English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, having attached my name to this crucial amendment. I declare my position as vice president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils.

What we are trying to do here is to save the Government from themselves, because without this amendment, this Bill risks being entirely referrable to the Advertising Standards Authority for false advertising. This is supposed to be the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but instead it concentrates power and does nothing about empowering communities, so this is the essential amendment.

We know how much parish and town councils are embedded in and are part of their communities. We are taking away that district council layer and putting all the power in the hands of one person. It is no secret that we in the Green Party do not believe in elected mayors, but even if you do believe in them, just think about that concentration of power. Should we not also refer power outwards?

There are two crucial parts of the amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) states:

“Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must … consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level … and … where it considers that to be the case … enable such devolution”.


Proposed new subsection (5) states that local authorities must have a community empowerment plan to work out how to empower their communities. These are absolutely basic provisions.

I guess I apologise to noble Lords for bringing up the Brexit referendum, but last week I was with a group of young university students. Ten years ago, they were, of course, quite small children, and it was really refreshing and telling that they were asking me what had actually happened: “How did Britain get itself into this mess? Why are we in this situation?” One answer I gave them was that “Take back control” was a very powerful slogan which lots of people felt really spoke to them. We now know that, now we have left the European Union, people do not feel any more in control. If we do not make this Bill provide some sense of taking back control in England, that enormous problem of lack of trust in politics will only increase.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, democracy starts with local engagement. As the saying goes, all politics is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community.

We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire; place is your local community. What this Bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should perhaps be somewhere between 1.5 million and 4 million people. There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and Iceland, with populations below that, and Luxembourg is not that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we are talking about Denmark, Estonia and Latvia: states that seem not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them—and they work.

I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the winter Olympics the other week, at which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present. They have several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe, and what this legislation is intended to reduce as far as possible. Local politics is essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds: things that, ideally, are not left with strategic authorities and mayors, who would be roughly equivalent to the President of Finland—to whom I was listening the other day—in terms of the number of people they are responsible for. Let us be realistic about that and recognise that, unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level, with elected representatives who know those who voted for them and who are known by those who voted for them, we will lose an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party—and, I hope, everyone else here—is committed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group, on the establishment of combined authorities and combined county authorities, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.

Our concern is about the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. As drafted, Schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to create or make certain changes to the governance, boundaries or composition of authorities, without necessarily obtaining the explicit consent of the councils involved. This is entirely contrary to the principle of community empowerment. It is a top-down reorganisation directed by the centre. We firmly believe that changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities must be based on local consent. Reflecting that principle, Amendments 7 and 38 would entirely remove Clause 4 and Schedule 1 respectively.

Other amendments in this group, Amendments 9 to 24, 28, 29 and 35, are consequential to Amendment 8, but they all rest on the same fundamental principle: that changes should be made with the consent of the local authorities involved, not imposed from above by the Secretary of State. Are not local empowerment and consent the very essence of devolution?

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant authorities have consented “in principle” —but that is not enough. How can local democracy be meaningful if changes can be imposed without explicit consent? Should locally elected councillors merely rubber-stamp decisions made in Whitehall? I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of a situation in which authorities have not consented explicitly, but the Secretary of State could argue that they have consented “in principle” to justify top-down changes?

These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they go to the heart of the balance of power between local government and central government. Obtaining the consent of the relevant authorities is not an inconvenient administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Changes to local government should reflect the wishes of those they are intended to serve. If anything, the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill raises questions about the Government’s true intentions. Is the Bill truly about empowering local communities, tailored to their geographic, historic and cultural identities? Alternatively, will it force locally elected representatives to conform to managerial directives from the centre? Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments address the specific drafting of Schedule 1, and I am minded to test the opinion of the House on them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am not at all sure that the Government understand that decentralisation and devolution are fundamentally different things. What we have here is a Bill for continued central control of the governance of England, subject to allowing mayors rather more powers. I therefore strongly support these amendments from these Benches, while saying that the practice of the last Conservative Government was rather different from the principles we have heard enunciated today.

I recall vividly that all but one of the councils in the great county of Yorkshire asked, when negotiating with the Government for restructure, for a whole of Yorkshire authority with other authorities underneath it, and it was made clear that it would be conditional on acceptance of a four-mayor structure for Yorkshire. If we were to get the money that the Government were offering, we would have to accept what the Government insisted on having. That is a good example of Conservative decentralisation, and now we have Labour decentralisation.

I am my party’s Cabinet Office spokesman; I am concerned with constitutional issues. In the majority of democratic states, the structure of local and regional, as well as national, government is a constitutional issue. In England, it is dealt with as a matter of convenience. Successive Governments talk a certain amount about how to get civil servants out of London, but the extent to which what local government does is controlled and funded in detail by Whitehall departments means that of course the majority of civil servants have to stay in London because that is where the power is and the decisions are taken.

This is a very flawed Bill. We are doing our best to limit its many problems. This amendment will perhaps limit the damage a little and allow local and regional areas to have some continuing say in how the governance of England should be maintained.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, not only on these Benches, the Bill is titled the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but it seems that it does the exact opposite. I strongly support my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson’s amendments in this group.

Amalgamation of councils or the establishment of new combined authorities should definitely not be allowed without local consent. Consent is necessary to ensure that the proposed restructuring reflects the views and needs of the local community. Without local consent, the transfer of contracts and services may not be efficiently handled, and there is a large risk that service continuity will not be maintained. Of course, that will lead to increased public discontent with the changes. Already the public are not happy at the rushed changes being proposed, not only to local government but because the changes themselves are unpopular and probably mostly bad. However, in addition to that, to try to install, from above, elected mayors for every local authority in the land at the same time is very risky and damaging.

Where new combined authorities are to be created, particularly those being directed by the Secretary of State, it is very important that the new structure preserves local identity and sense of place, which is so important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has often acknowledged during the debates on the Bill. It is also very important to obtain consent from councils because without consent, it is unlikely that adequate discussions will have been held between either councillors or staff, and there is unlikely to be a common understanding of which roles will be affected by the reorganisation.

For these and other reasons already well put forward by my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I support all the amendments in this group and will certainly support my noble friend if she should divide the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.

The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.

Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.

The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.

Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.

Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.