned to England’s local and regional diversity.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.

To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I feel the need to stress that we should not write off deliberative democracy, where people can access information and ideas and come together to reach new conclusions. Let us also stress that the economy—businesses and jobs—is one part of a much larger whole that is the community. Our society needs resources, education, time and health, so a simplistic, one-directional look at what our communities need will not answer our issues.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who made some very telling points about how this is a seriously half-baked Bill. Your Lordships’ Committee is going to have to add quite a bit of heat to get it anything like ready for the table. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils. I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, well and hope that we can see her back soon.

I start with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 95, as it demonstrates why we need many of the amendments in this group. It sets out in clear terms that the role of local government is to provide “democratic, place-based leadership” and it should not be

“solely a delivery arm of central government”.

Increasingly, that is what local government has been forced into being through the decades-long power grab by Westminster, accompanied by swingeing austerity that has left councils unable to carry out pretty well anything but their statutory responsibilities, which are of course determined by Westminster. That is a major driver of the extremely high disillusionment with politics and why the slogan “Take back control” was so popular in 2016.

I set all that out because my Amendment 9 seeks to add to the list of areas of competence. Most of the amendments in this group, as well as Amendment 95, would take the Government in the direction they say they want this Bill to go. I will focus on Amendment 9, but, regarding Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on community engagement and empowerment, I have a lot of later amendments on this which are not necessarily contradictory but potentially complementary. I also support the community energy amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Last night in the Chamber, I spoke about community energy; we are just not seeing the driving force that we need to bring renewables to local communities, which surely has to be a crucial part of the areas of competence of the new strategic authorities.

My Amendment 9 addresses food security and poverty. In terms of local food production, according to a recent report from the CPRE, 1,7 00 farms have disappeared around the edges of towns and cities since 2010. We have seen those peri-urban areas stop being food-producing areas when they should be at the centre of local food systems. We have seen a massive cut in the number of county farms; according to figures from 2019, over a couple of decades they have gone from 426,000 acres to about 200,000 acres. We have seen councils’ control over local food systems hacked away.

We know—this is why poverty and food fit together very well—that we have enormous spatial inequalities, arguably the highest in the OECD. That has been increasing over three decades. There is an understandable feeling in Cumbria, Cornwall, Northumberland and north Devon that Westminster does not understand their poverty problem or the reality of their lives. They are right. We cannot fix the problems of each of those places by making one rule from Westminster; tackling poverty in those places has to be a local responsibility, with power and, importantly, resources to go with it. We have been through regional development agencies, local enterprise partnerships, town groups and the wildly unpopular investment zones. There has been a huge democratic deficit in all those systems, and they all have failed.

I draw on two reports from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. The first is The False Economy of Big Food and the Case for a New Food Economy, which focuses on how what is colloquially known as “big food”—large centralised systems—is making us sick. It is the first report I have seen to have calculated the estimated total cost of our broken food system: £268 billion. A lot of that is the costs of healthcare, welfare support, social care and loss of productivity, all of which are having to be met by local authorities. Those are the costs—surely we need to put the solution and a reduction of those costs together.

We have lots to do here in Westminster. We have an extremely uneven playing field with a handful of big supermarkets and big food manufacturers entirely dominating the markets, throwing their weight around against local communities and farmers. Westminster needs to act, but how are we going to fill in the gaps? What are we going to put in all these different communities up and down the land? There is no one answer. Westminster does not have the answers.

I stress that about 22% of people in the UK are in food poverty. That means people who have a limited opportunity to feed themselves well, often relying on food banks, et cetera. UKRI is funding the Food Systems Equality project, involving systems in local communities to ensure healthy, sustainable food that reflects cultural preferences. We have recognition from one arm of government that the solution to our food issues has to be local—that is what UKRI is doing—but we have to put the power into local and strategic authorities to deal with that.

I pick one example of where something great is happening. An organisation called Growing Kent & Medway is an inspiring effort to create healthy and sustainable food systems in what has traditionally been the garden of England. It is place based, with a huge number of small independent businesses. I have tasted some great cheese and cider here in the House when they have come to visit us. But if we are going to have those kinds of systems all around the country in each area, they have to be supported by the strategic authorities.

Finally, I bring together food and poverty issues, including local food security in the UK. There is an interesting piece of work by the Royal Geographical Society, which carried out a visualisation of what food insecurity looks like in different parts of the country. It is useful to have this as a map, because you can see what different colours come out on the map showing the difference in different places. Food insecurity is variable across the country because of the levels of poverty, but the way in which people’s foodscapes are configured are different in different places. There is no way in which Westminster can find the solution for each place, because the solution in each place is different. There is nothing more fundamental for government to ensure that people are fed, but the Government in Westminster have to let go and let local communities find their own solutions.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we have been talking about public safety under Amendment 5. I want to check with the Minister how far the Bill is linked to some of the issues with which other departments in Whitehall are dealing. We all know that all the complicated policy problems are cross-departmental. Chapter 6 of the Strategic Defence Review was about a whole-society approach to home defence and home security, and the need for a broad approach to the multiple threats that we now face, including terrorism, climate change and hybrid warfare of one sort or another. The review stressed that we need local resources, knowledge and co-operation in order to make sure that we face some of those threats. So, I am glad to see public safety here.

I recall that when the Salisbury poisoning took place, the public health officer in Salisbury played a vital and impressive role in sorting out its response. I also remember that, when the Covid pandemic struck, the Government outsourced the placing of testing centres to two large companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami and made a remarkable number of mistakes in where to place the centres. We need not just strategic but local authorities to be leading on this. I hope that the Minister can assure us that public safety is one of the dimensions with which we are concerned.

I am struck that it has been eight months since the Strategic Defence Review was published. It also said in chapter 6 that we needed to start a “national conversation” on how we respond to multiple threats. I have not heard any of that national conversation yet. I hope that the Minister’s department and the Ministry of Defence are in active conversation about how this dimension is built back into our society and our government structure and how the resources—because it costs money—will be provided to local authorities, local civil rescue services, local fire services and police forces to make sure that we can face these multiple threats to our public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add a small voice to the chorus of support for these amendments. I do so from the perspective of my role as the owner of a cultural institution in Devon and my work on the Exeter place partnership, which has been particularly successful in encouraging arts and heritage activities within the city over recent years, such as Radio 1’s Big Weekend, the Rugby World Cup and the Women’s Rugby World Cup. It has been a tremendous success for the city.

I do not want to repeat what has been so excellently stated by many noble Lords. It does not need repeating. But there is one area to consider that maybe has not been emphasised: the importance for the strategic authorities created under this Bill of having competency over the arts and creative industries within their region. If they do not have the competency over these areas within their region, obviously someone else is going to, and that will be a central authority. That is going to homogenise and fail to develop the cultural identity of the strategic authority region. If we can bestow that core competency on the strategic authority, we will see the identity of that strategic authority grow and improve. It will better sustain the health and vibrancy of the strategic authority itself—not just the region but the strategic authority—and we should think of that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the inclusion of this measure—above all because, if it is enlisted as one of the areas of competence, it will strengthen the argument that strategic authorities will have to make with the all-powerful Treasury that this is one of the funding elements that must be included.

I declare an interest: I live in Saltaire, which is a world heritage site. We are an open world heritage site, which means that we cannot charge for entry. The delicacy of our relations with Bradford Council, with a very strapped budget in terms of providing the resources to cope with the tourists and visitors, is very much one of the things we have to struggle with. As other noble Lords have said, Bradford has just had the most successful City of Culture year. It has done a huge amount for social cohesion and morale—indeed, for all the things the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about earlier, in terms of expanding people’s horizons and bringing people together.

Culture has been funded through a range of different streams. We all know about and remember the battles with Arts Council England about funding areas outside London. We have seen the way in which local councils used to pull cultural elements together through education in schools, local music arrangements and so on. They have dismantled those music hubs, which have been played around with—they have been constructed and put together, then taken apart—and schools have become very separate. If we are to build back to local intervention, local help and regional support, culture needs to be stressed as one of the things that is of enormous benefit to all of us, both socially and economically. It has been squeezed as councils at all levels have had to squeeze their budgets; they have found that culture is one of the things that has to go, as other things seem more important immediately, but it leaves a huge gap in the long run.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on how the Government can act positively to fulfil the intent of the White Paper on pan-regional collaboration and support regions to ensure these bodies are set up to drive forward economic development and ultimately support the wider growth ambitions of the Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 102. Before I start, I must tell the Minister that, when I went home from the last session of this Committee, I found my wife watching an old episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Secretary and Treasury Secretary were discussing the threat of real regional government to Whitehall control, and how they needed make sure that some regions were set up sufficiently diversely to ensure that Whitehall and the Treasury maintained control. It deepened my already deep scepticism about whether this Bill will really achieve devolution or not.

Like others, this amendment talks about the problems of making sure that, at the regional and subregional level, we co-ordinate as far as possible. If I understand the purpose of the Bill, we will end up in England with somewhere between 30 and 35 strategic authorities with mayors. In some areas, they will meet the urban conglomerations; in others, they will be artificial, imposed on different counties. I note, however, that the Home Secretary is now proposing that we have in England perhaps some six to eight police authorities. At present, in Yorkshire where we wanted to have a regional single strategic authority, we now have four mayors and four police forces, so it fits relatively well. What the Home Secretary now proposes will tear that apart and make much more difficult again any sense of regional and local democratic control of the police. The next restructure of the NHS might well do something similar on a departmental basis. Can the Minister say how far there is any attempt in Whitehall to make sure that, when restructuring takes place, it does as far as possible attempt to make sure that boundaries coincide rather than cut across each other, as they have so often done?

Nevertheless, we recognise that there will always be different levels at which one has to co-operate. If you live in West Yorkshire, the trans-Pennine region is extremely important. If we ever get round to building Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will probably not be in my lifetime, we will have created a new region which is Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and all those between it. That will require a range of different authorities. The water catchment areas are unavoidably difficult. We have spent ages in my region discussing how far the Humberside region fits into either Yorkshire, Lincolnshire or wherever. There will be a need for co-ordination.

The question I would like to leave with the Minister—perhaps she can come back to us—is this. How, following this restructuring of local and subregional government, will they do their best to ensure that, in the next set of restructuring of other bits of public agencies, we will try as far as we can to recognise that a sense of place and regional identity is fulfilled by ensuring that, where possible, those things coincide?

To finish, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that I once spent a Saturday morning in Huddersfield marketplace—I used to be president of the Huddersfield Liberal association—trying to help people with their vote. At least half of the people who came up to me said, “Can you tell me what constituency I’m in? I do not know”. The constituency boundaries or their names had been changed, which is confusing for local people. It is all part of why public trust in our Government has weakened. The sense of place has also weakened. This Bill should be doing something to improve that, but I rather fear that it does not.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, Amendments 103 and 104 appear under my name. I confess that I can take no credit for drafting them; they started with my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place. I take note of the Whips’ injunction on brevity, so I will largely focus on those two amendments. They may look rather long, with pages and pages, but they have the same injunction repeated three times relative to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and the Greater London Authority Act, so they are actually much shorter than they look.

As the proposed titles state, they would create a duty on mayors to establish a deliberative citizens’ assembly within six months of being elected to inform strategic decision-making. That word “strategic” is important, because we have seen it demonstrated again and again that citizens’ assemblies provide a great way to address the big strategic questions. Proposed new subsection (6) in each amendment states that the mayor must take into account any recommendation made by the assembly, and publish a response.

Assemblies have really taken off up and down the country, if in a very piecemeal fashion—perhaps despite Westminster, rather than because of it. I am holding previous Governments responsible for that, but the current Government now have a chance to turn over a fresh leaf and act towards democracy by encoding citizens’ assemblies in this Bill. The organisation Involve, which has organised many of these, stresses how citizens’ assemblies are a way to

“strengthen legitimacy, foster trust, and solve complex problems”.

As it said in a recent blog post, it is a

“powerful answer to the breakdown in trust in our elected representatives and the wider crisis of democracy”.

Just to give noble Lords a sense of the kinds of government organisations that have been making use of citizens’ assemblies, Involve has organised various events along these lines for Innovate UK, UKRI, the Care Quality Commission and the West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a very long list; that is just a sample of them.

Under different structures and local initiatives, one area where citizens’ assemblies have proved particularly powerful is in looking at climate action. We have seen many local authorities set net-zero targets and communities have got together through citizens’ assemblies to work out how to do that. I take two examples of very different ones. In Kendal, right in the depths of the Covid pandemic, the town council organised a climate change citizens’ jury that was regarded locally as very successful. Then, in another place, very different politically and demographically, there was the Westminster citizens’ climate assembly in 2023. This is something that is taking off, but in a piecemeal fashion. This is a chance to really put a focus on deliberative democracy at the heart of this Bill.

Finally, on citizens’ assemblies, I draw attention to the powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the lead amendment in this group and the really powerful testimony from a group called Citizens for Culture, which is based in the south-west. It talks about championing citizens’ assemblies in terms of arts culture and says that:

“When diverse voices come together to learn, deliberate and decide, it leads to decisions that are more legitimate, more inclusive, and more connected to the lived experience of local people”.


Culture, brought together with a citizens’ assembly, creates a vital space where communities can make meaning, build identities and imagine new futures. I think that expresses the idea very well.

I can see the Whip looking at me so let me just say something about Amendment 104. There are many different amendments, both in this group and in previous groups, about mayors having to work with—in this case—local public service providers and other local government. This amendment would provide one more way of doing that. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that that is a really essential and necessary thing that is missing from the Bill; I am not attached to any particular way of doing it, but this would be one way of doing it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.

I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be here at the previous sittings—I had clashes of different obligations in the Lords last week.

I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lady Pinnock called the structural consistency issue. In preparing for the speech that I am going to make on Amendment 195, in the past few days I have read through a number of recent reports, including Labour Party as well as government and parliamentary reports on the governance of England, and I am struck with the frequency with which everyone from Gordon Brown through to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee say that one thing that we should be aiming for is consistency in the boundaries of different authorities so that, as far as possible, they coincide and the question of accountability is therefore relatively clear.

I was therefore struck when the Ministry of Justice produced a White Paper on policing that suggests that we might change the current structure of police forces in England—in Yorkshire that at least now coincides with the four mayors—by perhaps six to eight police authorities, which would not coincide at all with the 30 to 35 strategic authorities that we are heading towards in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment.

To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen.

As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time.

I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions.

I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job.

It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help.

I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall.

Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more.

On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”.

So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I totally share his view, and we will come on to that matter in the next group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for what he said, which was important. I am sure that the Minister, through this grid that the Government are now producing, might clarify what is happening in terms of delivery as opposed to simply the powers.

On a previous day in Committee, I spoke about there being powers, responsibilities and resources in devolution. They are not the same thing. So I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that many more powers could well be devolved, alongside the responsibilities for delivering the powers, without the resources to do the job. The point was well made by the noble Lord; I thank him for that. A little more will be said on this in our debate on the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, drew our attention to Greater Manchester and the improvements in the health system. Since the decision was made to devolve some responsibilities in health to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its mayor, I have always regarded it as a pilot of what we should all be doing. It is now for the Government to double-check all of the figures produced on improvements in public health and to assess whether, having had devolution, the resources have been provided to match the responsibilities and powers devolved—and, at the same time, to assess whether the achievements and outcomes in Greater Manchester are better than what has been secured elsewhere where there is no devolution.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said something that was terribly important to me: the NHS cannot be run by a central command and control system. We learned that during the Covid epidemic, but it is more than that. You cannot run 56 million people in England out of Whitehall and Westminster. The noble Lord helped us a lot by saying that what is to be devolved is a national decision and how it is to be delivered is a local decision.

I therefore come back to the grid that the Government are producing. It should now have a “what?” and a “how?”. Some greater meaning to the word “devolution” can then be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, in the end, without greater fiscal responsibilities and powers, you do not have devolution—you have decentralisation. I think I recall making that point at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, because it is so very true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to kick off this group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leaving at this crucial moment. I know that there are lots of other people with amendments here, so I will not dwell too long on what I want to say. On my amendment, I believe it is reasonable and genuinely important that, before new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority has a credible plan to improve local services, drive efficiency and deliver better value for money.

I was going to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she seems to have dashed off as well. I confess that I was a little saddened on the first day of Committee, when I thought I could perhaps work with the Lib Dems, but they were not able to support one of my amendments that follows this vein. Given the breakout of love on that last group, I hope I can get their support. That was on Amendment 12, which sought to ensure that people receive the best possible service on the ground as part of that intended reorganisation. As I say, this is my second attempt to win them over.

I genuinely believe that, if we do not build in something along the lines of what I suggest in this amendment, we are effectively just rubber-stamping the creation of swathes of new authorities without requiring them first to demonstrate that they will spend the public’s money well, and without any obligation to show that things will improve. To be clear, my amendment here simply states that, when we create these new authorities—which we are in this Bill—we should do so with the taxpayer front and centre. After all, surely one of the main tenets of devolution is that not only do people have a greater say but they have a better service in their local area based upon local desire and need.

As part of the process of reorganisation, I am saying here that new authorities must develop a plan as part of that reorganisation, because I genuinely do not believe that there is any point in going through all this reorganisation, with all the costs, energy, rebadging, delays of elections, hirings and firings—you name it—if there is no guarantee or even a requirement or plan for services to improve as a result. I say to my Lib Dem amigos that, although their argument against my past amendment was that it was not in the vein of the Bill, if they feel this is not the right Bill, let us try to work together to make it better. Let us try to put devolution in and put local people front and centre.

If we are choosing to impose this system on the people, which we are, we have a responsibility to make sure that it works for them. It is worth stressing that point: we are forcing devolution on to the people—rightly or wrongly, whatever noble Lords’ views—so we have a duty of care, in my view. There is no choice in this matter. In this Bill, we are ultimately giving a blank cheque, with respect, to the Government, so I do not think there can be a credible objection to saying that we owe it to the people that services should improve before we do so. If the power to create these entities lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, surely he or she has a duty of care to ensure that what will now appear across the land will deliver and look after the people in those communities.

As I said on day one, we cannot trust that this will all be fine. Some local authorities are already working well and, for those people in those authorities, perhaps things will continue to work well or even improve. However, when we are forcing authorities to combine with perhaps less well-performing authorities, we again have a duty to the people on the ground before these changes happen. It forces everyone involved to deliver and to work up a plan in advance.

Finally, and briefly, I will not name names but it was suggested in Committee that, because I have worked in Downing Street, I perhaps have very skewed views when it comes to devolution. I do not. I assure the Whip that I am not going to err into a Second Reading speech, but my real concern with this entire Bill is that it completely misjudges what I think people want. For context, I grew up in a working-class family in a terraced house in East Lancs. It was a long time ago, but there were some issues and those issues remain. In many northern towns, there are some deep and real issues. Twenty years ago, there was some scepticism of politics and how London dominated everything—this was in Lancashire by the way, the right side of the border—and things needed to be fixed, yet nothing changed.

That feeling has grown. However, that desire for change does not, in my view, equate to local government reorganisation, nor wanting mayors for mayors’ sake. Respectfully, the reason I say that is, if we look at the polls and at what focus groups say—I will not be the first to say this—if we go outside Westminster, there is a world between what we think people think and what they actually think. People are not clamouring right now for tinkering, nor are the masses out there with their pitchforks demanding local government reorganisation, but there is a building, growing unease. It has not happened overnight or certainly not solely under this Government, but people are struggling. They are feeling ignored and let down, and they want things fixed.

I give one quick example. The other day, I stumbled across the Electoral Commission’s 2025 public attitude report—I highly recommend it—which states that:

“More people now believe Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules”.


A little later, it goes on:

“Support among Labour supporters rose from 27% to 38% following Labour’s victory”.


It has other breakdowns for other parties as well, but I will not go into that. To me, what that shows is exasperation. People want things fixed; they want things to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is sadly not in her place, talked about my views on levelling up. I worked for the guy who coined that phrase. We can have a debate about whether he did any good or not on that specific issue, but levelling up does not always mean devolution—certainly not this version. One of the many things that used to drive me into an absolute rage when I worked in Downing Street was that, whenever many in Westminster talked of devolution, it always felt that it was more Westminster, not devolution. The answer to everything seemed to be more structure, more governance and more politicians. We seem always to overlook the crucial thing, which is the people themselves. It is they who want things fixed and to work and, in my view, that is what levelling up is. That is also why I think we need to put something into this Bill that helps to deliver it and puts the people front and centre. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 187. There is a fair amount of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—on both sides of the Pennines—about the nature of the problems. This is not a devolution Bill; it is a decentralisation Bill. The Government believe that delivery is what matters but have not yet understood that, unless the people on the ground are helped to understand why delivery is difficult and that they have some part in seeing what is delivered and in helping with delivery, they will not feel that it is them.

My amendment therefore starts from the need to re-establish public trust in the delivery of government on the ground, at the local level and, therefore, to provide a degree of financial transparency. Unless we have a more transparent process of fiscal negotiation about the distribution of funds between central and local government, we cannot succeed in improving the governance of England or in gaining the acceptance of people outside London and the south-east that the governance of England is fair.

There is a deep sense of disillusionment across the north of England that people have been neglected, that London does not understand them and that the Civil Service in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, has grown in the last 15 years while local government has languished and, in many cases, faced bankruptcy. The city of Bradford is not yet bankrupt but is struggling on the brink of it. We have to explain to local people why the services they used to have are no longer being provided. I challenge the Minister to explain how devolution, which helps to resolve the enormous crisis we have with public trust in our democratic politics, can take place without a more visible process of fiscal devolution, without beginning to reform local taxation and without Ministers as well as local council leaders explaining to their public what is and is not possible in strict financial terms.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 190 in my name would place an obligation on the Government to introduce devolved fiscal and revenue-raising powers within 12 months of the introduction of the Act. Fiscal devolution is the transfer of financial powers and responsibilities from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise and manage their own revenue and tailor tax policies and spending to meet local needs and ambitions.

The UK is widely recognised as having the most centralised system in the world. The dead hand of the Treasury is firmly on the purse strings, holding back local potential, opportunities and energies. Overcentralisation has held back regional economic growth and increased regional inequalities. Vast numbers of reports have been written on this subject, urging central government to empower local government by devolving powers close to the people they affect. Charities and think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation, the LGA, the Centre for Cities, Core Cities and many more have produced well-evidenced reports as to how financial devolution could empower the UK’s communities to boost economic growth and greater public participation in governance, but progress has so far been extremely slow.

There are many ways in which fiscal devolution could be achieved in England. Evidence from other countries demonstrates effective and achievable systems in such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland. Measures include raising direct tax revenues, expanding the tax base, taking a proportion of locally levied income tax, placing different conditions on business rates and making council tax a buoyant and progressive local tax, which it certainly is not at the moment. There is ample evidence available for the successful introduction of fiscal devolution in England. There are many advantages, such as democratic accountability and voter turnout at elections. Anybody who has ever campaigned in local elections will have experienced the challenge of persuading people to go out and vote when they understand that virtually all the funding comes directly from central government. “What is the point of it?”, they ask, when their hopes and aspirations are slapped down because of no funding coming from central government, only more cuts.

Economic dynamism benefits enormously from fiscal devolution in that the regions and cities of the UK are able to take actions that add to economic strength, such as attracting inward investment, job creation, skills training and development of specific infrastructure such as transport that enable more locally focused dynamic economic activities. There is also greater transparency and clarity. My colleague talked about the loss of trust among the public, part of which is because of the perception by many voters that money just goes into a great big hole: it comes from central government and they have no influence over how it is spent or raised. If they had more involvement there would be much greater trust and participation in local governance, which is a vital factor in the delivery of key projects.

The Government claim that the Bill will provide devolution and empowerment, but clearly it will keep firm central control over the finances. Funds are allocated from Whitehall, and mayors continue to be local outposts of central government who are responsible, in essence, for ensuring that central government policy is delivered at a local level. As my colleagues here have said, unless revenue-raising powers and financial powers are devolved, this is not devolution but decentralisation, and opportunities are likely to be lost: the opportunity to underpin local powers with real financial powers and responsibilities, and the opportunity to give people hope and optimism that they can achieve their local ambitions, with a realistic chance of them being financed, and improve their local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to clarify something. You cannot compare Salisbury as it is now to Salisbury as it was before as a district council. It was a far larger area; it was Sailsbury and south Wiltshire, not just Salisbury city.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am staggered at the thought of a parish council with a population over 50,000; it does not make sense to me. I am also staggered at the thought that, if we are talking about getting back to place-based communities, we are denying to places the size of Scarborough or Harrogate, both of which I know well and which have or used to have important assets, in conference centres and major hotels, the sense of local community or parish, thus increasing the sense for most of our public of total alienation from the politics that we are providing them with.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I just explain to the noble Lord that a parish council is a name given to parishes, towns and cities? It all comes under the same legislation as parishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Shipley have had to leave for another engagement, leaving me, a non-expert on climate change, to comment from this side. It is particularly important to put this in the Bill when we stop to think that, after next May, there will be rather more local councils that are run by members of a party that does not really believe in climate change. Indeed, within the next year or two we may have a number of mayors who also hold to climate-sceptic views.

We recognise—particularly after last month, when Aberdeen, for example, had 31 days in which it rained for part or all of the day; and when flood warnings are now out across substantial parts of England, Scotland and Wales—that we have some real problems and that they have to be faced at the local as well as the national level. I come back to the point I made earlier about the strategic defence review’s reference to a whole-society approach, galvanising local volunteers and people who need training as part-timers and volunteers in dealing with civilian rescues. We see that already and we need more. If we are to have that, it has to be local councils and not just combined authorities that help to respond.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell left me with a note that says how valuable it is to collect the sort of biodiversity record that is required, but that the climate emergency UK scorecard, with its 93 questions across seven sections, threatens to overwhelm the ability of local councils to record what is required. So yet again, one needs volunteers. One needs to engage people.

My deep scepticism about the Bill is that it seems to me to be taking government further away from local people, which would make it more difficult to engage volunteers and others in local democracy, and thus make the whole problem of the governance of England much more difficult. Having said that, I very much support these amendments and hope that the Minister will take them into account before we come to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

195: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“English Local Government Council(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a national body called the English Local Government Council.(2) The general functions of the Council are to—(a) to represent English local government in matters relating to devolution,(b) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power to English local government (“the Devolution Framework”),(c) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(d) to identify a representative or representatives of the English Local Government Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.(3) The members of the Council are—(a) a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority to represent the combined local authority in the proceedings of the Council, and(b) the Mayor of London.(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about the operation of the Council.(5) The Regulations must, in particular, make provision about—(a) staffing of the Council,(b) proceedings of the Council,(c) accounting and other record-keeping by the Council,(d) publication of proceedings of the Council, and(e) publication of guidance and advice by the Council.(6) In making regulations the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) provide for transitional arrangements to ensure that upper-tier authorities that are not part of a combined local authority are represented in the Council,(b) allow for weighting of the voting power of strategic authorities to account for combined local authorities having different population sizes, and(c) require the Mayor of London to consult with representatives of London authorities in performing functions as a member of the Council.(7) Members of the Council must pay annual fees to the Council, which must be set by the Secretary of State in regulations.(8) The Secretary of State must pay the costs of the establishment and maintenance of the Council, except in so far as those costs are met from annual fees.(9) Regulations made under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and(b) may include incidental, consequential or transitional provision.”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Bill about local government reform, but it is also a constitutional Bill. It is about the structure of governance within the UK and in particular in England. Perhaps I should say by way of introduction that I have had some very helpful advice in preparing this amendment from John Denham and Sir David Lidington, so in some ways, this is a cross-party amendment, and it is a matter of much concern to those who are thinking about the structure of the UK and how it holds together. I have also looked at the report from the Labour Party’s commission on the UK’s future, from December 2022, three and a half years ago, which strongly recommended a statutory council of England. I have also looked at various reports from the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has reported on the governance of England on a number of occasions in the past five years.

There is now a Mayoral Council for England, which I gather has met five or six times since the last election. It does not have statutory powers. Currently, it has the 14 elected mayors on it, and when we have gone all mayoral it will have some 30 to 35 when complete. I heard Andy Burnham talking 10 days ago about how well it has operated since the last election.

That takes us back to early intergovernmental relations, when, in 1998, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales were set up and relations between central government and the devolved authorities began to operate in a relatively informal way. The intergovernmental framework worked very well when you had Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales and a Labour Government in London, and began to work very badly when you had different parties in power in those countries. I say that by way of emphasis, because we are facing a situation in which, after May this year, we may well have different Governments in power in Scotland and Wales, and we will certainly have some different parties in power in parts of England. The question of how we manage that and how, if we really believe in devolution, we set up some means of bargaining negotiation between those who represent devolved authorities and central government, matters a great deal. If we want to make it work, we have to talk about the place of the Mayoral Council for England and give it proper authority to operate.

I remind noble Lords that we had these various intergovernmental councils under the previous three Governments. I note that under Conservative authority, we even set up joint executive committees to negotiate on the Barnett formula. The Joint Exchequer Committee for Scotland last met in June 2022; the Joint Exchequer Committee for Wales was created shortly before the Wales Act 2014 received Royal Assent and last met in October 2016. That is what happens if you have only informal and non-statutory arrangements.

The complexities of intergovernmental relations across the UK also include the British-Irish Council, which now has not only a north-south body but an east-west body on relations between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. From what I have heard from talking to Scots involved with this, it is clear to me that the Scots will not accept 35 mayors from England as representing England alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish on the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, I am afraid, is simply a rebadging of the old intergovernmental conference. Gordon Brown’s image of what the Council of the Nations and Regions should be was a great deal more ambitious than what we now have, and it was absolutely a statutory body. It is a sad reflection of how timid this Government are on all matters of political and constitutional reform that so much that was valuable in Gordon Brown’s report has so far not even been discussed further, let alone put into action.

We want the Mayoral Council for England and the Council of the Nations and Regions to be able to negotiate, bargain and hold the Government to account. We also want government departments in London to have to negotiate with and take into account the views of these sub-regional authorities that we will be creating. I was talking to another noble Peer who is actively engaged in this today who said that they regretted the regional centres of government, because it meant that those in the regions could get together with central civil servants and talk through some of the relations and regional areas of policy with them.

We have many more civil servants in London than we had 15 years ago, and we have fewer local government civil servants. That is the sort of thing that we clearly need to have. The purpose of my amendment is to say that we need some degree of clarity within the Government on the role of the Mayoral Council for England and how that governance arrangement for England fits in with the governance arrangements for the UK as a whole. This will become a much more difficult matter once we no longer have Labour Governments and Labour mayors as the majority, and we will therefore need statutory functions and statutory status to make sure that they continue to meet, argue and, one hopes, co-operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.

This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.

I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.

It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am of course entirely willing to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to stress that this is a very important point. We are about to enter another difficult period in which we have no idea how this year’s elections will come out and which parties will be in control in different parts of the United Kingdom, and in which the relationship between the devolved authorities and what is intended to be the stronger combined authorities within England will come under some strain.

What happened between 2015 and 2024 is that these things did not work well and, in many cases, they ceased to meet. We do not want that to happen again. If this proposal for stronger mayoral authorities is to work, we need to make sure that it fits into the governance of the United Kingdom. If it is to work, the institutions, not just the Council of the Nations and Regions but also the Mayoral Council for England, need to have a good deal more power than the LGA has in standing up to central government—and, as in most other democracies, they need to have some sense of how one bargains over fiscal redistribution. One of the central aspects of the German federal system is the bargaining over how money is distributed between the centre and the richer and poorer regions. That is something that we need to do in England as well—it is done a certain amount between the devolved authorities and the United Kingdom. I speak as someone from northern England, and we are always deeply conscious of the fact that we do not manage to bargain with central government about that.

I would be very grateful if the Minister would have further conversations off the floor before Report, because otherwise we will want to push the issue that the Mayoral Council in some shape or other must be given statutory authority. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, uncharacteristically, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.

Clause 57 and Schedule 26 should play no part in the Bill because the claim that larger units of local government are more cost-effective has been thoroughly debunked. We will just end up with larger, more expensive units that deny the pattern of life that people live. The 500,000 argument was comprehensively debunked by the Blair Government in 2006 with a seminal document that is still available on their website. More recently, the claim that this current round of unitisation will save money was initially made by the County Councils Network, citing evidence dating from 2020. Last year, the people who wrote the report said, “Actually, we made a mistake and there are no more savings to be had”. The savings that were promulgated in 2020 had already been made.

Bigger is no longer better. A forced reorganisation across the entirety of this country is likely to crystallise at least £1 billion-worth of unaccounted for pension strain costs for those who would be entitled to retire on a full pension up to 10 years early, having been forced out on grounds of efficiency. There is special meaning to those words. However, those billion pounds or so have not been taken into account, and it is local people who will pick up the tab. Through the Bill, we will end up with more expensive additional layers to have mayors who can raise taxes on things for which they are not even responsible.

I do not intend to relitigate the arguments I made on Monday, but there is no clarity on where the new town and parish councils will sit. This is unfinished business that we will need to revisit on Report. We must ask: is there even capacity in national government, let alone local government, for this reorganisation at a time when councils should be in the van of building homes, growing the economy and picking up the pieces for those who have fallen on hard times?

I ought to alight for a moment on the consequences of council tax equalisation in a territory, none of which has been considered at all. I am a veteran of several rounds of local government reorganisation over many years. In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, there were some statutory tests, including on value for money, equity between areas and consistency of electoral quotient. There needs to be a broad cross-section of support, but none of this is included in the Bill. The requirement for consent has been abandoned—this is something that is going to be done to people.

Last night I was at a dinner in London and people told me how, 20 years ago, they travelled from all parts of the country to go to Norwich to celebrate their octocentenary; it was 800 years. Among them were lord mayors, honorary aldermen, the sheriffs and the reeves. The Bill is silent on how this important civic part of our nation is to be treated. In an unthinking reorganisation, the civic life of our nation will be vandalised. In future, there will be no more trips to Norwich, or anywhere else for that matter, for those people who are part of the social grease of the way our nation works.

I have heard it said that this will make local government simpler and more straightforward. As we have learned over many days in Committee, however, it will cost more, there will be plenty more expensive layers and there will be more complication. Last week we discovered for the first time that, among the 40 fire authorities in this country, there will be 10 different structural arrangements. What a missed opportunity this is. Rather than reorganising the deckchairs in local government, perhaps we could do something about simplification. But no: there will be less accountability and it will be more impenetrable.

Ultimately, families, businesses and the economy outside the M25 will suffer while London and the mets get to sit this one out. There is no equity there at all. People will be paying more for less, having powers taken further away from them. Nobody wants it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I feel bound to remind the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that the Bill is a Labour continuation of a local government reorganisation started under the Conservatives. This is very much the Michael Gove—now the noble Lord, Lord Gove—view of how England should be governed, with mayors as the key element and large units imposed regardless of place.

I have done my politics in Yorkshire over the years. I think the imposition of a single unitary council, against the preferences of almost all local authority members in North Yorkshire—except York, because York was, by and large, a contest between Liberal Democrats and Labour—was a crucial example of ignoring place-making in everything else.

When I do my politics in Bradford, I am conscious that it is a large unitary authority and I see good councillors struggling to represent their wards, and councillors who are not so good leaving their wards pretty much unrepresented. I support very strongly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about the importance of place, and of recognising that different areas require different patterns. I also regret the tendency of successive Governments to go in for restructuring when they are not sure what else to do, the unlikelihood that this will lead to better government and, sadly, the likelihood that it will leave more people across England feeling unrepresented and ignored.

I was very struck by a letter I saw this morning from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Fire Safety, Building and Democracy. That seems to me to place the importance given to democracy in the appropriate place according to the Bill. This is supposed to be a democratic Government and a democratic country. All politics is local. The figures on public trust that I see every year show that the public trust Westminster less than they trust local government. Weakening local government is a very bad idea but, unfortunately, that is what the Bill is all about.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, size really does matter. Big is not necessarily beautiful. I am a practitioner, as many know, looking up the telescope from place-making projects we are working on across the country, I declare my interest as such. I am a voice, I suppose, from the charitable and voluntary sector and the social enterprise sector. As I said, I am looking up the telescope into these impenetrable large structures, trying to deliver place-making projects on the ground.

My experience over many years and today confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is saying: he is correct and we need to be very careful about these matters. My colleagues and I have been working with one county council leader on place-making projects for the past eight years within a large structure. He is an excellent, capable leader, but it was virtually impossible, even with his support, to get this beast to dance to an innovation tune on place-making in his county. It was like swimming through treacle, even though all the politics was in the right place to do it. I found that this structure was too large to have any sense of place or to have any relationships with people on the ground, where it really matters. If future place-making is about bringing people together, people and relationships are crucial.

In practice, this restructuring is already halting many place-making projects in challenging communities in the north of England, as staff look for new jobs. My colleagues and I see and experience it every day. The Government have a right to restructure, but they need to listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and those of us working on the ground: the practical details really matter.

The country is in danger of coming to a halt. We need to get interested in practice on the ground and what works in detail. At the moment, practitioners feel ignored. We want to help, but there needs to be a dialogue and real interest in what works on the ground in local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

205: Clause 60, page 61, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) In making regulations under subsection (2), it is the general duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that such regulations promote the role, involvement, and authority of locally elected councils in the governance of neighbourhood areas.(2B) It is also the general duty of the Secretary of State, in making regulations under subsection (2), to encourage local decision-making as close as practicable to the neighbourhoods affected.”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my amendment and the others in this group all stem from a degree of unease, in particular about Clause 60 but also generally about the ethos of this Bill towards local democracy, local representation and local participation. Clause 60 talks about

“appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance of any area”.

It says nothing about elections or representation. Subsection (3)(d) talks about

“the purpose of ensuring local engagement with the neighbourhood”,

but there is nothing here about local councils. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am uneasy about the whole Bill’s approach to democratic engagement and participation.

I know that many within our governing elite think that elections are a cost and we should reduce their number or frequency. I am very conscious that Dominic Cummings made his reputation by campaigning against regional government in the north-east because it would cost money and there would be more politicians—and the fewer politicians, the better. However, the fewer politicians you have, the more authoritarians you end up with.

Among my criticisms of the Bill are that it does not define its terms very clearly. “Local”, “neighbourhood” and “community” are used to cover a great variety of things. I recall that Norwich has been described as a “parish council”—a city as a parish council—but there are all sorts of confusions there. “Effective governance” itself needs a good deal more explanation than we have.

I am a liberal. I believe in democracy which has local, political and popular engagement, and I believe in active citizens. I support votes at 16, which the Government are about to produce in the elections Bill —I have just been told that it will be published within the next month—in order to encourage the engagement of young people in public life, starting with voting. However, if we are going to think that one through, they have to have some way of being engaged.

We know what has happened to our structures of local government over the last 70 years. I grew up in a country which had urban district councils, rural district councils, county boroughs and a great many more local authorities. Not surprisingly, political parties were all larger. The core of your local Conservative association was your local councillors and those who worked with them; it was similar with the core of your local Labour Party, and so on and so forth. No wonder political parties have shrunk in numbers and more and more citizens feel disengaged from politics, because less politics goes on at the local level. To repeat what I said earlier, the statement that all politics starts with local politics is a fundamental thing about democracy. City self-government is, after all, the basis of civilisation —that is what “civilisation” means—and if we are depriving Oxford, Cambridge, Harrogate and Norwich of self-government, we are really getting into trouble.

I think the Government think that local government is about delivery, delivery is best done by direction from the centre and you do not want too many local authorities to get in the way. I understand Clause 60 as saying that, in some cases, non-elected neighbourhood groups are better and easier to work with than elected representation. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on that. I hope I have misunderstood, but I may not have done.

I am a democrat and a liberal, and I therefore want to see an active democracy from the local to the national level in the UK. This Bill seems, on the whole, to make democracy weaker, and Clause 60 is the most dubious clause of all. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not aware that it was controversial or objected to at the time that we considered it under the levelling-up legislation; it is just that it has not been brought into force. So, the purpose of my amendment is to add town councils and these new neighbourhood structures the qualifying bodies, to add single foundation strategic authorities and development corporations with planning powers to the relevant authorities for the purpose. I should of course note that I do not live in greater Cambridge any more but it is the intention of the Government to create a development corporation with significant planning powers on all strategic sites in that area. It would be remiss not to ensure that development corporations also have regard to neighbourhood priority statements when undertaking their planning functions. The final part of Amendment 241D would require that new Section 15K neighbourhood priority statements added to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act be brought into force within two months of the passage of this Act.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord a question about which areas are not parishes? My strong impression is that the unparished areas in Britain are, by and large, poorer inner-city areas —those areas that are most disengaged and disillusioned with politics. If that is the case, it ought to concern us, but I have not yet managed to get full evidence of it.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right about that. The interesting thing is that, just because an area is urban, it does not mean that it does not have parishes. London, one of the biggest cities in Europe, is very often called a city of villages. That they are called parishes is normal in urban areas as much as it is in country areas. “Parish” is not a rural concept; it is a well-established historical concept, wherever you happen to live. Extending parishes across the country would be an admirable way of extending neighbourhood governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a really important debate because it has emphasised and demonstrated the muddle that is in the Bill: the vacuum that will be created following the local government reorganisation process. How is it that Clause 60 cannot even bring itself to mention the town and parish councils that have formed the bedrock of our society?

I know it is inconvenient to have those pesky politicians interfering in that administrative competence: why do we want delegates and deputies at that lowest level? I can understand why the dead hand of Marsham Street has written Clause 60 as it has, but it is not good enough, because it does not have the golden thread of legitimacy that comes only with elections or democratic accountability. We are not seeing authoritative governance, but authoritarian governance; we will be leaving it to local authorities to impose relationships in some smaller parts of their territory without any regard or requirement for democratic legitimacy.

We have had an interesting discussion. The number bandied around was that 20% of places are unparished. It is not equally spread throughout the nation but, by and large, the historic county boroughs have not been parished because they have been billing authorities and districts in their own right. Areas such as King’s Lynn —a proud Hanseatic town—are currently going through a consultation to form their own parish so that there is not a vacuum. I am very attracted to Amendments 207 and 210, and especially Amendment 209A from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because they would prevent a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, but there will be one unless we have these absolute requirements here.

In our discussion about parishes, there was some confusion over what we might call ecclesiastical parishes —those parts of a town with a parish church—but we have not really got to constituted, incorporated parishes that are part of a parish council. It is important that our nomenclature is straightened out. I will talk about civil parishes as opposed to ecclesiastical ones.

There are already multiple arrangements. In my electoral ward, the two parishes of Alpington and Yelverton are inconveniently at both ends of the alphabet but have come together to form a community council—a joint parish council with warding for periodic elections. A minimum number of councillors from Alpington and a minimum number from Yelverton must come together as part of that. Put together, about 400 or 500 people live in those two parishes. Where is the equivalence between Alpington and Yelverton working together and Weston-super-Mare? We are trying to shoehorn this. The Bill should be clear.

In the previous session on the Bill on Monday, I ploughed a lonely furrow as I tried to make some sort of size distinction between these smaller parishes and the larger towns. I was on my own; had that debate been held today, I feel I might have got more support. Nevertheless, we must make sure that we end up with properly constituted, incorporated bodies to govern these smaller bits. Just establishing a joint committee or sub-committee of the new body that sits above it will not be any good, exactly because of the library point that was made so well.

The Bill is deficient because none of this texture is explained or laid out. There is just a muddle, with no legitimacy. This must be brought back on Report with significantly more flesh on the bones and I encourage the Minister to do so. I am not sure whether even Stevenage is parished; it was certainly a new town. That is a whole new class of authority that we may need to look at in this regard. We must try to bring together all those bits from my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others to bring some order to this. Otherwise, it will be disorderly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I apologise for intervening, but it is not just about legitimacy—it is also that local areas occasionally want to pay for local amenities that the large unitary does not want to pay for. Shipley, in which Saltaire is based, now has a town council because Bradford decided that it could not afford to pay for public toilets. Ilkley had its own town council so it could do it, and the other tourist destination, Haworth, has a Brontë museum, which pays for its own toilets. Saltaire is a world heritage site, but it had no money to pay for its toilets, so we had to form Shipley Town Council to reopen an absolutely essential part of our local community and economic area. That is a new tension that we have; for libraries and other things, we need some degree of fundraising power for local activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is actually in Knebworth, north Hertfordshire, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my unease has not been lessened by the Minister’s answers, and I suspect that others will feel the same way.

The Minister says that they do not want to impose a single model. I thought that this Bill was about imposing a single model on the governance of England. It was certainly made clear by the Conservative Government —let us accept that this is a Conservative model that which the Labour Government are introducing—that, unless east Yorkshire and North Yorkshire accepted the mayoral model, they would not get the deal for which they were asking. There is a large question there.

When I heard the Minister say that the role that town and parish councils play in neighbourhood governance is recognised, I want to know who else is playing a role and how important the town and parish councils’ role might be. Will it be marginal or major? We do not know what the other bits of neighbourhood governance are intended to do. I am happy to hear that the Government want town and parish councils to continue to play an important and valuable role, but I think more of us want to ensure that they play a significant and leading role in local democracy. At the moment, Clause 60 does not provide us with that reassurance. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but this is something to which we will want to come back if and when we manage to reach Report.

Amendment 205 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not participating at Second Reading and speaking on this occasion, but the circumstances between Second Reading and now have changed very substantially. I intend to concentrate on the amendments relating to delayed elections.

Before I do so, may I make an observation? I shall go no further at this stage than making it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others that I do not support their proposals in relation to changing the voting systems. Although I know that they pursue this matter on a point of principle, I warn them that, under the current political circumstances, trying to change the electoral systems will be portrayed by one political party in particular as denying it the opportunity to be represented on councils. I make that observation in passing.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in principle. I have tried to make contact with the Association of Electoral Administrators to establish its view on this but, unfortunately, its excellent chief executive, Peter Stanyon, who is normally enormously helpful on such matters, is currently off in ill health. So I could not get any clarification, but I am sure that, in broad principle, it would want to follow what this amendment is pursuing.

I turn now to the nub of this whole issue, which is the delay in elections. I first spoke on electoral matters in the other House in 1984. I voted against the then Conservative Government on a three-line Whip—I was one of the first new boys to do so—because I believed that the Government were, in the process of abolishing the GLC via the paving Bill, interfering with democracy. Looking back on that proposed Bill, I still take that view and am pleased that I voted against the Government on that occasion. It is interesting that the Government dropped the specific proposal against which I voted after the House of Lords passed its opposition to that same clause by a majority.

Since that time, I have never given consideration to the possibility of deferring elections for up to seven years. If somebody had suggested to me that that was going to happen in this democratic country, I would have said that they were positively insane. The history of the last few weeks has really called into question my faith in the legislation that we have on our democratic process. On 18 November, the Minister’s response to me and others was that the intention of the Government was to hold the elections as identified in full. We received the same response on 8 December.

On 18 December, the day we went into recess, the Government issued a letter to 63 councils asking whether they wished to defer the elections. Please do not tell me, or other Members of this House or the other, that no consideration was given on 18 November or during the five weeks that followed—or even on the night of 17 December—to the fact that there might be delays in elections, because nobody will believe you, I am afraid. It is a question of competence and honesty in relation to the processes. I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, we are witnessing a serious erosion of our democratic principles in this country by silence at different stages.

I do not mind which amendment we adopt, in what form, but we have to ensure that, as a democratic country, which I believe the United Kingdom to be, we are never again in the position where a Government announce their actions in the way that they have, with the result—as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and others have said—that people who have a vested interest in not facing re-election are taking the decisions on those elections. I despair of what I have witnessed over the last few weeks. I ask the Government to be more honest and open throughout, because it is not acceptable that I find myself, for the first time in 40 years of reviewing elections, seriously questioning whether a Government can interfere with elections when they really should not.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak a little about the proposals to change to a supplementary vote. I have some memories of how this came to be, since I was involved between 1996 and 1998 in some of the discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the then Labour Government about voting systems. The Labour Cabinet was divided on the subject; Jack Straw was one of the strongest opponents of any change in the electoral system and the most he was prepared to accept was the sort of bastard form of half way towards an alternative vote, which is the supplementary vote. It is neither one thing nor the other.

Now that we are in a multiparty system, we have to face up to the implications of where we are. For most of the last year, we have had five parties in England getting between 10% and 30% of the vote and no party getting over 30% of the vote. The elected Mayor of the West of England received 25% of the vote to become mayor. I think the record for the lowest percentage of the vote won by a winning candidate happened in a Cornish local by-election, in which the Liberal candidate was victorious with 19.5% of the vote in a six-party contest.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.

I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.

If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by addressing the amendments in this group concerning voting systems.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, opposes Clause 61 and Schedule 28 standing part of the Bill. These provisions will reinstate the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. This was the voting system in place when these roles were first introduced. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, which has been reflected in today’s debates.

Given the large population that each regional mayor represents—far exceeding that of Members of Parliament —and that they act individually rather than collectively as part of a council or parliament, the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors. We believe that the supplementary vote system, which is a preferential voting system, will achieve this and is appropriate for electing candidates to single-person executive positions, such as mayors. The supplementary vote helps to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose a first and second choice candidate. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, which ensures a broader mandate from the people they are representing.

Currently, mayors are elected using the first past the post system. We recognise that that system, while not perfect, has its merits: it is a well-understood system that provides a direct relationship between a Member of Parliament or a councillor and the local constituency or ward. Therefore, we believe that first past the post is appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as in councils and parliaments, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views and parties will be elected. However, this clearly does not apply when electing someone to a single-person executive position, as is the case for mayors and police and crime commissioners. Therefore, we believe that the supplementary vote is the right system for electing mayors, which is why the Bill reverts the voting system back to the supplementary vote.

Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, seeks to introduce the alternative vote system for the election of mayors. While I agree that mayors should be elected using a preferential voting system, the Government believe that the supplementary vote system is the right preferential voting system for electing mayors. The supplementary vote was the voting system implemented on the introduction of mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, which was in place until 2022, when the voting system changed to first past the post. We are reinstating the voting system that was originally used for these elections, which will be familiar to many voters. I note that, when the public were asked for their view on the alternative vote system, albeit in relation to UK parliamentary elections, they did not support the move to the alternative vote system. In the referendum held in 2011, 67.9% of voters rejected this proposal. The alternative vote system is not in use in any polls in the UK.

Amendments 214 and 215, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, would allow for the introduction of a proportional representation voting system for local authority elections. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. As I have already laid out, the first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives to a council and provides for a direct relationship between a councillor and their ward. Therefore, for local council elections, the Government believe that first past the post remains the most appropriate system.

I turn now to the amendments that concern the timings of elections. We will of course have a debate on this on 23 February, the first day back after the Recess—I hope we all come back refreshed. Before I speak to the specific amendments, I remind your Lordships that the Government have embarked on the most significant programme of council reorganisation in England in 50 years. We are determined to streamline local government for the remaining one-third of people who still live under the two-tier system. It is in this unprecedented context that the decisions to postpone certain council elections for one year have been taken.

Our view is that it is time for bold action on both local government reorganisation and devolution, but we recognise that reorganisation is resource intensive at all levels, political and administrative, within a council. We have listened to those councils that have told us that postponing their elections this May will release vital capacity to deliver reorganisation effectively. It will also avoid the cost and distraction of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished shortly.

I reiterate that the Government’s position is that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that is the sentence I have always used when I have talked about elections. The Secretary of State recently announced that the high bar we set for taking a decision to postpone has been reached in a number of councils. The legislation to implement these decisions was laid in Parliament on 5 February.