Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State really needs to do better than that. With local government reform not being in the Labour party manifesto and with the Prime Minister last week refusing to rule out further cancellations of local elections, will the Secretary of State now rule out—not “intention” but rule out—cancelling the next local elections, yes or no?

[Steve Reed]

I am sure the hon. Member will be aware that consultations and engagement are going on with local authorities, but the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.

[Paul Holmes]

Here we go again: it is the Secretary of State’s “intention”. I remind him that he actually leads his Department and can set the legislation going forward. He needs to accept that the uncertainty created by this Government in relation to local government reorganisation, on sizes and funding, has meant that leaders have scrambled to meet the ever-changing expectations, with no leadership from this Government. Will the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and support the Opposition’s amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill tomorrow that would ensure that local elections go ahead and that local leaders have the certainty they need?

[Steve Reed]

Perhaps to the Conservatives the word “consultation” means “diktat issued from the centre”, but to me it means listening carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My intention, and my preference, remains for the elections to go ahead on schedule.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. That is why we are going through a process in which local areas are coming up with proposals, and consulting constituent authorities and their communities. We will then make a decision based on those proposals.

It is very clear that this Bill is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but it is not one that we intend to use; it will be used only in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment, and all areas in that process are engaging. Proposals are coming forward, and we will make decisions based on those proposals.

At the heart of the reorganisation is an objective: to have local authorities that are more sustainable and that can deliver for their local people. That is the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In Committee, the Minister outlined that she wants this process to be a happy one, but may I ask her to confirm one point on the Floor of the House? If local authorities do not wish to go through local government reorganisation, this Government will force them to do so, won’t they?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Opposition have some cheek to raise that point, because on their watch, local government was put under a huge amount of pressure. Reorganisation should have happened on their watch, but they ducked it; we are now gripping this issue and driving the change. We are not doing this for the fun of it, but because we are very clear that we need to deliver for local people. We need services that make sense and geographies that make sense—that can deliver the outcomes we want in places. We are going through a process, and all areas are engaging with that process in good faith. We will see their proposals, and my colleague in the Department will make a decision based on the criteria we have explicitly and transparently set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

May I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place? We spent a long time together on the Bill Committee, working cross-party, along with many other Members on both sides of the House. They included the Statler and Waldorf of the Committee, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), whose heckling of me throughout the sittings was very welcome. [Hon. Members: “More!”] A number of Members are saying “More!” from a sedentary position.

The Minister was bombarded with what I would argue are excellent amendments tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but I think she has been taking a leaf from the book of her colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning. Much of her response to amendments tabled by me—and by the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, some of her own colleagues who wanted to see movement from the Government—was that she would “reflect”. She would reflect in order to make the Bill better, and she would reflect on whether she could make it better by accepting amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. Instead, she has reflected on nothing. Instead, she has brought us a Bill to which she has tabled a small number of amendments that the Government want, but any other amendments tabled by other parties have been completely ignored.

Just to show how unprepared the Government were today, let me point out that most of the Committee stage was taken up with discussion of Government amendments, because this Bill from a Government who wanted to govern in the interests of the people was so riddled with holes that they spent most of the time discussing their own proposals, rather than those of the Opposition.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Today the Government put forward 23 of their own amendments, which meant that the Minister allowed less than a minute for each one in her speech. That includes two new schedules. Moreover, we have still not seen a great deal of the regulation that will flow from the Bill, even in draft form. Is this Bill ready, in any way?

[Paul Holmes]

The answer is clearly no, because otherwise it would not have had as many holes as it had in Committee, and it would not have as many holes as it has today. If it were a Bill from a Government who genuinely sought cross-party co-operation on what could be a very exciting programme of devolution for local authorities and people throughout the country, the Minister and the Government would have looked more seriously at some of the excellent amendments and new clauses tabled by Members from all parts of the House, although not by the Minister’s own Back Benchers.

I am a big fan of the Minister, but when I intervened on her earlier, she showed some anger, which is not typical of her. She tried to object when I said that as a result of her local government reorganisation programme, councils across the country will be forced to reorganise, even if they do not want to. There is a backstop that the Minister said she did not want to use, but when she winds up the debate, I ask her to confirm what she refused to confirm in Committee—that if local authorities do not want to reorganise, she will force them to do so. It is about time the Government came clean about that, so that local authority leaders throughout the country know what they will have to deal with, and know that they will have a gun against their head and will be forced to reorganise, rather than getting on with delivering efficient services, as they try to daily.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

May I add my support for my hon. Friend’s opposition to compulsory reorganisation, which local authorities simply do not want? The people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be in a greater Stoke-on-Trent; they want to have their own say.

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend absolutely knows her constituency. We have tried to ensure, both today and in Committee, that local authority leaders can choose who they work with. They should not be forced to do things by a Minister behind a desk in Whitehall, but that is what this Minister and this Department are doing. It is shameful. It is not what Members on both sides of the House want, and it is not what local authority leaders want—and they know best. I ask the Minister to look at that compulsion again.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful; my hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous.

I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief, but I did not have a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. The regulations have not been written to show how the neighbourhood panels, or whatever they are called, will be created, but the Bill contains sweeping powers to direct how those neighbourhoods should be constructed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine, rather than its being determined by Ministers?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and, indeed, in the Bill, there are plenty of other examples—which we discussed in Committee—of the Government not genuinely devolving to mayors, local authorities and combined authorities powers that they would actually quite like, but giving them the powers that they want them to have, while taking other powers away. That is not true devolution, and the Government should look again at delivering true devolution throughout the United Kingdom.

[Wendy Morton]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly, but I must then make some progress.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more of an English centralisation and community disempowerment Bill?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend tempts me; I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is crazy that the Government are embarked on one of the largest sets of planning reforms in the country at this time. Fair funding formulas are being announced, and many planning reforms have been announced over the past few months, but the authorities concerned are being abolished and, essentially, reorganised. The way that the Government have approached their reforming agenda is topsy-turvy, and they need to go back to the drawing board.

Far from creating clarity, the Bill piles new combined authorities, new mayoralties and new boards on top of already overlapping local councils. The Government are introducing complexity at a moment when the public want simplicity—clear lines of responsibility, not an ever-changing maze of institutions—and they are doing all this while fundamentally changing planning laws. Residents should be able to know, without needing a flowchart, who is responsible for transport, planning, regeneration or housing, but the Bill fails that basic test of good governance. As I have said, there is a plethora of reforms at different stages and in different bits of legislation.

Many—I would argue—very good amendments and new clauses have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which I moved in Committee, and which would allow a mayor to benefit from the true devolution that the Government have spoken about by being allowed regulatory responsibility for ferries. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have signed that new clause. I brought the matter up in Committee, and, to her credit, the Minister committed to ensuring that the Department for Transport would have another look at establishing the body that my hon. Friend was promised; that, I believe, has not happened yet. New clause 48 would allow mayors to ensure that they were acting, in respect of transport connectivity, on behalf of the people who elected them. I do not see why the Government are resisting the new clause, because they have allowed mayors regulatory responsibility for many areas across the United Kingdom, and not only geographically.

The Isle of Wight, which is just to the side of my Hamble Valley constituency, is a special case because of the desperate access needs of those living there. They have relied on a service that is basically being run into the ground. It charges extortionately high fares, it often has cancellations, its equipment has not been updated for a very long time, and the company has just been sold. I ask the Minister to look at giving true powers of devolution to mayors once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will speak to his excellent new clause; I hope that the Minister will look at giving mayors true powers, on my hon. Friend’s behalf and on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. I hope that the Minister will also consider new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, which would allow water taxi services to be regulated by a mayor.

The official Opposition tabled amendments 8, 16 and related amendments. They speak to a principle that should be absolutely fundamental to our system: changes to local governance should not be imposed from Whitehall without the consent of the councils and communities they affect. The amendments would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create a combined authority or alter its composition without the agreement of the local authorities involved.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of when a Conservative Government gave a veto to a local authority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The last Conservative Government worked with local authorities to devolve responsibilities to them, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of when a Labour Government gave local people a veto on devolution: the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, asked people whether they wanted devolution. When they said no in the north of England, the Government dropped their plans. This Government are going forward with forcing devolution on local people, and are not even bothering to ask them. That is the difference between this Labour Government and the great Labour Governments of the past, which is why the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Minister. The last Labour Government was a very principled Government, led by principled politicians. Where are they? This Government certainly do not bother to ask local people about the devolution that they seek to impose on them.

Combined authorities are voluntary partnerships; they function effectively only when the constituent councils trust one another and have confidence in the structures in which they operate. If we grant the Secretary of State the unilateral power to reshape those structures, redraw governance arrangements or impose new members or functions without consent, we risk undermining that trust at its very foundation. Devolution cannot be delivered by coercion, and genuine partnership cannot be created by ministerial order.

It is worth remembering that combined authorities, unlike ordinary local authorities, do not arise organically; they exist because councils choose to work together, on terms they negotiate and agree among themselves. They are built on consent. If that consent is overridden or taken for granted, we risk destabilising the very institutions that we are trying to strengthen. That is not acceptable. This Bill, despite its lofty title, does remarkably little to empower the truly local level—the parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions that understand their communities best. Instead, the Bill concentrates mayoral authority in the hands of regional leaders, who may be many miles away, both geographically and democratically, from the people affected by their decisions.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the District Councils’ Network has been briefing Members on both sides of the House that if the Government go ahead and force these changes through, the very least they can do is to have district councils represented on the strategic authorities until all the changes have come to completion. Does he think that he might be able to persuade the Government to have that more limited aim?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend and county neighbour is probably putting a bit too much faith in me. I have never been able to convince a Minister to change their mind and improve legislation, but he is absolutely right. [Interruption.] That time may come, says the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue: while district councils are in action and represent their local communities, they should have a place, because they know their areas best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

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

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.

[Paul Holmes]

Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.

Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Holmes, before you flick through any more pages, it is obviously very interesting to hear you speak, but over 25 Members are hoping to contribute.

[Paul Holmes]

The official Opposition have tabled other amendments, and I could speak about them all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to reassure you, the officials in the Box and Members across this House, I will draw my remarks to a close.

We should not confuse amendments with progress, and we should not confuse this Bill with something that delivers true devolution. True devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, and this Bill offers none of those things. It is a patchwork of half-formed ideas, untested assumptions and powers handed out without the democratic scaffolding needed to hold them up. I believe in devolution done properly, but this does not do that. England deserves a coherent settlement, not a constitutional patchwork. Communities deserve real empowerment, not distant regional authorities replacing national ones. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not new structures that spend their money with little scrutiny. We urge the Government to look at this again and to accept the amendments I have outlined.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Let me begin with the title of the Bill; it claims, perhaps optimistically, to empower communities. By the end of this debate, we will see whether the Government truly intend to empower them. Community empowerment matters. I believe that my constituents and the councillors who represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall. Every amendment I have tabled seeks to do one thing: empower communities. If Labour Members truly believe the Government’s rhetoric and intentions, I hope that they will support those amendments today.

I will focus primarily on my amendment to introduce a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation, but before I do, let me briefly highlight my proposal on cross-boundary planning. New clause 33 seeks to fix a flaw in the planning system. My constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, councils place the housing that they are required to allocate right on their boundary, knowing full well that the impact on services and infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority that has little power to do anything about it.

Now, I am not a nimby. I recognise the need for better, affordable homes, but the system encourages siloed thinking. It enables councils to tick off the list their obligation to deliver housing stock, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt. Introducing joint planning committees for developments within specific distances of neighbouring authorities would at least bring about a dialogue that is currently absent. I ask the Minister to look at this anomaly in the planning system, so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area.

Amendments 104 to 106 offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the Government will press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind that; there is too much waste, and often there is duplication, and this would be one way of reducing it. But if the Government want to take people with them, including my constituents, residents must have the final say on their preferred reorganised boundaries through local referendums.

This is of real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester city council area. Residents in Birstall and Anstey have told me of their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and they are placed within Leicester city, they will face higher council tax. I thought that we in this place believed in the principle of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester city over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement, they have no desire whatsoever to see the Leicester city mayor have influence in their communities.

My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries. After declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park golf course in Glenfield to meet the city’s housing stock requirements. The city mayor knows full well that this would place the burden squarely on the villages, not the city.

In conclusion, I commend the Government’s stated intention of empowering communities and reducing waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I have tabled.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically excellent speech. Does he find strange, as I do, the disjointed attitude that the Government have on referendums? The Government are happy to keep referendums for local authorities that want to change their internal structures, but when it comes to their forced local government reorganisation, they will not allow local authorities to have referendums—despite previous Labour Governments committing to them. What does my hon. Friend think about that?

[Mr Bedford]

My constituents are very concerned about that. It is a strange anomaly. In addition, under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums when they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level, so it seems very strange that the Government will not empower local communities to hold a referendum when local boundaries are to be redrawn. In conclusion, let us empower our communities to decide their own destinies.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I have to say, I had a great time on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill’s 400 pages were expertly navigated by the Minister, and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), did an absolutely brilliant job. She unfortunately is not here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the Conservatives goaded us.

I must be cross-party in my thanks and say that I was very impressed with the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Their ability to string out the 10 seconds of what they needed say into about 10 minutes to keep the Bill going was exemplary, and we saw some of that today; the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Paul Holmes]

May I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he carries on congratulating Whips like that, he will go far?

[Mike Reader]

Fantastic advice from a very experienced politician.

To continue with my cross-party support, I very much thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), with whom I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was fascinating: no matter what the issue was, she always brought it back to local authorities. She wants to give a lot of power to these poor parish councils, and she spoke up so much for district and parish councils that we were told to stop intervening on her. I have 14 parish councils in my constituency, and I did ask them what they thought of the many Lib Dem proposals inviting them to engage in every single thing that a mayor may do, and overwhelmingly their view was, “Please leave us alone, and let us get on with doing what we are doing.” But I like the intention none the less.

I also want to mention the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). Before the Bill Committee, I did not know that she was a London Assembly member, but boy, do I know now. The experience she brought from being on the London Assembly went a long way. It was a really good Committee, so I do not accept what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said about there being no constructive engagement. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion tabled amendments that sought to change how the mayoralties that have been brought forward by the Government think about the environment. I see the intention behind new clause 29, and with a bit more refinement of the Bill in the Lords, we may get to something really strong that ensures there is an environmental responsibility on our new mayors.

I thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that I and others have done on lane rental schemes, covered by new clause 43. They are a great way to control roadworks and make sure that they are delivered efficiently. The schemes are not a penalty; they are an incentive to make sure that utilities companies work in a way that minimises disruption. Where the companies do not perform, the money goes towards fixing more potholes and sorting out more roads. I particularly thank two of the big industry bodies, Clive Bairsto from Street Works UK and David Capon from the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee UK. They supported me in my work on this.

I also pay tribute to our brilliant Transport Committee. The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), is no longer in her place, but she did fantastic work on the Bill. It really goes to show that when we work collaboratively across the House, through Committees and through Government, we can make changes to legislation that make people’s lives better. If we can say nothing else about this Bill than that we have made sure that there are less roadworks and more potholes filled, I am sure all of our constituents will be quite happy.

The Minister and I have engaged quite heavily on upward-only rent reviews. I thank her for being constructive in her consideration of my challenge on how the Government have approached this. I repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the intention of the Bill is to protect the high streets. Even after amendment, the way the Bill is written means that it potentially impacts the whole of the commercial sector.

The UK is really fortunate to have a buoyant commercial property market, with double the investment seen in France and 50% more than in Germany. However, there is a real risk that the uncertainty caused by not putting a ringfence around how the upward-only rent review ban is to be brought forward will stifle investment. It could stop investment in data centres—a big data centre was announced for my constituency by the Government just last week—warehousing, which is critical to my constituents, as about one in five of them work in warehousing and logistics, new hospitals, healthcare and commercial offices—you name it. As we heard in evidence to the Bill Committee, we need to see more from the Government. Will the Minister confirm that before any ban is brought in, we will see a full consultation on the proposals? Off the back of that consultation, will restrictions be put in place, so that we do not see unintended consequences that stop the growth that our country desperately needs?

I said that I would talk to new clause 29. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for her tenacity. We met, and she explained that the Greens have to be selective about which Committees they join, owing to their small level of representation. She argued well for mayors to have more responsibility for air quality, environment and the like. It is really positive that the Government have already brought forward changes to that effect, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that she will work with Members in the other place to bring forward further amendments to the Bill in due course, so that that is really well cemented and mayors do have the responsibility to protect our environment.

On some days, Northampton has worse air quality than London, Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the UK. Where I live in Northampton town centre, the effect of poor air quality is equivalent to that of smoking 80 cigarettes a year, so anything we can do to improve air quality in my town and across the country is critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I will speak to the amendments tabled by me and Liberal Democrat colleagues, particularly new clause 5 and amendment 27. If the Bill is to deliver meaningful and real devolution, it must involve the people who live with the decisions made by mayors and combined authorities. However, too much of the Bill as drafted keeps power in the hands of the Secretary of State or a small group around the mayor, with little scrutiny. Amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, such as amendment 85, seek to put that right.

New clause 5, which I tabled, would place a clear duty on mayors to meet regularly with local councils, public service partners and, importantly, town and parish councils. In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, those councils are the closest form of local government. Rooted in their communities, they play a vital role in delivering services and supporting communities, and they have a depth of local knowledge that no regional authority could replicate. Requiring structured engagement would ensure that decisions are shaped by those who understand their communities best. What is currently a discretionary power to convene would become a mandatory obligation, ensuring that parish and town councils were explicitly recognised as part of the framework. Those councils, which will inherit assets from district councils when they are abolished, are indispensable partners for combined authorities and mayors, offering direct insight into local issues. New clause 5 would establish a structured forum for dialogue between mayors, councils and public service providers, ensuring co-ordination on shared priorities and improving co-operation across the region.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady made a number of excellent contributions in Committee. She will know that my party supported some of her amendments, and she has our support for what she has been doing. Is she concerned, as I am, that as the Government are pushing forward with local government reorganisation, while many more town and parish councils will be taking on assets from district councils and having a greater role in communities, they are being completely sidelined by the Government’s actions? Will she elaborate on what she thinks that might mean?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member for his support in Committee. We know that two-tier governments —district councils in the shires in particular—will be abolished, and town and parish councils will have to take on more assets and deliver even more services. However, as I said in Committee, the voice of town and parish councils is completely absent from the Bill. At present, decision making at regional level often feels remote from the communities it serves. Given the significant powers that mayors hold over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are consistently engaged rather than consulted only at a mayor’s discretion.

Fundamentally, this measure reflects the very purpose of devolution: to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected. It is a simple, practical step that would not require additional funding or alter existing powers but would deliver better communication, co-ordination and community engagement.

This also links to wider concerns about governance and geography. In Warwickshire, there is a strong case for two new unitaries for the north and south of the county, rather than one large super-unitary. Analysis has shown that the two-unitary model performs better in Warwickshire than a single county-wide authority, and public support is clear, with 73% of residents of south Warwickshire favouring two councils. Several Liberal Democrat amendments on today’s paper, including those I have tabled, would work to safeguard proper local engagement in any future devolution arrangements.

The Bill empowers local and strategic authorities to encourage visitors, yet it contains no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in this process. My amendment 27 goes to the heart of the need for our strategic authorities to work with places they represent. Tourism is not a side issue for Stratford-on-Avon; it is central to our local economy, our cultural life and our international reputation. Stratford town council plays a leading role in major events such as the Shakespeare birthday celebrations, which bring visitors from across the world, demonstrating the vital contribution of town councils to cultural exchange and soft power, yet the Bill includes no duty for any new strategic authority to engage town and parish councils when shaping tourism plans. That is a real risk for a place such as Stratford, which has so much to offer but depends on constructive partnership to keep thriving.

Amendment 27 would put that duty in law and require a published record of engagement, so that towns in my constituency are not overlooked in regional strategies. Taken together, these measures give local communities a genuine voice in tourism planning. Town and parish councils know their areas best: the attractions, the infrastructure needs and the opportunities for growth. This amendment also promotes inclusive planning. Too often, small towns, villages and rural areas are overlooked in broader strategies despite their vital contribution to the economy. By embedding their perspectives, we will support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. In short, these amendments are practical, transparent and community focused. They would strengthen devolution by ensuring that local voices were heard, respected and reflected in tourism policy, thereby delivering strategies that are both effective and rooted in the communities they serve.

Briefly, new clause 74, submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), would be an important addition to the Bill to give local areas the ability to limit and regulate junk food advertising in their communities. The new clause would make a positive impact on health, especially that of our young people. If the Government truly want devolution to succeed, they should accept these proposals, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

We can bring council housing back to parts of North Staffordshire where it has been absent for many years. It is about community right to buy, and it is about seizing growth and economic potential, and working with partners in a more collaborative and meaningful way across a bigger canvas, delivering the opportunities that our young people want and need. It is about seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform key public services and ensure that they remain, or become, fit for the 21st century. To all in North Staffordshire and Staffordshire county, no more with this, “No to Stoke”—it is demeaning and unfair.

[Paul Holmes]

I am slightly disappointed with the tone the hon. Lady is taking. If we are talking about devolution in a devolution debate, she should respect the right of an hon. Member elected by their constituents, and of councillors elected by local people, to say they do not want local government reorganisation. Why is she supporting a gun-to-the-head mentality when local authority leaders do not want to go through with it?

[Dr Gardner]

I reject the emotive use of terms like “gun to the head”. The Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council proposals on LGR have been approved, and they are the democratically elected councils for those areas. The wider Staffordshire county council, which is now under Reform, had one proposal out of the blue, and now does not want reorganisation either; it is chaotic.

We cannot keep having this. This is something that will happen, and I say to my constituents, “This is going to happen, so we need to make it work for us.” I need people to start saying yes to the opportunity, yes to growth and yes to the future.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow.

Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution.

There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported.

For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend made a number of excellent contributions in Bill Committee. Is he concerned, as I am, that the Minister consistently said that there would be consultation and that this would be up to local people and councillors, but at every stage the backstop was mentioned and the Minister said that this would go ahead anyway? There is no choice in this reorganisation. Does he agree that the Government need to look again and listen to local people who disagree with what is happening to their councils, and who know their areas best?

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Floor of the House putting forward our case on where the Government have got it wrong on devolution. He raised an important point about the Government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and unitarisation. There has been no choice in that, as I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne council, which is Conservative led under Councillor Corina Gander. She does not want to reorganise, does not want devolution and does not want it forced on the areas that she and I represent. When I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever said to me, “You know what, Lewis? This is what we need to do in our area—we need to reorganise. We need to have an elected mayor, a strategic authority and a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people.” No one has ever raised that with me on the doorstep, and it just goes to show that this Government are not listening to the priorities of the British people.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more; I hope he forgives me. Has the council leader he mentioned given that feedback to Government on the fact that they do not want reorganisation, and what answers were given to them?

[Lewis Cocking]

The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.

[Paul Holmes]

rose—

[Lewis Cocking]

As he is a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) will be pleased to note that we raised that matter in Committee, but our arguments were resisted by the Government.

In relation to the assertion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) that we are not concerned about the functions of devolution, does my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) recall that we pressed a number of amendments, including on the devolution of transport regulations—powers that the Bill does not hand down to mayors—but they were resisted by the Government? That assertion is just not correct, is it?

[Lewis Cocking]

I agree. We tabled a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we worked across parties, with Members of all stripes, to improve the Bill and get these powers out into the community, where they can best be used. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the Government would not even listen to logical arguments about how the Bill could empower local communities. As I have said, “community empowerment” might be in the Bill’s name, but it is not what is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I was talking about the physical aspects of the transport currently in place, and the transport in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for such interlinking services. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point around shared services of councils. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they have brought forward this community empowerment Bill and devolution in order to make councils more efficient and save loads of money. I do not believe it will save lots of money, for the reasons the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out: many councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments or shared audit, and indeed combined authorities also have shared back-office functions.

[Paul Holmes]

One of the other issues we were concerned about on the Bill Committee was the fact that the Government have not given any indication of what will be happening with debt in the context of local government reform. Does my hon. Friend agree that that adds to uncertainty in the progress of this Bill and does not give any certainty to local government leaders?

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services.

In summary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

What we are looking for is not necessarily the creation of a Cornish assembly, but to ensure—I will come on to this a little later in my speech—that the established, mature unitary authority has the powers of a mayoral combined authority. If we look at what we have done at Cornwall council over the past few years, we have managed tens of millions of pounds of economic development funding incredibly effectively, first through objective 1 funding and then through shared prosperity funding. We have created our own housing development company that manages and creates housing across Cornwall. We have been successful in recent years in creating housing across Cornwall. The council manages the cultural identity and the promotion of the Cornish language across Cornwall. I am not necessarily looking for an assembly—frankly, I do not care what the body is called—but for the powers to come back to our primary body, which is Cornwall council.

Cornwall is a large and stable unitary authority. It is the largest in geography, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), and the third largest by population. Cornwall must be treated as a single strategic authority with the powers of a mayoral combined authority. In 2022, the advisory committee of the Council of Europe called on the Government to

“devolve the appropriate powers to Cornwall Council to ensure effective implementation of the Framework Convention at local level”.

It also called on the Government of the time

“to work with Cornwall Council to address the housing crisis affecting persons belonging to the Cornish national minority, and to collaborate with devolved administrations to tackle this problem in areas of concern.”

Our Government’s support for Cornish national minority status was made clear by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 5 March, when he said:

“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]

Similarly, on 19 November he said:

“We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 776.]

However, the Bill does the opposite.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. He will remember that, in Committee, members of my party tabled amendments to try to protect the integrity of Cornwall. He said then that a Minister had given him assurances on the place of Cornwall, but his tone has changed distinctly. Can he tell us whether he was satisfied with those assurances, or, indeed, whether he received them at all?

[Perran Moon]

I was given assurances that conversations with Ministers would continue, and they have continued. I will say more about that a little later. Now, though, I have to say that I find it disappointing that a party I love could produce a Bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall and what national minority status actually means. To those who mock, disparage and denigrate Cornwall’s constitutional position on this island, I say, “If you try to ensnare us in an unholy alliance with a part of England, that will rebound negatively.” The impact and consequences of an unamended Bill would be felt across Cornwall for decades—perhaps for 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested earlier. The relationship with Westminster would decline, and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in. Regrettably, it will not surprise me if the calls for full fifth-nation status for Cornwall simply grow if the Bill is passed unamended.

--- Later in debate ---

There is an opportunity for Government here. I understand why Governments of any political colour would not want to step in and create regulation if they could avoid it, largely because they would then have to administer it; they would have an obligation through the Department for Transport, for example, to manage the regulation they created. There is a golden opportunity here to create the regulation and hand it over to devolved mayoral authorities to manage in the interests of the communities they represent; in my example, the Government have the opportunity to create regulation for the ferry operators, and to devolve that regulation and that power downwards to local authorities. Ferry operators that operate across the Solent would have to account for themselves to the Mayor for Hampshire and the Solent, while ferry operators that operated elsewhere in the United Kingdom would have to account to their locally and democratically elected mayors.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically modest speech, given how much he has campaigned on this matter for his constituents, and is being very moderate about the aims and ambitions of the Government. It is a clear stated aim of this Government that local people should be able to demand local regulation and services, and powers for use by mayors. My hon. Friend will know that the local Conservative mayoral candidate, Donna Jones, has actually asked for these powers; if she is elected mayor, she would like to use them. Does that not provide a greater incentive for us to work together to ensure that the Government can give those powers to the new mayoralty?

[Joe Robertson]

It absolutely does provide that incentive. I thank the shadow Minister for remarking on my tone; I have always tried to work with the Government on this matter. I acknowledge again that this is more than a campaign—it is a core issue for my constituents, and for constituents on the other side of the island that I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Indeed, we are working jointly on it.

The measure would achieve unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers are a key plank of the Government’s plans for devolution. However, when the Government consulted my constituents—among the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—on transport, the consultation document that they put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted 1,000 words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on trains, buses, taxis, pavements, cycling and walking, but it did not include ferries or any mention of crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents needs to do at some point to access health services and educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and to access employment and see friends and family, as everyone on the UK mainland would expect to do. I remind the House that in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on the private equity groups that own and control ferry companies, and that have no obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight. They have no democratic accountability at all, and no responsibility to Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and, at times, rather lengthy contributions to the debate.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) asked if the Bill is ready—absolutely, the Bill is ready. What we are doing is exactly what he accuses us of not doing: we are listening, responding to the scrutiny we received in Committee in interventions on the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and making amendments where we think they make sense. That is the way in which we think that we should drive through legislation, but we are clear about the core premise of the Bill.

The hon. Members for Hamble Valley, for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) all played around the theme that this is a centralising Bill that is looking to impose on places. I categorically reject that. The Bill will implement the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation, which is something that the Conservatives did not do in 14 years. Let us take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by Members from across the House. This is a bottom-up, local-led process, where places have come up with proposals—[Interruption.] The proposals have come from places where there has been consultation with constituent authorities and local people. We are then judging the proposals that have been submitted against clear, transparent criteria that we have published.

Candidly, Conservative Members have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamble Valley says that he has two cheeks, but this is a serious matter. Frankly, we are not doing this reorganisation for fun, but because the Conservatives failed to grip the situation for 14 years. They under-invested in local government and stripped out capacity, so we now need to do the job of reforming local government so that it is fit for purpose and can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, I will make a little more progress.

We are clear that this work has to be done with consultation and engagement, and that is what we are doing. To the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on a proposed referendum, let me say that we think that is disproportionate. The approach we are taking to consultation and engagement is the right one.

On the point about a referendum, let me turn to new clause 2, on a referendum on mayoral precepts at the same time. We are really clear that the democratic lock sits at the heart of this matter. Mayors who are democratically elected by their people are no more immune to the impacts of raising taxes than we are as national politicians, so the democratic process will ensure that mayors are balancing the need to raise a precept and invest in their community against the need to protect their people from tax rises.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that devolution works best when it is predicated on strong local partnerships. The strongest mayoral combined authorities are the ones in which the constituent authorities work in lockstep with the mayor; that is the model we have seen in Greater Manchester. We are very clear that partnership must sit at the heart of this matter, and that is the approach we are looking to support and enable through this Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

This honestly feels like groundhog day. Once again, the Minister has come here and said that this Bill is doing local government reform and devolution from the ground up. Will she therefore answer my question once again? She has heard many Members tonight say that local authorities do not want to reorganise. If they do not want to go ahead with it, will this Government force them to do it? The answer is yes, isn’t it?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clear thing for authorities across the country is that they recognise the status quo is not working. Conservative Members are criticising, yet they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable, because we had 14 years in which the Conservatives stripped local authorities of investment and denuded their capacity, so local authorities across the piece recognise that reform is necessary. I come back to the fact that we are reforming for a purpose; we are reforming to deliver stronger services at the appropriate level so that local authorities can deliver the outcomes that their people want.

Let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Guildford raised. We recognise that if devolution is going to be successful, our mayors and strategic authorities absolutely need the resources to do it well. That is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where new responsibilities are placed on devolved authorities.

Critically, where we are devolving power—for example, to our priority areas—we are providing capacity funding. The principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors and the Opposition parties care that we get devolution right and that it is delivering for people across the piece.

Supporting High Streets

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It takes some audacity, or maybe amnesia, for the Conservatives to table a motion about our high streets, given the absolute mess that they left them in after 14 long, depressing years in government. They say, “Let’s look forward, not back,” but those years cannot be wiped away by the people of my city—the cuts were too deep, and the damage was too much. Portsmouth is a proud city, but in Portsmouth North, we have seen what neglect looks like up close. Once-vibrant shopping parades and community spaces were left to decline on the Conservatives’ watch. Allaway Avenue, London Road north end, Cosham high street and the Hilsea shopping areas—to name a few once-bustling local centres—have been blighted by empty shops or inappropriate ones selling counterfeit or stolen goods, as well as by vandalism and illegal employment.

Local businesses tell me the same story again and again: despite being in charge, the Conservatives did nothing. Businesses closed, trade dropped, rents and rates remained high, footfall fell, and basic safety and cleanliness were ignored. One shopkeeper in Cosham told me last summer that

“We’ve had three break-ins this year alone. We reported it, but no one came.”

Data from Portsmouth neighbourhood police backs that up. Recorded incidents of shoplifting and intimidation of local shop owners increased by 30% between 2019 and 2023. Police officers were doing their very best, but under the Tories, law and order was neglected, under-resourced and overstretched for far too long, but there is hope. Under this Labour Government, the situation is changing.

Through the safer streets campaign, and now that we have neighbourhood officers, we have seen targeted action in Portsmouth North that has delivered a dramatic downfall in crime in key areas. Links between police and retailers have improved, and modern technology is being used. UK Partners Against Crime is working in partnership with our high street retailers. Neighbourhood officers such as PC Ben Treed and PC Hannah Kelleher need and deserve real credit for tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting our shopkeepers and residents. It is a privilege to go with them on their rounds.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right to recognise the advances made as a result of our having named neighbourhood officers. Will she therefore congratulate the Conservative police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who brought in that policy before the hon. Lady’s Government did?

[Amanda Martin]

I welcome the work of my PCC, particularly on retail crime and in rolling out UKPAC.

The police officers I have mentioned deserve real credit, and with proper investment and community backing, they can finally do the job that the experts want them to do. That is why the initiatives I have described, alongside the pride in place programme, are so vital for my city. Portsmouth North has been awarded £20 million to breathe life back into local high streets and communities in Paulsgrove. That funding will go directly towards regenerating community spaces, improving safety and supporting the local economy. Importantly, how that money is spent will be decided by the community—the people who know the area best.

We already see progress being made by a Labour Government acting on behalf of our communities—in education, in our NHS and in our armed forces. Local residents have told me that they finally feel hopeful that their neighbourhood will receive the investment and respect that it needs and deserves.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), whose outstanding campaign for high-street renewal has inspired so many of us. It was her work that encouraged me to launch my own local initiative, the “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign. The campaign tackles an issue that has plagued communities like mine for too long: the rise of so-called dodgy shops—unregulated outlets selling counterfeit goods and illegal vapes, massage parlours and barbers, often operating outside proper licensing and safety standards and shirking their tax responsibilities, leaving an unfair playing field for those who do follow the rules.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to my new clause 15, which proposes an independent review of the adequacy of scrutiny and accountability arrangements within six months of commencement. We have had plenty of debate in Committee about scrutiny and accountability of new strategic authorities and the larger new unitary authorities, but new clause 15 is solely about the mayoral combined authorities.

Given the scale of the powers on offer, the Bill is relatively light on scrutiny and consultation requirements. There are duties carried over from existing legislation relating to strategic authorities taking on the functions of, for example, fire and rescue authorities, and to the appointment of commissioners to whom strategic mayors would delegate functions, but quite honestly, only one new measure in the Bill adds to scrutiny over the carried over measures. That is clause 9 and schedule 3, about the termination of the commissioner role and a role for the overview and scrutiny committee to recommend dismissal. In the rest of the Bill, the underpinning of the scrutiny arrangements for these powerful new combined authorities will be derived from local councils, as established by the Local Government Act 2000, but I am yet to be convinced that such an underpinning will provide enough scrutiny and challenge of these powerful new bodies.

[Paul Holmes]

I want to drill down into the perceived lack of scrutiny of the new combined authorities. The hon. Lady just said that they would essentially follow the current arrangements in local authorities. Is she saying that she is unhappy with the existing level of scrutiny in local authorities, or does she just want the added safety her new clause offers?

[Siân Berry]

I will cover some of those issues, but yes, I am not completely happy with how many local councils work. Some carry out the bare minimum. I think we need more minimum guarantees built into this new process, and the Bill is the right place to introduce them.

As I said, the current model is basically an expanded local authority model, based on the idea, I think, that a combined authority is a collection of local authorities so the underlying scrutiny arrangements are sufficient. However, that has already been stretched by the more powerful mayors, and it will be stretched further when the new authorities are set up.

The new powers in particular need more scrutiny. For example, public bodies in every area will need to have regard to the growth plan. Growth plan objectives will be decided by the central authority, but how will they be developed and scrutinised? A strategic authority will be the local transport authority for its region, so it will gain a key route network of roads and can instruct the traffic authorities in its area on the management of the network. These are additional powers, so there is a role for additional scrutiny. Local plans and planning decisions will need to conform to the strategic authority’s plan—that is set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—but how the powers are used deserves scrutiny, challenge, questions and accountability. These authorities are also taking on land assembly and housing powers. They can make mayoral development orders, and set up many huge budgets within mayoral development corporations. I do not think the local authority scrutiny model can cover the questions that might need to be asked in those circumstances.

There is a process for giving the new strategic authorities even greater powers in the future, but there is no associated process in the Bill for reviewing the scrutiny arrangements as those powers increase. New clause 15 would require a review of the scrutiny arrangements to match the new powers given to strategic authorities, which they may request as the Government devolve further. A safety net for scrutiny is needed somewhere in the Bill. I am aiming to fix a genuine problem.

Many existing strategic authorities have struggled to establish a truly collaborative approach between the local authorities and the members of the committees that exist to scrutinise those authorities. Quite often, the members feel that they should represent their own local authority and do not necessarily take a collective approach to scrutiny in the committee. I believe that problem will increase, particularly where we establish authorities that may lack a strong collective identity like that Greater London or Greater Manchester, where people automatically feel that they will be standing up for that area. In these new invented areas, we need legislation to ensure that scrutiny will reflect a common identity and collective approach.

This issue is a reflection of quite a lot of existing problems with scrutiny in councils. I will cite some of the conclusions in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s 2017 report. It looked at the effectiveness of local authority scrutiny committees and concluded that scrutiny was marginalised in too many authorities, which could contribute to service failures. The Committee also found evidence that scrutiny committee chairs often did not challenge their leaders, picking instead safe, less controversial topics, and that the fact that the committee chairs are appointed meant that they were more likely to keep quiet and use their role as a way to prepare for a future cabinet position. In the local authority model, the leaders can choose their cabinet, and we have already discussed many times in this Committee how the new mayors will be able to choose their commissioners. I am sure that Members can see how the same dynamic might occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

New clause 5 is designed to ensure that local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of the legislation, with specific regard to preventing any further delays in future local elections. New clause 43 is about the duty to provide professional planning support for neighbourhood plans in areas that do not yet have them or where they are due for re-establishment.

We are desperately concerned about local elections being delayed. In fact, one of my colleagues asked about that in Prime Minister’s questions last week and did not get a direct answer. There remains a real concern that the whole process has the potential to create more delays. As we say, an election delayed is democracy denied, so it is hugely important.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the hon. Lady will take a reasonable and responsible tone on this new clause. Will she tell her colleagues around the country, including those from Hampshire, to stop standing outside Parliament for mock photographs saying that the Conservatives want local elections delayed? Will she take my word and the shadow Minister’s word that, as I said last week and he will no doubt say this afternoon, the Conservatives are not calling for the delay of local elections? Will she stop putting out misleading leaflets across the country saying that we are?

[Vikki Slade]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am not sure I should—I did not expect that coming from the Opposition Benches. I am glad that the Conservatives do not want to see elections delayed either. I hope that the Government will not delay any further elections, particularly in places that experienced a delay this year. The purpose of this new clause is to guarantee that elections are not delayed because councils are overstretched and under-resourced while trying to do neighbourhood plans at the same time. We do not believe that elections should be postponed because the Government have not given councils the means to do their job.

On new clause 43, I am sure that every member of this Committee has heard from their town and parish councils—because they have not yet been mentioned this afternoon—and from communities that do not have town or parish councils yet but may wish to, that the ability to fund a neighbourhood plan relies heavily on grant money. One of the first neighbourhood plans was set up in my constituency—in fact, in my ward of Broadstone—where we set up a neighbourhood forum that allowed us to create a neighbourhood plan. I believe there was £10,000. We would not have been able to secure a neighbourhood plan in any other way because we did not have a town council at the time, although we will have one by next year.

Without a town council, where does the money come from to do that? Even with a town or parish council, £10,000 would be a significant proportion of a precept, particularly for some of the small councils. It does not seem like a very fair thing to do to local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way briefly?

[Vikki Slade]

Gladly.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady; we can now resume our laughs together. We entirely agree with her on this issue. Will she comment on our debates during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill where it was clear that the Government were resisting allocating funding for drawing up neighbourhood plans? Does she agree that the protections of many of our rural village communities that are adequately and perfectly served by their parish councils will be reduced just because they want to put forward a sustainable plan about how they build in their area, meaning that fewer houses will be delivered in the long run if this funding is not reinstated?

[Vikki Slade]

There is a village in my constituency called Shapwick, which, for some reason I cannot quite understand, did not take the opportunity to do a neighbourhood plan a couple of years ago, and now has lost that opportunity. It is surrounded by green fields. There are four or five sites within this small National Trust village where there are gaps, cottages either having fallen down or burnt down over the years. We could recreate a beautiful chocolate box village that would really boost our local tourism and enable local services such as the nursery and the pub to maintain themselves in the long term by having a slightly increased population.

As Shapwick does not have a neighbourhood plan, however, it is reliant on Dorset council, which, through the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million new homes, is now expected to find 55,000 homes in the county of Dorset—not the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole element, just the Dorset council element. That will ruin small villages with 50 or 60 homes, as they now run the risk of having 300 or 400 homes that will change their nature forever. A neighbourhood plan would allow those villages to go, “Do you know what? We could probably get to 75 or 80 houses and still maintain everything that we love about our village.” That cannot happen now, because there is no capacity with such a small village to raise the funding required to produce a meaningful neighbourhood plan.

New clause 43 simply says that if neighbourhood plan funding is not directly restored, local authorities should be able to provide professional planning support to councils for the purposes of developing their neighbourhood plans. My preference is for the Minister to commit to restoring the independent funding, so that our town and parish councils and communities do not have to go to the local authority, but failing that, our only option is to push this approach and say, “If we can’t have our money back directly, let’s do it through this method.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Both the last Government and this Government have invested huge amounts in building the infrastructure. In the end, Governments have to make a judgment about where we put our funding and finances. We know that is difficult for particular communities, but we think there is sufficient infrastructure and sufficient people with expertise in neighbourhood planning. We will continue to work with them on how they innovate to provide a service for particular parishes.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is forcing me to labour the point that, because of the absolute mess that the Conservatives left us with after years of austerity, we are having to make tough judgments about what we can fund and invest in. It is not where we want to be, but that is the reality we have to confront. We had to make choices in the spending review; we are investing more in affordable housing, and in supporting our communities with homelessness. We think that those choices were right, and ultimately we had to make a judgment about prioritisation. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that it can innovate and continue supporting neighbourhoods.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point, as she referred to me?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have finished, and I have sat down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for another fabulous contribution. I thought he was going to criticise my love of town and parish councils for a moment, but he did not. I have made it clear that I would rather see the Government bring this funding back, but the new clause would introduce a duty to provide professional planning support, because we recognise the chances of it not coming back.

[Paul Holmes]

Before the Minister uncharacteristically turned her guns on me, after remaining largely silent on the Committee this afternoon, I was about to say this. I believe that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has tabled new clause 43 not because of the funding that has been cut—even though I remember being a lead member during the previous Labour Government, when we experienced cuts—but because there are more town and parish councils being created through this reorganisation. Those new parish and town councils, which will have councillors who are unpaid volunteers, will have no infrastructure at all. The Government seek to expand and create town councils, but have taken away training and the ability to conduct their functions. What the Minister has outlined is not accurate, is it?

[Vikki Slade]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend—we have worked so hard together on this. I understand the situation with the finances, which is why new clause 43 is designed to impose a duty on local authorities to provide support to smaller organisations, some of which are brand new and will not exist until everyone is on this rush to provide them. I would like to press new clause 43 to a vote later, but on new clause 5, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Councillors: proportional representation vote system

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.

(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

This new clause would simply give Ministers the ability to listen to the benefits in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to what people really want, and to act decisively, with a mandate through this Bill and with approval from Parliament later, to improve local democracy alongside devolution. That would be a real achievement.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I was going to resist the temptation to have another say on voting systems in local government, but I saw this new clause and could not resist it. Smoke would otherwise come out of my ears at how ridiculous a suggestion this is. I will outline briefly why, and I will declare an interest—I am against it, and I have made that clear throughout the Bill Committee.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, speaking for her party as she has done throughout this Committee, very ably suggested, promoted and proposed this new clause. I agree with the hon. Lady that many people in my constituency, the half of my constituency in Eastleigh, do not think they are properly represented in local government. However that is not because of proportional representation. It is because of the dire decisions of the Liberal Democrat administration of Eastleigh borough council. I agree with her about my constituents in the Eastleigh side of the constituency, who just do not feel properly represented.

[Vikki Slade]

Would the hon. Member like to consider why it is that the Eastleigh side of his constituency keeps on voting Liberal Democrats in year after year, to make it almost a one-party state?

[Paul Holmes]

In part, because the Liberal Democrats put out six leaflets a year that do not tell the truth about what is actually going on, and make a mockery between the relationship between truth and non-truth. The residents of Eastleigh get those six times a year. Unfortunately the hon. Lady will know that because the Liberal Democrats are so electorally successful in Eastleigh, the association of my local party, though we do our best, are like ducks with little feet under the water trying to compete. However I guarantee to her that when local government reorganisation comes, the reign of Keith House, who is one of the longest serving local government leaders in the country—he has been in power longer than Kim Jong-Un, although I do not argue he goes to the same extremes—will come to an end, and I say thank God for that.

On proportional representation—

[The Chair]

Does he speak well of you? [Laughter.]

[Paul Holmes]

Dame Siobhan, the answer to that is no and if you Google it you will see the relationship. I have a lot of respect for Councillor House. We just have very big political disagreements on the way in which he runs the council.

When I saw this proposal, I was not surprised when I saw those who had proposed and seconded the new clause. It would be a disastrous action for local government. We can use the arguments about why we should not have proportional representation at a national, general election level in the same way for local government, and particularly for councils. Councils are essentially mini Houses of Commons and mini democratic forums. It is vital that there is a link between a councillor, their ward and their voter. In local government, that is even more important because of the smaller geographical—

[Vikki Slade]

Can the hon. Member—not my hon. Friend anymore—explain to me why there is not a link? Proportional representation does not remove the link. It just allows people to have a proportional way of voting for somebody. We are not removing the link to a ward, division or constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The Liberal Democrats and Greens want to bring in a vast array of different voting systems, in different stages of elections, but residents locally expect to have one vote, one system, to elect three, two or one councillors in a ward—one member, two member, three member ward—in a constituency in a small geographical region, so that they know the people they are electing. Those councillors across the whole of the country, Liberal, Green, Labour, Conservative, are local champions. They have a very small and bespoke role among their electorate.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked why people keep electing Liberals in Eastleigh, and I will be honest with her. In the 2021 local elections, the Liberal Democrats secured 42% of the vote in my Eastleigh borough, and the Conservatives polled 36%. We won one ward in my council, and the Liberal Democrats won 36. The hon. Lady might think I am a bit nuts, but I think that system is right. Everyone knows who they are voting for in their ward, and there are two or three candidates per party. They are electing a councillor who will then make an administration with a leader and a cabinet. My party went without, and I think it is unfair most of the time, but that is the system I back because it is the easiest, clearest and most accountable to the people who we serve.

I will make one last point and then I will let the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole intervene, if she wishes. I promise I am not being facetious, but I am having genuine difficulty understanding the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It may be my naivety; if she wants to explain it, I am perfectly accepting of that. In previous debates in this Committee, the hon. Lady said that the larger councils proposed by the Government would often mean that the link between a ward councillor and their constituents or ward would be diminished, because of the larger geographical area. If I am not wrong, in her speech on this new clause, she essentially said that would not be the case, as there would now be a diminishing of the link between that geography and the councillor under this voting system. I am not sure whether the two are mutually exclusive.

[Siân Berry]

There is confusion because I have argued that larger councils could lead to greater remoteness, certainly because the town hall may be many miles away. However, people will still be electing ward councillors, and my argument is simply that, should a person’s local ward councillors be part of the administration, they may see them very rarely. In those circumstances, it might be beneficial to have a range of local councillors from different parties, potentially with an increased number per ward, so that they represent more different points of view and can listen to constituents in different ways.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady explains perfectly; I disagree with her. We absolutely agree on the geographical link for super-councils—I have already said that I do not believe that the Government have a democratic mandate for those. However, the answer to larger councils is not changing to a voting system where we create more councillors, or saying, “Because we want to move to a different system, we will go from a three-member ward to a six-member ward with multiple parties.” I think that actually complicates the situation for many constituents and residents.

[Siân Berry]

May I add that this is a really interesting debate and one that we should continue to have under my new clause? To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, Conservative Members have argued repeatedly that there will be a loss of representation from the abolition of the lower-tier councils. Does he not agree that this a way to mitigate that?

[Paul Holmes]

No, I do not; we should keep the current system in place. I believe that, even though we are essentially going from three to two tiers, we are not actually going to one tier in this country, because mayors are being created as well. There is a direct link between the mayor and the local people, and there is a direct link between these new councils and local people. Again, I do not think the answer to simplifying the electoral system and making representation easier is to create more councillors from different parties in a ward. That is expensive and lacks democratic legitimacy, and I think the current system is perfectly acceptable. We are always going to be on the losing side on this one. Smaller parties often want to change the system to ensure that their parties have more victories and more legitimacy in democratic chambers. The Conservative party has a long and proud history of opposing proportional representation.

I remind the Liberal Democrats that they have tried and tested a change in the electoral system, and when they went to the country seeking it, they lost. Therefore, people have been asked whether they want to change the voting system in a national election. I think that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole would find that if there were referendums—we know that the Government are against referendums in the Bill—many people across this country would choose not to change the voting system in local government too. The current local government electoral system works, and it suits its purpose. People know who their councillors are; they are linked to them and know that they often represent an area that they deeply care for and are passionate about—even Liberal Democrat ones in Eastleigh. We oppose the new clause, and will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for the lengthy and robust debate on this issue. We all recognise that there is a need to continue evolving, improving and strengthening our democracy, but we do not believe that the new clause and the electoral reform proposal are the right answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local councils in England. We believe that first past the post is a clear way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters, and, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, provides a direct link and relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. That model works well where we have collective decision making and collective systems of governance—that is quite distinct.

We had a debate on the changes that we are proposing for mayors and police and crime commissioners—the supplementary vote system—where there is a single executive position. We think that strengthening the democratic link in that way is appropriate and right in that context. We think that through the Bill we will have the right mechanism for the right type of representation, as presented through the mayor and the police and crime commissioner on the one hand, and councillors and MPs, which operate within a collective governance model through Parliament or councils. I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the new clause—I am not sure that she will, but I will put the request.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I think the Minister will probably be aware that the net additional new homes target that we set ourselves in the last Parliament was 1 million new homes. While we were, frustratingly, slightly below that target, we none the less delivered, in round terms, 1 million net additional new homes in this country. The collapse, as the Minister well knows, has taken place since the change of Government. That is an unfortunate reality. We know that the Budget in prospect later in the year is a significant issue of a conspicuous lack of confidence and a desperate need to get construction activity going again.

[Paul Holmes]

It is even worse than that: in the previous debate, the Minister said that she did not want the Government to be able to impose their ideals on mayors, but now they have reduced the affordable housing target for the mayor, to try to fiddle the figures and make it look as though more houses are built. That is poorer people suffering in our capital city.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is desperation in action, and we can see that happening, as can the whole world. We would like to see the Government succeed—we would like to see the country succeed in developing the new homes that it needs. However, it has been a continuous theme in our contributions to debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we must ensure that the 1.5 million homes that already have planning permission in England get built, rather than focusing on tearing up the green belt and on more permissions that also do not get built.

We know that in our capital city there are more than 300,000 new homes that already have planning permission, but on which work has not started. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, just as we have sought to in the past in respect of private sector developers where there is a failure, that where a local authority or a mayor is in charge of a development, they are required to build it out in good time. That is so that we do not see a repeat of the situation where well-intentioned changes to the planning system simply result in more unbuilt permissions, while people who need homes do not have access to them, because that is not what is being delivered.

The focus of the new clause is to ensure that the system does what it is intended to and actually builds the homes, as opposed to churning out more planning permissions. Given the Government’s desperate need to move somewhere in the direction of achieving their 1.5 million target, I am sure the Minister will welcome the new clause and ensure that the Government support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will, as briefly as I can, because this is an interesting concept, outline the proposals in new clause 30 for the establishment of a public engagement commission. I have been part of some rocky debates in Committee, and I commend the new clause as a less fraught way to consider deep public participation, to come to terms with the benefits of participatory processes in appropriate situations and to look at democratic innovation in other ways.

The key issue here is that, as additional powers are gained, the choices and challenges facing public authorities in general—particularly these new ones—are becoming harder, along with the issues they are considering and the world situation. The need for citizen participation grows with that if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our public institutions. We need these new institutions to build trust and public confidence from the start.

The new clause closely relates to our legal obligations under the Aarhus convention, of which I am quite a big fan, as conventions go. It was adopted in 1998, when the Rio process really started to bed in, in the period when I started to become very involved in politics. I am certain that some of the processes taking place within central and local government as a result of our signing up to the convention encouraged my interest in politics, and led to some of the people who I work with now becoming my colleagues, so I am a big fan. The Aarhus convention links environmental rights and human rights. It establishes that

“sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders”

and it focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. It is absolutely wonderful, but we are miles behind other countries in how we do that.

There are some really good examples of engagement in Britain. However, I see Ministers in the current Government not acting in the spirit of the convention, who are not keen to hear from the public, or who are certainly not keen to engage with them in new ways. I hear a lot about how engagement with the public slows down building—they put it less politely than that. We need to think more about how we undertake this kind of democratic innovation, not just in planning applications but in the wide range of powers and services that we are devolving. It should be part of the Bill’s DNA, and the new clause would do just that.

The new clause would set up a national body to guide and spread best practice, and it would take on the task of engaging and involving the public in innovative ways on very big and difficult questions—it would be a really positive addition to the Bill. The proposed public engagement commission is modelled on the French National Commission for Public Debate, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary—we can feel the vintage this comes from. The French commission started out by looking at big schemes such as TGV lines, and it has organised consultations on 130 schemes and projects. Some of the projects have been modified, some have been significantly redesigned, and some have actually been abandoned as a result of the public engagement. It is a success story in France, and we could make use of it here.

We had the National Infrastructure Commission, which governed planning applications, and that has recently been widened to the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, so it is intended to look at services as well. I think that a similar commission looking at strategic and national-level engagement would be a positive addition in helping us to fulfil some of our rights. Obviously, the commission would not intervene on every scheme, but it might intervene on schemes at a range of levels to establish best practice. It would be an ideal place to look at some of the knottier issues that we have come across.

I will finish with a few examples. I can see that Members do not want to debate this and they are feeling a little confused about what it might actually do. We have talked about proportional representation and voting systems today. For subjects that can be difficult to discuss, such as planning issues, which can descend into name calling, we could try different methods of engagement. We could listen to how to modify projects—that is an obvious one. We could also look at local growth plans and think about how they could be scrutinised to involve the public more. There is also the neighbourhoods work that the Government are still proposing. All would benefit from the involvement of this commission.

The commission could also try out and report back on new digital approaches. It could make sure that consultations work for younger people, while also ensuring that the digitally excluded can also join engagement exercises. Getting that kind of balance right is very hard, and establishing a commission to make sure that it works well would be a good thing. On things such as community infrastructure and mayoral levies, which are raised and spent in the local area, the commission should look at participatory budgeting and establish best practice. We know that mayoral development corporations are not really designed to be directly accountable or involve the public, but the commission could look at how those bodies could engage more effectively in local areas.

It is interesting that in engagement connected with new towns, it is people in the local area who are consulted when new towns are intended mainly to attract new people to an area. How should people who might come to live in an area be consulted? Those are interesting challenges and I think that the commission would be a positive addition.

More seriously, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a participation gap in relation to the Aarhus convention in this Bill. I hope that she will go away and look again at how that affects environmental rights and compliance and about how that might work at a national level. She should also think about how this challenge today might affect a wide range of different participation processes at the Government level.

Apologies for again making a very long case for a new clause. I do not table them idly.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion does not develop a complex because I speak on all of her new clauses. She is a doughty parliamentarian who has deeply held views, and I do not want her to think that I oppose them because of any personal vendetta. However, as I am sure many expected, I rise to speak against the new clause because it lets politicians off the hook. It also does what I suggested many of the hon. Lady’s previous new clauses do.

The politicians, mayors and combined authorities we are talking about must have democratic legitimacy. They are accountable to their electorate in the traditional ways, which is an election at the current engagement levels that many mayors have. It is inherent within our system that if a mayor wants to be re-elected and build up incumbency so that people in the region say they are doing a good job, they will go out and show that they are working hard for those people.

The hon. Lady mentioned that we should follow France on this. These are not usually words that come out of my mouth, but I remind her that we are nearly at the end of the collapse of the Fifth Republic. I am not sure how much the commission helped, given how they have conducted their affairs over the last few months.

Much of the new clause adds a burden to an already overstretched and inadequately funded model. This is not to knock the Government, but establishing these authorities will be an incredibly long and complicated process, and there is going to be some disruption. The new clause would add a burden to many authorities for something that I do not think will deliver the outcomes that the hon. Lady expects.

I am a fan of Parliament and of the British Government, and I want them to do well—not that the Committee could see that from today—but I also believe in the position of the Secretary of State, and I think that asking the Secretary of State from “time to time” to lay a report before Parliament on the work of the public engagement commission during the period, and progress towards improving public engagement, is both setting up the Secretary of State for a fall—I am not sure how to measure public engagement—and letting the Secretary of State off the hook. The last Conservative Government and the Labour Government before them were in office for between 12 and 14 years. I could do it twice if I managed to survive as Secretary of State for 12 years—it may happen one day.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am sorry to tempt the Committee with the prospect of a nice pint in the Strangers Bar, but I will not speak to this new clause for very long. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). We have spent the afternoon talking about unique circumstances elsewhere in the country, but there are unique circumstances on the Isle of Wight, because of the nature of its geography.

Before I say any more on that, Dame Siobhain, may I, as one of the shadow Ministers, thank you and the other Chairs for your chairing, because this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Bill Committee? I also thank the Minister and the Government Whip, who has been so courteous during our negotiations through the usual channels; hopefully, she will do us some more favours going forward.

Even though we are not in government, I also thank the officials, because I have seen the churn of officials coming in and going out of the Committee Room in the last couple of weeks. Without them, politics would not be able to function, so I thank them for their work on the Bill. We mostly disagree with the Bill, but they are doing a great job for all of us.

The Isle of Wight is geographically unique, because it is only really accessible by boat, including ferries. Over the last 20 years or so, the two main ferry companies for the Isle of Wight, Red Funnel and Wightlink, have been passed between and traded by private equity groups. Just last week, Red Funnel changed hands in what was believed to be a distressed sale, with banks being owed tens of millions of pounds.

The people of the Isle of Wight absolutely rely on access to the mainland, and the island relies on mainland access to it, in order to supply it and to ensure that the people of that great place are well and are looked after. Under the pricing model of the last 20 years, however, peak car return fares have skyrocketed to as much as £400 a car, just for crossing a five-mile stretch of water. Timetables have diminished, so what was once a 30-minute service is now hourly or worse, and under-investment by Red Funnel’s owners means that its car ferry fleet is so old that it entered service before the maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), was born. Breakdowns are increasingly frequent, with some parts now so obsolete that boats are having to be withdrawn from service.

The Isle of Wight ferry service is a lifeline. There is no other way for the island’s 140,000 residents to cross the five-mile stretch of water to get on and off the island, including for key activities such as work, health appointments, education, visiting sick relatives, or being visited by relatives on whom they rely.

In the last debate on new clause 44, the Minister said that she believed that transport management structures should be run on a county basis. We agree with her; the efficiencies of scale mean that the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent should be able to run transport locally. The Government have a record of policies whereby we are seeing greater Government and regional involvement in the commissioning and running of our transport services, particularly through the bus Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I would argue that ferries should not be treated differently, especially when they are the sole mode of transport that people must rely on.

When my hon. Friend met the previous maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), however, the Government showed a distinct lack of action in this regard. My hon. Friend was promised that there would be a number of meetings—there have been meetings with the previous Minister—and that a body would be convened to discuss the matter, but that simply has not happened.

My hon. Friend therefore tabled new clause 49, which would give mayors the authority to regulate ferry services. It would apply not only to the Isle of Wight but to any regional structure that has ferries acting within its geographical boundaries. The functions exercisable by the mayor would include

“making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services”.

Labour Members should look at me with encouragement—perhaps I have had a conversion to the centre-left of British politics—because the new clause would also provide for the regulation of fares and a fare cap. I think that is acceptable in a situation where a single provider is flagrantly breaching the good faith of the people of the Isle of Wight.

I know that the Minister will resist this new clause—that does not surprise me; she has a job to do, as do I—but there is clearly a problem. I live just up the road from the Isle of Wight and the prices are crazy. The people living on the island rely on those ferries—they are used to supply medical services, to supply businesses and shops, and for family situations on the Isle of Wight—so the Government must step up.

The new clause makes a reasonable suggestion to the Government to give a mayor the power to control transport services within their region. I am delighted that the Conservative candidate for mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, Donna Jones, has said that she is actively pushing the Government for those regulatory powers. We support her in that so that she can come down very hard on the ferry services that are taking advantage of people who live on the Isle of Wight.

If the Government genuinely believe in devolution and in the control of transport—we have seen over the last 14 months that they believe in mayors being able to commission and manage transport services—that should include all transport services. I commend the new clause to the Committee, and hope that the Minister will give some encouraging words to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and to me. I have not spoken to my hon. Friend about this, and I am sure he will want to move the new clause on Report, but I wish to press it to a Division in Committee.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me start by saying that we absolutely recognise the issue that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and hon. Members representing the Isle of Wight have raised. That is why the Department for Transport has engaged with MPs and stakeholders on the Isle of Wight to identify their local solutions to the concerns that we understand and appreciate need to be addressed.

That engagement has included a ministerial roundtable on this issue and a commitment to create a cross-Solent group. An independent chair has been appointed to take that group forward. We will continue to engage with partners locally to address the genuine issues that have been raised about the ferry service in the area. The power of a democratically elected mayor is that they can make this a core issue and use the levers that they have and the seat that they will have at the table with Government to keep making the case and delivering for their community.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. She is absolutely correct, and I hope she does not see this intervention as unfair, but can she use her good offices to speed that group along? When the then maritime Minister visited the Isle of Wight in April, he said that a DFT working group would be created, but that has not happened—there has been no meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have been involved in that working group on a cross-party basis but it has not met yet. Could the Minister use her good offices to push for that meeting?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will write to my counterparts in the DFT. The commitment to create the group came in recognition of a problem. We are committed to working with local stakeholders and Members representing the area to respond to that, so I am happy to write to my DFT colleagues to chivvy that along.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has gone further than I was expecting her to. I think it is now up to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East to table the new clause again on Report, alongside, if necessary, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Pending conversations with my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Community ownership fund

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”—(Vikki Slade.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The local audit system is broken. There is consensus about that across the House and within this Committee. It is fragmented and has significant capacity and capability challenges. The problems in local government reporting and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of Government accounts for the past two years. This provides no assurance to Parliament, and puts public accountability and trust in the system at risk.

The Government are leading the most transformative programme of audit reform in over a decade. Clause 61 will enable the Local Audit Office, a new statutory and independent body, to be established by autumn 2026. The LAO will have an oversight, regulatory and appointing role in the local audit sector. It will cover a wide range of public sector bodies responsible for delivering essential services and managing public funds, as well as oversight of aspects of the NHS audit system.

The LAO will be instrumental in overhauling the local audit system and will play a crucial role in ensuring that reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers and support economic growth. The LAO will be vital to rebuilding transparency, accountability and public trust in local government, and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities.

Schedule 28 sets out the core elements of the LAO’s constitution and governance to enable this new organisation to be established. Part 1 establishes the requirements for the board, as proper constitution of the LAO is critical to establishing its authority, ensuring operational readiness and enabling it to deliver its objectives. Part 1 also covers other provisions that are integral to the successful set-up and operating function of the LAO.

Part 2 of the schedule allows the Secretary of State to put schemes in place to legally and properly transfer employees who are currently performing functions that the LAO will be responsible for after it is established.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Sir John. I am asking for a genuine point of clarification from the Minister. The Library briefing says:

“If an MP were appointed”

to one of these boards,

“they would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons”.

Why have the Government chosen to do that? There is no motivation behind my question; this is just for clarification.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is a very niche question. I will have to write back to the hon. Member to clarify.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not expect the Minister to know the answer this morning, but if she could write to me before the end of our sittings this week, I would be grateful. The reason I ask the question is that these are local audit offices for local authorities. The Secretary of State is appointing these boards, and there is obviously political oversight of those appointments, but it would seem sensible to have the expertise of someone representing the area. If this is a devolution Bill, appointing MPs would seem to be perfectly fine, so I am not sure why the Government are disqualifying them. If she could come back to me on that point, I would be most grateful.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to write to clarify that key point.

Everything that we are doing through these new clauses and this reform package is in order to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, fair and operates so that we can build trust and accountability within public bodies at the local level. Committee members will appreciate the importance of providing certainty to the people who have worked to maintain the local audit over the years, which is why we are putting in place these two provisions.

New clause 9 will provide the Secretary of State with a new power to require the LAO to conduct a review of local bodies’ financial reporting and audit arrangements. The LAO will have the power, through contract management and quality oversight, to monitor timeliness in the sector, and will have levers to hold firm account where audits are late. Those statutory reviews will address the accountability gap by providing a way to understand whether individual local bodies have adequately supported the audit process. We believe that those reviews are vital to restoring public accountability, providing assurance at each stage of the audit process and rebuilding our early warning system. They are an integral part of a much bigger reform that we think is both necessary and long overdue. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 24, page 247, line 38, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (3), insert—

‘3A The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) unless he has satisfied the conditions under Section 7A (Requirement for a public referendum).’”

This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 46, in schedule 24, page 248, line 9, at end insert—

“(6A) After section 7 insert—

‘7A Requirement for a public referendum

(1) An order cannot be made under section 7 of this Act unless a referendum has taken place in all areas proposed to be included in any merger under any order, and a majority of voters in that referendum has approved of the proposed merger.

(2) Arrangements relating to referenda held under this section may be such as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that the referendum is—

(a) conducted under the first past the post system, and

(b) held no sooner than six weeks from the date it is first publicly announced.’”

This amendment would require that no order could be made to implement a proposed merger of single tier areas unless approved by a referendum in the affected area.

Amendment 47, in schedule 24, page 250, line 6, after “opening words” insert—

“(a) after ‘an order made by the Secretary of State under section 7’, insert 7A, and”.

This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak to these amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). These are simple amendments—the Minister has heard me say that before; any amendments that we have tabled are very simple and aim just to do the job adequately.

My hon. Friend has tabled these amendments because, as we have said, the Conservatives believe that this is a top-down reorganisation that has not been endorsed by the people we serve. As I said earlier, it was not in the Labour manifesto. Many local authorities do not want to go ahead with local government reform, and the Minister tacitly acknowledged earlier that any local authority that did not want to go forward with local government reform would be forced to do so anyway.

We believe that is wrong. The lack of democratic legitimacy and the democratic deficit in the decision to pursue this very expensive and needless local government reorganisation require the people who we serve—the people who councillors serve—to have their say. There must be democratic accountability to them, which means there should be a requirement for a public referendum when a new authority is proposed.

The Government should not fear that. In fact, the policy of the last Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, was massively to advocate for local referendums. The Greater London Authority was created following a public referendum in 1998 in which the Government wilfully accepted that it needed to be created. It was their proposal, they sought the consent of Londoners, Londoners approved, and they went ahead and created the GLA. I think that is a very good thing; they had democratic accountability.

In the early 2000s, a north-east assembly was proposed by the late Lord Prescott and rejected by a referendum that the Government sought. It was rejected by the people who would have been affected by the proposal. The Government not only gave them a referendum, but listened and took away the proposal for that assembly because people did not want it.

The last Labour Government therefore had a history of listening and asking people for their democratic consent to reorganisations, so I do not understand what this Government have to fear. They have chosen to go forward with this reorganisation without any consent. These referendums would provide the consultation that the Government have so far lacked by asking and ascertaining, with certainty, whether people back it in local areas.

So far, the Minister is charging into a tunnel without any public say. I am sure that she will talk about local government consultations in her response, but most of the consultations that have happened have been very small and the democratic participation has been very low. In areas such as Gosport, which neighbours my constituency, people do not want this reorganisation and their council has refused to engage. They do not want it to happen, but the Government will force it to.

Under the Local Government Act 2003—passed by the previous Labour Government—an authority can hold a non-binding referendum on any local issue that it wishes. I do not believe that any local authority has undertaken that yet, but we certainly would encourage them to do so. The Government do not have to follow or respond to that referendum, but I wonder what weight the Minister and the Government would place on a referendum held by a local authority, given that the legislation was passed under a previous Labour Government.

The previous Labour Government had some quite radical thoughts on reorganisation that we opposed at the time, I think—I was at secondary school then; I know many people will not believe that, looking at me after more than six years in this place! That Labour Government believed in consulting the people who they served when implementing huge reorganisations of central, regional and local government.

That Labour Government had a proud history of listening to the people, but unfortunately, in many areas of policy, this Government have shied away from that. Instead, they have pushed ahead with policies that were not in their manifesto and do not have the democratic mandate of the British people. I have been clear from the beginning that they have a democratic mandate to govern, and a huge majority—although it was won with a very low proportion of the vote—but they do not have a democratic mandate for this local government reorganisation. They should not be afraid to ask people whether they want it or not.

The Government should take this amendment on board and make it part of this flagship legislation.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate.

To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment.

Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I will respond briefly. The Minister is entitled to say that she does not want to accept the amendment, but I ask her to look not at the logistical and legal arguments of the legislation, but at what is right and what is wrong in the practice of implementing local government reorganisation. As I say, we are all democrats—we are all elected to serve here—so she should not fear asking the people whether they endorse the local government reform that she is currently implementing without the consent of the public or many local authority leaders. We will not press these amendments to a vote, but notwithstanding what I have said before about other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we will table amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clause 56 stand part.

New clause 24—Impact of local government reorganisation—

“(1) Whenever the Secretary of State has made any order or regulations in pursuance of provision inserted or amended by Schedule 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must, at the end of a period of two years beginning on the day of the making of the order or regulations, issue a report.

(2) Each report required by subsection (1) must include, but shall not be limited to, details of the following, as far as they arise from any reorganisation resulting from the order or regulations—

(a) the cost of the reorganisation;

(b) the impact on service delivery, including the quality of social care provision and quality of SEND provision;

(c) the impact on development, including the number of homes delivered against local targets;

(d) the performance of individual commissioners;

(e) the sustainability of the finances of the newly created authority;

(f) the extent to which Council Tax has increased and the extent to which any mayoral precept has increased; and

(g) satisfaction of local residents with the standard of services provided by the authority established or changed by the reorganisation.”—(David Simmonds.)

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it.

On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied.

The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, there we have it: the mask has slipped—

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It hasn’t!

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says it has not, but I will convince her that it has. All morning we on the Opposition side have been talking about the fact that the Government are forcing this to happen without consent. The mask has slipped because this clause disapplies the ability of a currently existing council to refuse consent for the creation of new authorities.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.

[Paul Holmes]

Fine. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but the point I am about to make still applies: the people who currently serve have a stake. The people who send those people to serve have a stake. The way in which this clause is being put forward shows again that the Government are forcing change on a number of organisations and predecessor authorities that currently exist and serve their local people—so the mask has slipped. We have been saying all day that this is a proposal and local government reform that is not in the manifesto and is being forced on local authority leaders who do not want it.

The Minister said last week that she had had lots of enthusiastic conversations about people who want to go forward with devolution. I put it to her again that many local authority members do not, and the only reason they are going forward with it is because she is going to force them to do it anyway. Now that those local authorities might want to refuse to give consent to the creation of strategic authorities—something that should be within their gift anyway—she is disapplying their right to say that they do not want them. The Government are invoking a top-down reorganisation and not listening to the views of local leaders or of the people they are elected to serve.

I say to the Minister once again on this clause: throughout the Bill, she has advocated for it being a bottom-up reorganisation, but this is the sledgehammer of central Government refusing local people the voice that they should have. The mask has slipped and the Minister has just admitted that it is a centrally imposed thing, which many people do not want. The clause should be removed from the legislation, and we will oppose it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it.

It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, Ms Vaz; as the Committee can see, I got rather carried away and I forgot to speak to new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Briefly, the new clause should be included in the legislation, because all in the House believe in transparency. In the process, subsection (1) of the new clause would require an impact assessment of the local government reorganisation to be published. Each report would be required to include things such as the cost of a reorganisation, something that the Minister has advocated will deliver more efficient services and will not be onerous.

A report will allow us to see not only whether that is true post the creation of the authority, but the impact on service delivery and development, as well as the number of homes delivered—we have seen mayors who are not able to deliver the number of homes required of them—and an assessment of the performance of individual commissioners. It would provide a clear link for the people who live in those areas where the reorganisation is to go ahead. We believe that would not be onerous on the new authorities and that new clause 24 would bring the right balance between transparency and accountability, so we ask the Minister to accept it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie.

The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely hate to detain the Committee—I do not just say that out of politeness—but I believe that we should press new clause 24 to a Division, when we come to that point.

[The Chair]

We will vote on new clause 24 at the end, when we come to the new clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 24 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I quite agree. We have heard a lot about the benefits of this new model, and this change is a sign from the Government that they are not even going to trust their new unitaries to choose their own governance systems. I find it a really strange addition to the Bill.

The Electoral Reform Society, in its 2015 report “The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and Public Procurement Corruption”, estimated the cost to the public purse of councils having weak opposition to be about £2.6 billion a year. Finally, in November 2017, the current Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, “In my experience in life, the best decisions are made with proper scrutiny, and the worst mistakes come from not having scrutiny.” The Government should listen to that man. This clause—of all the bad parts of the Bill—is the most exact opposite of community empowerment. If it stays, the Bill should be renamed the “Very Little Devolution and Too Much Centralised Control Bill”.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly to clause 57. The Opposition recognise why the Government are bringing in this system. As I have said before, I was a councillor in a unitary with a leader and cabinet system, and I think that that delivers the fastest decisions, and the most accountable decisions when there is a full council. In fact, we were able to constitute an overview and scrutiny committee, the chairmanship of which we gave to the opposition.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Having been a district council opposition leader for 10 years, I can say with some real clarity that the agenda was not always dominated by the controlling group; in fact, a lot of the motions put forward by the group I led were accepted by the controlling group. It is all about the quality of the councillors and the opposition—it goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said about culture—rather than necessarily the system. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Paul Holmes]

I do agree. I am sure the main reason his group’s motions were accepted is that they were very well written. I know how he behaves in here—I do not agree with his speeches most of the time—and he comes from a decent place. I know that any motion would have been beneficial to the residents of wherever he served at the time.

Councils will have the power to internally constitute themselves to give opposition councillors the best way to scrutinise them. As I said, in Southampton city council, we gave the Labour group leader, or an allocated person, the chairmanship of a genuine overview and scrutiny committee, whose power the administration used to fear. Particularly at a time when the first-past-the-post system delivered what might have been a hung council or a minority administration, that committee, consisting of opposition councillors, had huge power. So I do not have a huge amount of agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on that point.

However, we have just had a debate about referendums, and an amendment asking for referendums to allow people to say whether they want local government reorganisation, so I want to say something about paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 25. Paragraph 3 would prevent any local authority from deciding to establish a directly elected mayoralty, which is absolutely fine. Paragraph 4 would amend the Local Government Act 2000 to allow an authority with a mayoralty to change to a leader and cabinet system. However, it leaves in place provisions governing how that change could take place, and a mayoralty established after a referendum could be abolished only if that is approved in another referendum, which can be triggered by the local authority, a petition or the Secretary of State.

In the schedule, the Government want to hold referendums to try to get what they want, so they approve of them. But they somehow do not approve of referendums to ask people in the first place whether they want to go into this local government reform. If the Minister could explain how that is not having her cake and eating it, and being completely inconsistent in the Bill, I would be grateful. Here, she is saying, “Well, we want you to change to a leader and cabinet system, but you need a referendum to do that, because you have already had a referendum.” That is tacit approval from the Government; when it comes to local government reform and changing how a local authority is set up, they want the consent of the people, but on the overarching view of local government reform, they somehow do not. After the last debate, I would ask the Minister to clarify again: do this Government believe in the right of local people, by referendum, to change the way in which they approve their local structures and live their lives? Yes or no? If it is good enough for this clause, she should go back to the schedule we have just discussed and put in the amendment we discussed to approve a referendum there.

I am slightly teasing the Minister, but she must understand that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach—although I am not surprised about that. Overall, that is not enough for me to say that the clause is not worth being in the Bill. I think it does deliver a streamlined and accountable process for a leader and cabinet system, but she really does need to tell her officials, whom she leads and gives political direction to, to be consistent about when the Government believe the public should and should not be asked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media.

In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access.

In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive.

Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area.

The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

I am delighted to speak to amendments 250 and 251, and to new clause 55 and amendments 405 to 407, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I am sure that pleases everybody— I remind the hon. Member for Banbury that I have been seated for quite a while now, and I do not want him to miss out on my dulcet tones.

This is slightly complicated, but I will not spend too long on it. New clause 55 will require a consultation on the publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals. Amendments 405 to 407 would essentially act as a block to the regulations set out in the Bill until the proposal is consulted on and an assessment undertaken of the consultation responses on

“the economic viability of local newspapers…access to information for local authority residents, and…local democracy and accountability…. The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”

We believe that it is crucial to consult on the different aspects and different geographical situations of our local newspapers. Local newspapers are essentially the beating heart of various sections of our society who are not online and who rely on or may be interested in such information. It is not a novel thing for people to be interested in what is going on in their local area. As we have seen, with the reduction in regional TV broadcast news and the restructuring of our national broadcaster and other local news providers on television and radio, local newspapers can be the only channel for local people to see what is going on in their local authority area.

I am sure that many people on this Committee have been lobbied by various trade bodies and organisations on behalf of local newspapers. With the advance of digital technology and the internet, the circulation of physical copies of local newspapers is declining. When I was a councillor in 2008, the amazing and historic Daily Echo, which covers Hampshire and Portsmouth news, had a circulation of around 200,000 hard copies sold; it has fallen to around 40,000 now. Local newspapers rely heavily on the income stream from statutory notices and local government notices; it is a lifeline for local newspapers.

Such notices allow people to read about what is going on with their planning applications and some of the changes that local authorities are putting forward. In my local authority, as in local authorities across the country, these statutory notices and planning notices sometimes act as a safeguard when—I hate to say this— a local authority does not act on its statutory duty to alert relevant people to a planning application or a statutory notice. I would hate to guess how many times we have had an email from a constituent that says, “I didn’t know that this planning application was going to go ahead, and I’ve missed the consultation and can’t do anything about it,” either because the postman did not deliver the letter, or the local authority did not deliver to everybody in a restricted cul-de-sac some information about a block of flats going up next door. If they miss that information, they lose their chance to be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of local newspapers. I have some brilliant ones in my constituency, including one that goes out in Chipping Norton and hence is called Chippy News. It is produced by volunteers and does a lot of the things that the hon. Gentleman talked about. However, he mentioned the diminished circulation of newspapers. If he really wants better consultation and engagement with residents, does he accept that making the proposed amendments that might not be the best way to ensure that?

[Paul Holmes]

There is an argument for accepting that, but I would ask in return why the Government are giving local councils the opportunity not to use newspapers. Why put that in the Bill rather than allow the status quo to continue while enabling local authorities to do it in other ways? Why are we bringing forward legislative changes that will harm our independent newspaper sector? I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about not making useless amendments or putting useless new clauses into legislation, so why is this measure in the Bill in the first place? That is why we feel that we have to amend the Bill to protect our local newspapers, the vulnerable people who use them and their engagement in the democratic process.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that all of us in this room should understand the importance of printed paper to get our message across, considering that during our election campaigns we deliver thousands of leaflets to get our messages out? Does he agree that we should support these amendments to make sure that councils still have the ability to connect with communities that are not digitally connected?

[Paul Holmes]

As you would expect, Ms Vaz, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s words. I suspect that if we took the motivation of this part of the Bill and told Labour Members that they could not put out any of their “Labour in touch” communications, or whatever they call them, they would be shouting from the barriers that they could not communicate with residents who are digitally challenged or not engaged in digital communications.

It is important that there are varied and diverse ways for our punters, if I can call them that, and our voters to find information and to engage in the process. I do not understand why the Minister is proposing to actively harm our local independent newspaper sector in a Bill that has admirable intentions and will radically change the face of local government, in some cases for the better, but in the majority of cases for the worse when it comes to accountability. We all see that press is becoming much more large scale and a lot less local through TV and media restructuring. I do not understand why the Government would put in such a retrograde step for independent local newspapers.

We support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. When the Committee comes to new clause 55, we will push it to a vote. I am not sure whether we are voting on the consequential amendments to new clause 55 today, but if we are, we will push those to a vote too.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy.

Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do.

In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach.

It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate.

In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will speak to clause 59 and schedule 26 now, and I will then respond to hon. Members on their amendments.

The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. Given the large population that each regional mayor and police and crime commissioner represents, far exceeding that of Members of Parliament, the Government believe they should have a broad base of support among the electorate. We believe that a supplementary voting system, a preferential voting system, will achieve that and is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. The supplementary voting system will help to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose their first-choice and second-choice candidates, and it will require the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for begrudgingly giving way. She has just outlined that she believes a winning candidate should win a majority of the vote. We entirely agree with her, which is why we support first past the post. Why does she not seem to think that the supplementary vote should also be used to elect MPs, who are single executive politicians but do not necessarily always receive a majority of the vote?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making.

Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady says that Oliver Coppard got 71% of the vote in the second round, but her quote leads me to believe that the number of people who voted was no different from what it would have been under first past the post. Is that correct?

[Siân Berry]

I stopped reading out turnout results, but turnout was 42.8%—much higher than in previous examples. To be honest, I would prefer a ranking of all candidates down the ballot paper, but I believe that when people are able to use their votes to express both their first and second preferences they are not discouraged from turning out. When parties are not forced to put out leaflets all about who might win but leaflets are instead about the actual issues that might affect people’s lives, turnout goes up. It is really important that this change is made.

On consistency, I want to raise an issue from Sussex. A motion passed by East Sussex county council makes a really good point:

“When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue”.

That is the problem: the areas that have stepped forward sooner are being forced to accept a substandard election system. I recognise that the motion at East Sussex county council was to delay the elections, and that is not my wish either. I absolutely recognise that there is a timetable challenge: if the amendments were accepted today, they would need to wait until the Bill was enacted to come into force. We cannot make changes to an imminent election, so I do not intend the press the amendments to a vote today.

However, I call on the Government to fix the situation. I would like the Minister to go away and talk to colleagues about how she might be able to fairly resource all the areas holding mayoral elections, including those that have chosen to go first and should face no penalty, so that they can conduct next year’s elections under the supplementary vote in the way that other areas will benefit from later.

[Paul Holmes]

I have to speak to this group of amendments because only one party has consistency when it comes to a “one vote, one election” philosophy: the Conservative party. It is lovely to see the weird and wonderful array of views on electoral systems from parties that want to gerrymander political systems to try to suit their own ends. That is what we have seen this afternoon.

At the mayoral elections, the first-past-the-post system worked because it clearly showed that when the people entitled to vote have one vote, the candidate who gets the most votes wins. We would always argue that that is the simplest and fairest system for the election of a single politician. I do not often compliment the Government, but they have always been consistent on this issue when it comes to mayoral elections. But we cannot keep asking the same person to be subject to two votes and claim that in the second round they have 71% and therefore an overwhelming mandate, when the turnouts under AV or SV are not markedly different from first past the post. Actually, the 41% turnout cited by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion still means that fewer than half the total electorate voted for that winning candidate so the hon. Lady’s argument against first past the post is exactly the same as that in favour of the gerrymandering political voting mechanism that she wants to bring in.

[Siân Berry]

I would not claim that a turnout of nearly 43% is a triumph, but the hon. Member has to admit that it is a good turnout compared with that of most local government elections.

[Paul Holmes]

I would argue that it is up to us as politicians and candidates in the election to advertise the position and generate excitement among the electorate, so that people vote for them. It was still 41%, I think, in the election that the hon. Lady cited; it was below half the total electorate, so this is not a panacea for improving electoral participation.

Also, I know that the hon. Lady was advocating for SV, but the Liberal Democrats have always been vehement in their approach to AV, despite the fact that they lost the national referendum that they managed to get on the AV voting system. [Hon. Members: “You gave it to them.”] We gave it to them because that is coalition, but they lost and we won, so I am quite happy with the outcome. They lost a test on the national system.

AV was used in mayoral elections and PCC elections when these positions were created, and turnouts were demonstrably low and very low in some cases—12% to 18%. They are now massively higher. Okay, they are not high enough, but they are higher now because they have become a constant and well-established institution in our voting system. That is not because of the voting system. It is because the system has been allowed to bed in and people have the choice of whether to elect a PCC or mayor or not. That is one of the bedrocks of our political systems today.

I thought I was triggered on the amendment where I saw the words “citizens’ panels”, but now I am even more triggered; we have a long history of speaking about citizens’ panels and citizens’ assemblies. As I said at the beginning, there is a clear need for local people to have a straightforward system that does what it says on the tin. The Conservative party will always believe that first past the post is the system that does that. Other parties want to gerrymander a system to try to suit their own preferred political outcomes.

The Minister said that directly elected people need to have the widest possible mandate and number of people voting for them. Her Prime Minister secured 32% of the vote in a national election and won a majority of the size that he did. [Interruption.] It is not a reason to support another system at all. I do not think that the Minister can advocate for a different voting system in one case, but then—the Government’s position is confused on voting systems—accept that a 32% vote share got well over 60% of the seats on a turnout, I think, in the high 60s. That is not exactly representative, either. The Government need to have a solid position on all kinds of elections, not just ones that suit their potential candidates.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to.

Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place.

On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Amendment 408, in the name of Alison Bennett, was tabled late last night. As a result, it is not selectable for debate today.

We will continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members wishing to speak that they should bob to attract my attention. If a Member wishes to push to a Division an amendment that is not the lead amendment or new clause in a group, they must inform me in advance, or I will skip straight past it. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Schedule 23

Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 307, in schedule 23, page 237, line 9, at end insert—

“()ba a single foundation strategic authority.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authority to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 309, in schedule 23, page 237, line 28, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under this paragraph may—

(a) create conditions which must be satisfied prior to the mayor exercising a function,

(b) create a requirement for members of the relevant strategic authority to assist the mayor in exercising a function,

(c) create additional powers for the mayor for the purposes of exercising a function,

(d) authorise the mayor to appoint a person as a political adviser for the purposes of exercising a function,

(e) create requirements for an appointment under subparagraph (4A)(d).

(4B) Powers under subparagraph (4A)(c) may not include a power to borrow money.

(4C) Regulations under this paragraph must have the consent of the relevant authority.”

This amendment would create additional boundaries for regulations which may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor.

[Paul Holmes]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward.

Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill.

Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle.

I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Let me take amendment 307 first. To be clear, the single foundation strategic authority will not have a mayor. That is not the intent of the provision or of the Bill and it is not in the Government’s plans. Invariably, however, we want to be sure that at every level we are devolving power. Certain powers will be devolved to single foundation strategic authorities, such as Cornwall, in order to enable it to respond to some of its issues. We are also clear that certain powers will be reserved to mayors, because a level of democratic accountability is critical to the exercise of such powers. That is the distinction that we have made throughout the design of the policy and it is built into the Bill.

Amendment 309 is out of the step with the Bill’s objective of streamlining the process for conferring and modifying the functions of strategic authorities and mayors. The Bill already puts in place sufficient guardrails when functions are transferred to mayors. When making functions exercisable by the mayor, it is already the case that constituent authorities will be consulted before such a change. Requiring the consent of those authorities will create an unnecessary barrier to enabling mayors to take on functions and to get on with the job delivery, which is what we need of them.

Finally, many mayors can already appoint political advisers—another piece of amendment 309—as agreed through the establishment of statutory instruments. The Bill will also allow mayors to appoint commissioners to support them in the exercise of their functions. That is the right balance to be struck to ensure that the mayor has what he or she needs to do the job that their constituents or voters require of them. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the Minister understands our motivation for tabling the amendment. We are not trying to score a political point, but to strengthen the Bill. I am reassured that the Minister has given us some reassurance that she sees that every kind of authority should be devolved and that the powers should be aligned with those. We may come back to this on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert—

“Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members

5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by—

(a) the deputy mayor,

(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,

(c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor.

(2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including—

(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,

(b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee,

(c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee,

(d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures,

(e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority.

This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level.

I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment. I would say that mayors are already able to delegate the majority of their functions to deputy mayors and to members of constituent authorities. In the evidence session, for example, Councillor Bev Craig from Manchester was responsible for the economic development portfolio in Greater Manchester. Such functions are already in place. In part in recognition of the fact that local councillors, in particular leaders and cabinet members, have busy paid jobs, we want to increase the mayor’s pool of support, which is why we are creating the ability for the mayor to appoint and to delegate functions to the commissioners. That will give the mayors options. We are not specifying how the mayor should do it, and ultimately each mayor will figure out what works for their area and the mix between deputy mayors, commissioners and lead members, but this provision will increase the pool and the options available to them.

[Paul Holmes]

We are content with that answer, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Third schedule to the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The schedule is introduced by clause 50. I have already spoken about why the clause should stand part of the Bill. As I explained previously, the schedule is essential to providing Government with the powers to add new functions to the framework. That will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers they need to deliver for their local people, which is what all this is about. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government want to ensure we have a national health service that is fit for the future, and we are doing huge amounts to repair the damage to the national health service done by the Conservative Government. That is a core function of what we are doing. It is therefore right that certain core functions, such as the NHS constitution or university clinical training, remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This clause retains the existing limits on the devolution of health functions in England. Protections against devolving health functions are not new—they have been in place since the Government began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities—and the Bill maintains them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I was going to stay quiet, but unfortunately for the Minister I was inspired by her speech, so I hate to disappoint the Government Whip by speaking very briefly. The Minister, quite rightly—it is her job—outlined that she wants to rectify some of the supposed damage done to the national health service over 14 years, but I gently remind her that waiting lists are increasing and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking at possible strike action while putting forward a reorganisation that he cannot afford.

I look to the Minister for some reassurance regarding whether wider health policy, such as that reorganisation and some of the local functions of integrated care boards, which we know are changing, may affect the provisions in the clause. Could there be some effect on the ground that may create delay or necessitate some changes to the clause in the longer term?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Obviously, the NHS is going through huge reform. We are working closely with the team in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that reforms sit alongside our plans for devolution. A big part of what we are trying to do through our health reforms is to provide community-based healthcare, and there is a big opportunity for local and regional government to work alongside the NHS to deliver integrated services that work for our communities and are user-led. We are making sure that every stage of the reforms, including the changes to the ICBs, is done in lockstep with what we are trying to do across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Incidental etc provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 299, in clause 53, page 57, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment removes the provision for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) to apply to a transfer by virtue of section 53 regardless of whether the transfer is relevant to the regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 221.

Clause stand part.

[Paul Holmes]

We understand the overarching aims of this clause, and the debate does not necessarily have to revolve around whether or not it should happen, but we tabled this probing amendment because we understand that the legislation is essentially applying TUPE regulations regardless of whether they legally apply. We want to challenge that and probe why, if TUPE regulations need not legally apply in cases of transfer, the Government have insisted that TUPE regulations have to go into this regardless. Can the Minister answer that key question?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

TUPE regulations are there to ensure that staff are not dismissed for the sole reason that functions are being transferred from one public body to another. We believe that they are fundamental to protecting staff, which we want to make sure happens throughout this process.

In line with the Cabinet Office guidance, this clause tries to ensure that the regulations apply when we have public bodies moving to strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, risks creating uncertainty for staff and disrupting the smooth transfer of functions.

TUPE regulations are there for a reason—to protect the workers that are fundamental and critical to delivering any public institution. When we are going through the process of creating these strategic authorities, it is important that we embed those TUPE regulations. That is why I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for her full and direct answer, and I understand it. I take it she accepts that TUPE is being put into this clause regardless of whether there is a legal necessity for it to apply. Has she had any correspondence or lobbying from the trade union movement to make sure that it is included?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To answer that question directly: no, although it helps that I am a new Minister. The clause is in step with long-standing Government practice. It mirrors provisions that have been made in previous legislation by the previous Conservative Government, including in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It is standard practice and it is done by all parties. It is there because we need to protect staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert—

“(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Strategic authorities will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government could easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is sovereign, and the Government will always be able to table primary legislation to redesign how functions are delivered. However, the Bill makes sure that Governments will have to make that argument in Committee and on Report, as we are doing now. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. We want this to be locked in because we fundamentally believe that this is how to deliver for communities across the country. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this or any future Government to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation, so that they can be exercised again by central Government.

I commend clause 54 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

This is a difficult one for us. I am not saying that the Minister is trying to bind the hands of future Governments, but it does feel like the Government are trying to make this increasingly difficult. We would argue that any elected Government have a mandate to make legislative changes as they see fit. I wonder whether this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Of course, we accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but an elected Government should be able to use any mechanism they want to use. I ask the Minister once again to consider whether she thinks this is really necessary. A Government who might want to remove some of the functions would have a democratic mandate to do so, and arguably very good reasons for doing so when future structures need to change. I would like to challenge her on whether she thinks this is absolutely necessary, which may depend on our forcing a vote on this issue.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. My view is that devolution is a fundamental shift in power and a rewiring of how we govern the country. At the heart of the devolution process are a lot of democratic processes, where people vote for a mayor on the basis of what they say they will deliver for their community. To make a fundamental change, it is absolutely right that a future Government must get the consent of Parliament to rewrite it. That is the premise on which we think about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and devolution, and it is what we have done in the context of Scotland and Wales. These are fundamental shifts in power, and it is right that there has to be a full democratic process within Parliament to reverse them.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not about reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake; it is about creating better-functioning unitary councils that are more sustainable and better able to deliver the high-quality services that their residents want and fundamentally deserve.

Schedule 24 enables the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise. We are committed to working in partnership with local areas. Therefore, this will be used only where areas have failed to make progress following an invitation. It also includes new merging provisions to enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change would be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. That aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed in the Bill to ensure these reforms work in harmony. The first mechanism is the ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority. This is a straightforward and common-sense provision. When local government reorganisation takes place in an area covered by a combined county authority, we need a streamlined way to convert the authority into a combined authority.

The second mechanism is the ability to abolish a combined authority or combined county authority if local government reorganisation renders that authority obsolete. This mechanism would be used only in very limited circumstances: if a new unitary authority covers or includes the whole area of an existing combined authority or combined county authority. Any local government reorganisation proposal requiring the use of this abolition mechanism will need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as per the Government’s reorganisation criteria. That ensures these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

I commend clause 55 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives.

We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause.

The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals.

I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed.

For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Sorry, Chair. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resulting democratic deficit sets a dangerous precedent?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, she has the best interests of Stratford-on-Avon at heart. From her experience in local government, she knows the expertise held by district councillors who know the areas they serve.

In my local area, two new unitary authorities are proposed —one that looks eastward and one that looks westward. What happens to the semi-rural areas of my constituency, now having new unitary councils headquartered in Southampton and Portsmouth? Those unique connections that district councils have, which suit their smaller areas, will not be served as well by a larger unitary authority. That view is endorsed by the District Councils’ Network, which suggested in its briefing note that focusing on authority scale and population size during local government reorganisation would not lead to optimal outcomes. It stated:

“it will be tempting to pursue approaches to LGR that make it as easy as possible to implement—focusing only on scale and minimising disruption.”

The Government say they want to deliver growth and get the public finances in good order, but there are no concrete suggestions for how their proposals will save money. Just going bigger and larger, and having one tier across the whole UK, does not necessarily mean that services will be better. As I have said consistently, many district, town and parish councils do not want this to happen. Many Members across the House may say, “That is the vested interest of elected people who are going to be got rid of,” but that is not the case.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will finish this point, and then I will give way, because I am a fan of the hon. Gentleman. Smaller district, town and parish councils know their local areas. This is not an efficient way of delivering reform. We will have councillors on a larger scale who do not take into account the unique structures and environments in which we serve our constituents.

[Sean Woodcock]

It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I refer the hon. Member to a point I made to his colleague in Committee a couple of weeks ago. Ten years ago, the district councils of Northamptonshire were dismantled by his party and forcibly put into unitary authorities. Where was his umbrage then? If district councils are so good, why did his Government not reform them, give them more money and reconstitute them? Clearly, his Government felt there was a reason why they worked better as unitary authorities. So what is the problem?

[Paul Holmes]

There was a unique circumstance there—

[Sean Woodcock]

They were going bankrupt.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Does the hon. Member recognise the state of local government—the absolute mess and the financial vulnerability of local authorities—that his party left us with? Unique circumstances, absolutely. We are having to fix the mess we inherited. We absolutely want local government to be successful and to thrive, but it is on its knees after 15 years of austerity. That is why we are having to take the action we are taking.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister is seriously suggesting that a complete and wholesale reorganisation across the whole United Kingdom is the one answer to making sure that local government can operate on a sustainable footing, I do not buy that at all. There are many things that this Government could do to make local government much more efficient and to deliver for people. First is an uplift in funding.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are doing that.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister should speak to the many council leaders across the country who do not agree that it is enough.

If the Minister is seriously saying that abolishing 90% of elected councillors in rural areas across this country will somehow be the miracle cure for local government, and that is what is driving these measures, then I am sorry but this Government need to go back to the drawing board.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Cornwall reorganised in 2009 and is now the third largest unitary council in the UK. There is no question of any sort of democratic deficit across the whole of Cornwall. Why does the hon. Member think that is?

[Paul Holmes]

I think it was reorganised under a Labour Government. When people in this country went to the polls in July 2024, and we accept that we lost the election—[Interruption.]—and lost it pretty badly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield says. I absolutely accept that, and I do not think there is any disagreement on why or how that happened, but can the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth point me to where his party’s then local government spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), said to councillors in her party that they were about to be abolished, or where she said to local government leaders or the general public that Labour would carry out a huge reorganisation of local government? If he can, I will eat my words. I challenge him to show me where his party said at the general election that it was going to do that. Can he do that?

[Perran Moon]

When I was knocking on doors in Cornwall, people were worried not about a democratic deficit but about waste and bureaucracy in local government. They wanted a more streamlined local government structure, focused on delivering services. That is what the Bill aims to do.

[Paul Holmes]

Councillors across this country aim and strive to do that day in and day out, within the current structures. Any suggestion otherwise is an insult to elected councillors across the UK, and I am not saying that he said that—I am saying that every councillor in this country is elected to serve and to deliver services in the best way they can. My fundamental disagreement is that, as the Minister has said, reorganisation in a pure attempt to save money and deliver more efficient services is not provable. Many unitary councils across the country—a single tier of local government established in the last reorganisation in 1997—are now in huge financial trouble. That is not just because of the allocations that were put forward by the previous Government. It is because a single tier of local authority of that size does not necessarily deliver for an area. This Government’s aim of ensuring that that goes on across the whole country will not tackle some of the fundamental financial issues that our local authorities suffer from.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion, which is very much informed by his local circumstances in Hampshire. I can share my local circumstances in Kent, where the current two-tier system just does not work for my constituents. We have some great councillors in Swale and some good councillors in Kent, but over decades the system has not worked because the needs of people in certain parts of Kent are so different from the needs of people in my constituency, which is a much poorer, more industrial and more deprived area. We have been overlooked. I am afraid that the people in Tunbridge Wells, which is a great town, do not get the needs of people in Sheerness. This change will be a massive improvement for people in my neck of the woods, and that is why I support it.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is uniquely qualified to speak about his local circumstances—that is why he is sent here every day to serve his constituents—but I do not understand his argument. If he is saying that a larger authority that serves the whole of Kent, or two authorities in Kent, will know the unique circumstances of two fundamentally different areas, I suggest to him that nothing is going to change.

[Kevin McKenna]

It is obvious. My area has a very different socioeconomic status from that of the rest of Kent—frankly, a lot of the coastal parts of Kent are very different from the centre of Kent. The authority will not be as large as Kent county council, which currently is responsible for the biggest challenges—special educational needs and disabilities, adult social care and children’s social care. Those are a lot of the things that matter most to my constituents. Having more like with like areas in a unitary authority, the likely outcome of this reorganisation where I am, will be a massive improvement and will allow other parts of Kent to focus on their special needs.

[Paul Holmes]

What the hon. Gentleman describes is the very essence of devolution. I absolutely believe that if local authorities or local people want that reorganisation and unitarisation, that is up to them. My disagreement is with the Government and the Minister—not just this Minister, but the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who said in the House that everybody must do it. If this Government are seriously saying that this measure is universally welcomed by local authorities, they are heavily mistaken.

This Government are forcing reorganisation. They are putting a gun to the head of our county leaders and other local authority leaders in areas such as Hampshire and elsewhere in the country who have essentially been made to feel that they have to do this now or it will happen to them anyway. That is not genuine consultation. That is not devolution that allows local authority leaders to choose the structures that they want. It is unilaterally forcing all local authority leaders to undertake a form of reorganisation—gainsaying them. The Government do not have the democratic legitimacy to drive that forward. That is the fundamental difference between the Minister and the Labour party and the Conservative party. We believe that people should be able to restructure and reorganise, but in the way and at a time that they want. That is not to case under the Government’s proposals.

Finally, the Conservative party does not support the delaying of local elections if the Bill comes into force. Other parties have made many suggestions that the Conservatives have been calling for the delay of local elections. The pending creation of other local authorities has created a fundamental democratic deficit in the country. Some councillors who were elected in 2021 are still in post. That is not a sensible or ideal solution. People deserve to have a say in elections over the way their services are run. This Government’s unilateral reorganisation has prevented that from happening. We believe there should be local elections, so I hope that the party political literature stating that we want to stop the next local elections will cease.

I think I have made my point clear—I hope so, at least. We will oppose the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I do not disagree with the essence of that point, but the Government are seeking to impose reorganisation, which could abolish a whole tier of councillors overnight and cause a spike in casework and the need for advice services. I do not believe they have really considered the impact of the transition.

This week, I met AdviceUK, whose survey of member groups found that the average advice service in the country has lost three staff members or volunteers in the past year, and needs three more advisers just to meet current demand. Have the Government considered that such services might face a spike in demand as a consequence of this reorganisation and the loss of community representation that is being imposed?

There are surely consequences for democracy. In contrast to the cost-saving argument, there is clear evidence that size matters when it comes to democracy and accountability, even with unitary authorities that work well—my constituency is in a well-established unitary. The proposed increase in population and geographic scale is likely to have a damaging effect on a range of democratic criteria, including electoral turnout, public trust in councillors and officers, and levels of participative engagement.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. It has been argued that a single tier, under one authority, might improve democratic participation, but does she agree that someone in Hedge End in my area, whose council headquarters will be far removed from them geographically, may feel that their council represents them less, and therefore democratic participation would be reduced?

[Siân Berry]

Having been a local councillor, I can see the other side of the Government’s argument. A local councillor based further away, representing a larger ward, will have to work very hard to maintain the face-to-face interaction with their community that makes residents feel represented. I do not believe the Government have really considered that. No matter how hard-working councillors are—even at Green levels of all-year-round hard work—residents will have less familiarity with who their local councillors are and what they do, which may increase alienation from local democracy and feed populist narratives.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley made this point well, but I have to complain that, unlike the new strategic authorities, which are about devolving power, forced and hurried local government reorganisation was not in the Labour manifesto, so I must oppose the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

When I go out to speak to people in Broxbourne, they are completely against this—they do not want it. They fear a large council. I have spoken to many councillors, and my reflection is that things depend on the size of the unitary. For those serving in a smaller unitary, people tend to be happier with the council and the services it delivers, but I am yet to find people—in particular, back benchers on a large unitary council—who feel engaged and motivated, with residents respecting that. However, the hon. Gentleman will have different experiences in his constituency.

I do not think unitarisation is a good idea. I have a lot of experience in local government, and it will cost people more in council tax where councils go through unitarisation and districts are forced to merge. My district, Broxbourne, has the lowest parish council tax in the country, so whatever happens through the proposed reorganisation, the good residents of Broxbourne will pay more in their council tax bills, probably for fewer services. Simply going through the reorganisation does not mean that we will see better services.

We are told constantly that councils have been underfunded and that services will improve, but no one can show me a council that has been through reorganisation that is awash with money. I have not spoken to one council that has been through reorganisation that has said, “Do you know what? We have been through a reorganisation. We have made loads of savings and we have become more efficient.”

In actual fact, all the councils that I have looked into that have gone through reorganisation have set up delivery mechanisms and organigrams of staffs and departments based on the old district boundaries. They all have area planning committees that all have to be costed and so on. A number of reports include farcical figures claiming that an area will save millions and millions from going through the reorganisation, because of redundancies, and better and joined-up services.

Let me tell the Committee this: many district councils already have joined-up services and have already gone through that process. Some services, such as human resources, are shared with upper-tier authorities, while others such as waste collection are shared across multiple authorities. The councils have already made lots of those savings, which are already baked into their district budgets and so on. I am yet to see any concrete figures for how much money reorganisation will save.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend, as an experienced local government leader, is making a very good speech. Many Government Back Benchers groaned when he spoke about the Government saying that better services would be delivered through the reorganisation. He outlined councils that have been reorganised, where services have not improved. The Government claim that austerity over the previous 14 years was the problem. Has he seen any policy proposition from the Government to suggest that local authority funding will get better, and that therefore councils will improve their services, if they go through the reorganisation?

[Lewis Cocking]

No, I have not. My authorities have lost out and are no better off under the Government proposals. In particular, rural authorities lose out even more. I have already touched on the fact that millions of people across this country will pay more in council tax.

We are also always told that we have to hit the figure of 500,000, which is the most efficient number and when we get all the savings. If that figure is so important, however, why are we not reorganising London? A number of unitary councils in London do not meet, or come anywhere near, the half a million mark. I suspect the reason why we are not reorganising London is that the Government do not want to upset thousands of Labour councillors. The reason we are reorganising the rest of the country is that the elected representation for the Government party in those councils is probably not where they want it to be.

We are always told that about half a million is the perfect sweet spot—where we get the best services and will be really joined up and so on—but that works only for one part of the country. In the rest of the country, where there are loads of examples of councils that face difficult financial challenges and yet have low population compared with the figures that the Government want, those areas are not being reorganised at all.

[Paul Holmes]

In talking about London not being reorganised, my hon. Friend makes what I might describe as a cynical but correct supposition that that is slightly related to the party political colours of the councils elected in London. Does he share my concern—the Minister might call me cynical—that 90% of rural councillors being abolished through this reorganisation also reeks of party political gerrymandering? Most of those councillors are Conservative, so there will be much more Labour representation in local government as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I have served in the two-tier system and know it is not perfect, but nor is what the Government are proposing in the Bill. There are some unitary councils, such as Slough, that face really difficult financial challenges. Just having all the levers of two councils around the same table does not make for better service delivery. I served on a county council covering over 1.2 million people, and I have been in meetings to discuss where we should invest for roads infrastructure in places that I had never even been to. That is what will happen with these large-scale unitary councils, and there is evidence for that.

When councils go through a reorganisation, why do they set up service delivery arms based on the old district boundaries? Why do they set up area planning committees, if everywhere is interlinked? What we are failing to understand or consider is how we will do planning and place, and how we will bring our communities with us. There are loads of areas around the country— I can speak for Hertfordshire on this—that have several significant towns all of the same size, and lots of people do not travel between those towns. My constituency probably feels closer to London, which is where lots of people commute for work, rather than to the county town of Hertford, which is just 10 minutes up the road in a car, if I can get through the traffic. We are not thinking about how we create communities and place.

I fear for the democratic deficit; no one ever says to me in my constituency, “Lewis, you know what? We really feel like a part of Hertfordshire. We are on the edge of the county. We want a single unitary council. We want to go through that process. We are going to get better services because of that.” I do not believe that is the case. This is being forced upon local councils. They were told in the letter that they had to reply to it. The timescales are just astronomical. I have led a council, and I know that sometimes it is really difficult to get things done. The timescales for the rest of the country, outside the initial wave of the six plus Surrey, to be reorganised are astronomical.

We are not doing this in a sensible and pragmatic way, and mistakes will be made. At the end of day, we should think about how to set up local government that is fit for the future. We should try to take the best bits for that, not create large super-unitary councils. The Government want to build 1.5 million homes, but they also want to rip up the existing planning committee system and put councils through this reorganisation. That will take a lot of work.

I was leader of my authority in 2021, when we were nearly marched up the hill by the previous Government. Some have commented, “Why didn’t you speak up then?” but they can read my press releases from that time and see that I was against it then, so it is not a party political point. We need to do best by existing councils and the councillors who work day in, day out, for their residents. Making big strategic unitary authorities covering large geographical areas and hundreds of thousands of people, is not the best way to do that. The Government need to look again. If they think this is so popular locally, why not commit to having local referendums where reorganisation is proposed and letting local people have their say? The Government could hold their head high and say, “We let local people have their say. They have agreed with us,” or, “They have not agreed,” and go from there.

[Paul Holmes]

Government Members raised their eyebrows when my hon. Friend talked about local referendums. Does he remember that it was a stated policy of the last Labour Government to have referendums when they were looking at devolving to regional assemblies?

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is interesting that the Government have moved away from that, particularly because I have not met one person who thinks that reorganisation into large unitary councils is a good idea.

If it is good for parts of the country, I hope that the Minister can explain why London and lots of the metropolitan boroughs in the north are not being compelled to reorganise. If this 500,000 figure is the sweet spot and the Government have loads of evidence to back that the claim that this will make services more efficient and put councils on a better financial footing, why is it good for only certain parts of the country, and not the whole country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says that there is no gun being held to local authority leaders’ heads. Can she therefore outline, in a clear way, what would happen to a county or district authority that said that it did not want local government reorganisation and refused to engage? They would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

They have been invited. There is a backstop power, but we do not think we will need to use it because the conversation now playing out across local government is that, yes, this is hard, but everyone recognises that the status quo—standing still—is not feasible or sustainable.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. She is being very generous, especially as I know that I have spoken for a while. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that Government Back Benchers are so delighted with my speaking.

I ask the Minister again, because she has not committed to this in clear language: if a county council leader or a number of district councils refused to engage with the Government’s process on local government reorganisation, they would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is not where we want to be. That is not where we think we will end up. We have invited places and, to the credit of local government, everyone recognises that change is required. What is now happening is that places are making decisions about the best proposal to deliver the outcomes that they want for their constituents. This process has been hard—of course it has—but, throughout it, every single local authority has understood that the status quo will not deliver for their residents. That is the thing that is driving the impetus for change.

I will say a few words on the 500,000 population figure because Opposition Members have mentioned it. That is not a hard and fast number. We have said that it is a benchmark. If we think about other authorities that have gone through the process of local government reorganisation over the past 20 years—the likes of Somerset or Cornwall—500,000 is the sort of number that they have gone for, and we have seen that their reorganisations have delivered improvements in services and in the way that they operate. Places can go below or above that number. Ultimately, it is for places to figure out the best configuration of their locality to deliver for their residents. We have been clear and consistent about that point.

I want to address the specifics on London. We are open to a conversation with any part of the country that wants to talk about reorganisation. London, with its boroughs, obviously has a different configuration locked in legislation. It is distinct from our two-tier areas, which is why we are not focusing on it. But we are very open to a conversation about London, where we tend to have big authorities that are delivering some of these integrated services anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

Arrangement relating to single tiers of local government

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 24, page 245, line 30, after “merger’” insert “or splitting”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 50.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 49, in schedule 24, page 246, line 14, after “direction” insert “under subsection (1)”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 50.

Amendment 50, in schedule 24, page 246, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may invite or direct a principal authority to make a proposal that there should be more than one single-tier local authority for an area which currently consists of—

(a) the area of a single authority, or

(b) one or more eligible areas.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority..

Amendment 51, in schedule 24, page 246, line 21, at end insert—

“(4A) An invitation or direction under subsection (1A) may—

(a) be made in such a way that the authority may choose which eligible area or areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority;

(b) specify which eligible areas should form the proposed area of each new single-tier local authority.”

This amendment is related to Amendment 50.

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful for your indulgence on this, Dame Siobhain, because I know that we have had a very long debate on the substantive clause to which it relates. I want briefly to speak to amendments 48 to 51. Most of the amendments are consequential on or directly related to amendment 50, and they are all in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend thinks that this is a simple amendment that goes to the heart of what we were just discussing: the driving force behind devolution should be local situations and the local wants and needs of local people, rather than the standardised, central, top-down approach to local government reorganisation that this Government are advocating and forcing on local authority leaders across the country.

Amendment 50 would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct—the emphasis is on “invite”—an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority. This applies to many of the situations across the UK where there are a number of district councils or county councils that do not want to engage with the Minister’s local government reform, but are being forced to do so, as we discussed in the last segment of this Bill Committee. Local people or a local authority leader could decide to enter into a form of local government reorganisation, but do so in the way that suits them best. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in tabling this amendment, would have been referring to the situation around Bradford. Many people in the surrounding areas and in his constituency have indicated to him that they do not wish to be part of a local authority including Bradford. There is nothing wrong with Bradford—I have been there and it is a wonderful city—but there are two different and distinct types of geographical area within the single area proposed by the Government.

The same could be said of my local government situation. Many Members across the House know the distinct nature of Hampshire and the differences in approach to life between the people of Portsmouth and the people of Southampton. They would not necessarily want to be in the same local authority as each other—that is not the circumstance at the moment—but district councils in the proposed reorganisation simply do not want to engage because they want to stand alone to form a single-tier authority, perhaps with some of their partners. One proposal, which would not have met the Government standard test, was for a single-tier authority between Fareham, Gosport and Havant. They should be allowed to do that, but they are not, because of the top-down nature of the reorganisation.

[Manuela Perteghella]

In Warwickshire, too, four of five district and borough councils proposed a South Warwickshire—they wanted two unitary councils, rather than one huge, single unitary. That put them in collision with the county council proposal that was just voted through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need flexibility and the proposals should not be directed by the Secretary of State?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network.

I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say three things in response. First, there is already flexibility in the creation of boundaries and geographies for unitaries to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they work for the communities they need to serve.

We are clear that, on the other side of local government reorganisation, councils must be the right size to deliver the high-quality services that residents deserve and need. Judgment on proposals will be driven by that fundamental question. Splitting up existing unitaries, further fragmenting and disaggregating services, does not feel like it would be in the interests of the residents concerned in delivering better and more efficient services, or value for money for taxpayers and those residents.

Clearly, we must have a reform process that fundamentally delivers those outcomes. There is now a process to do that. We will look at the various proposals and, ultimately, the test is: will the proposal deliver local government that is fit for purpose and deliver for our communities? Voters across the country want that and respect it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for what she said. I absolutely knew what she was going to say—that comes as no surprise to us in the Opposition—but this is about what we discussed before. She said that it would not necessarily be to the advantage of local people were we to allow the splitting of unitary authorities, but she is missing the fact that some people want that. I think that the non-uniform approach to local government works. I still believe that this is a community empowerment and devolution Bill. One size fits all across the UK is not the way that the Government should be going. I will withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt of further amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated.

We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan.

We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary.

I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I would not usually speak at this stage, but as the Minister did not outline why she does not believe that the Government should prescribe who mayors and mayoral development corporations should be talking to, will she say why, in earlier clauses, she prescribed that organisations such as trade unions should sit around the table? Town and parish councils that are delivering services on the ground are now being asked to deliver more services because of some of the provisions she has included in the Bill. Why does she not think it is necessary to issue guidance forcing mayors or MDCs to talk to them when they are delivering?

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman moved an amendment specifically to rule out trade unions. The Bill does not rule them in, in any way. I am slightly concerned that he might be misleading us—inadvertently.

[Paul Holmes]

I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to say that I am attempting to mislead the Committee. He corrected himself, so I will not take offence.

[The Chair]

You are made of strong stuff!

[Paul Holmes]

I know I am, Dame Siobhain. I cut my teeth against you in Mitcham and Morden in 2015, and I was required to be of strong stuff to try to beat you.

I do not believe that the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire is correct. What I am saying is that the Minister and the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. On various things, they are prescribing who mayors should talk to, who should be included in a strategy and who should sit around the table. But when it comes to organisations that are delivering services on the ground, and district councils that are to be abolished are transferring assets down to town and parish councils, the Minister says there is no need to prescribe that mayors need to talk to them. In many cases—including in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who so eloquently spoke to this amendment—these town and parish councils are increasing the number of services they provide, and they are taking on sections of land and businesses that are integral to the development of local growth plans. I say very gently, if the Minister wanted to completely devolve power to mayors, that would be absolutely fine with us, but let us not have a patchwork quilt approach by which she is absolutely prescribing who and to which stakeholders mayors should talk in other areas of the legislation, but she does not feel it necessary to include town and parish councils in this part. That is a shame.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To clarify, the Bill does not specify any particular organisation that should be consulted. It says that we will set that out in guidance. That guidance will be driven by a whole host of consultation with strategic authorities and their partners around the range of organisations and bodies we think is necessary. The Conservative amendment specifically picked on trade unions and specifically said we should exclude them. That is what we were pushing back against, so we are completely consistent in this.

In this case, again, there will be guidance that will talk about a range of local stakeholders, but we think it is wrong to prescribe on the face of the Bill that there should be a minimum requirement in order to engage with town and parish councils. That is too onerous and is disproportionate. We should allow the mayor and the strategic authority to know their stakeholders and the people with whom they need to have a conversation, to make sure that they have consensus and the support to drive forward their local growth plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities.

Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area. We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole.

In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.

We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.

Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is great to see the coalition back in action. To use the hon. Member’s phrase, does he not agree that any mayor worth their salt would naturally have consideration for remote coastal and rural areas in those growth plans, considering that those are the people they are meant to represent? If they do not, they will find out at the ballot box what people in those areas think about it.

[Paul Holmes]

I have the scars on my back from fighting Liberal Democrats in my political career, but pragmatic policies are being proposed to improve the legislation that—let us face it—could very much be improved. That is the point of the Bill Committee. I in particular have many disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, but the amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could absolutely improve the legislation.

The hon. Member for Banbury said that a mayor worth their salt should be able to do that anyway, but he just spoke against an amendment that would have enabled a mayor to speak to town and parish councils and do their job better. He cannot have it both ways.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Where in the legislation does it says that mayors will be prohibited from talking to town and parish councils? The way that the hon. Member phrased that implies that something in the Bill stops them from doing so, but I am not clear where that is.

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, I apologise to the Committee if I misspoke. I meant that the hon. Member for Banbury spoke against an amendment that would have guaranteed that mayors would have to speak to town and parish councils.

To return to amendment 359, the way that mayoral authorities are formulated means that mayors will represent diverse areas. As I said to the Minister, we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that their growth plans actually work. In an earlier debate, I tried to adequately back up the Minister’s aim for mayors to deliver that and to make people in their area more prosperous. Businesses being created and economic growth should absolutely be the top priorities of the Government and the mayors that they are creating, and we fully endorse that message. I would argue, however, that mayors cannot do that if there is not guidance—or at least something in the legislation—that requires them to look at our coastal and rural communities and some of the unique challenges that the mayors will be able to face.

I will use the example of Hampshire and the Solent again. I have a friend who will probably end up being the Labour candidate for Hampshire and the Solent. She would make a very good mayor, but she has a history of representing and leading a council in an urban centre in an industrial city like Southampton—that is her expertise. She did it very well; she took over from the Conservative administration that I was part of. What she cannot do, and what she does not have strong experience in, is represent the coastal communities that go down the Solent and the farming communities outside.

The amendment would require rural and coastal communities and areas to be enshrined in the legislation. I do not think that Government Back Benchers, or the Minister, should be scared of that, because it would codify a solid strategic view for the local mayor to follow. I welcome the amendment, and we will support it if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon presses it to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak to amendment 358, in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and to new clause 41. I do not want to reiterate what I said previously, Dame Siobhain—your face indicates that that would not be looked upon advantageously—but I think that the sustained efforts of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to have the rights and responsibilities of town and parish councils recognised is admirable. I believe that it needs to be repeated to the Minister, and it is now coming from two Opposition parties.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

One coalition.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for Cornwall, somewhere—he claims to speak for the whole of Cornwall—keeps saying “coalition”. I have already explained to him my view on pragmatic and sensible amendments to legislation that is flawed in many areas, as indicated by the number of Government amendments. We should not be so proud and tribal that we do not back other parties’ amendments when they make absolute sense.

[Perran Moon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will reform his ways.

[Perran Moon]

In Cornwall alone, there are 213 town and parish councils. The amendment suggests that all 213 of them must be consulted. The hon. Gentleman does not strike me as somebody who likes layers of bureaucracy, but the bureaucracy involved in consulting 213 different town and parish councils for Cornwall alone seems to me not very sensible.

[Paul Holmes]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the premise of the argument that we can back pragmatic amendments to legislation to improve it. I hope that he might look on that in his career, particularly when it comes to recognising the independence of Cornwall and having the mayoralty just for Cornwall that he is striving for.

[Vikki Slade]

A couple of amendments have been tabled on that issue. I think they were supported as a coalition by the Opposition, but not by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth.

[Perran Moon]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

I am not giving way any more, as I would like to make some progress. I am sure Government Back Benchers would like to go home at some point. I am happy to speak all afternoon, but I would like us to make some progress.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is absolutely correct. This comes back to a serious point: many town and parish councils across England are already taking on more assets that form an integral part of the stated aims of clause 40. I will give the Committee a brief example. In my constituency, we have Royal Victoria country park, and a proposal is being looked at to abolish the county council and have it go into a strategic authority. However, proposals are actively being considered to transfer Itchen Valley country park, which is managed by Eastleigh borough council, to the local town and parish council. Those country parks have a large number of businesses, conference centres and other things that would directly help a mayor to sell our great region and attract people into it. The circumstances are the same across the country in many regions, which will be left out of consultation.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

No, not at the moment. I know that anything about town and parish councils exercises the hon. Members for Mid Cheshire and for Banbury. They may want to speak shortly, but I will first answer the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. I do not think he is an analogue politician in a digital age, but consulting downwards could merely mean that an email is sent to a mailing list. I am sure he has a huge mailing list, given the number of constituents who admire his work. That is one click—it does not mean his constituents have to respond to it, and it would not mean that his councils had to.

[Vikki Slade]

I wonder whether the hon. Member has a situation in Hampshire similar to ours in Dorset, where we have the DAPTC—the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils. Nothing in the amendment states that the strategic authority would have to engage with each and every town and parish council; it just says,

“with town and parish councils”.

That could be through their associations and through clusters of town and parish councils, such as the DAPTC.

[Paul Holmes]

It could also be stipulated in secondary legislation, if the Government wanted to go ahead with this. A council could literally advertise to town and parish councils that a consultation was going on. There could also be a mailing list where a strategic authority could send an email to the 300 parish councils. Those town and parish councils do not have to respond. That is devolution to town and parish councils, which the Government seemingly want to achieve.

[Sean Woodcock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He has been very generous, as always, with his time. Does he accept that the danger with inserting the consultations that have been proposed in so many Opposition amendments is that the only growth we will see is in the number of officers in the strategic authorities sending out consultations, and the number of people in parish councils responding to them?

[Paul Holmes]

I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.

I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.

We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents.

Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate.

However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best.

I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That point is now on the record.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not mean to detain the Committee, but I like to think I am a man of integrity. On the point of order by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, it was not actually the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole who said that; it was me, and I apologise.

[The Chair]

I am sure the Committee would like to thank you for being so candid.

Clause 41

Co-operation with local government pension scheme managers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.

[Paul Holmes]

To bring some agreement to the Committee, the Opposition absolutely understand, as we did earlier about standardisation, such recommendations to give powers to CAs and CCAs. We are perfectly in agreement with that and we thank the Minister for bringing the issue to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20

Miscellaneous local authority functions

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 197, in schedule 20, page 205, line 6, leave out—

“, a combined authority and a combined county authority”.

This removes the reference to combined authorities and combined county authorities inserted into section 113(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as these bodies are already included in the definition of “local authority” under section 146A(1) of that Act.

This is a minor and technical amendment to prevent duplication in legislation.

Amendment 197 agreed to.

Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43

Health improvement and health inequalities duty

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I apologise, Dame Siobhain, for my temporary absence at the crucial moment. I would very much like the Committee to listen to my proposals for amendments 262 and 263. [Interruption.] Apologies, Chair—is there an issue?

[Paul Holmes]

We were going to have a break, but then we did not when you came in, so it is fine.

[Siân Berry]

I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech.

Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways.

Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We cannot expect the Government to get it right all the time with minor things, and these seem like sensible changes to smooth the legislation. We therefore have no problem with this group of amendments.

Amendment 198 agreed to.

Amendments made: 199, in clause 44, page 46, line 36, leave out—

“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”

and insert “combined authority”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 202, in clause 44, page 47, line 8, leave out from “there” to the end of line 11 and insert—

“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.

Amendment 200, in clause 44, page 47, line 34, leave out “mayoral”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 201, in clause 44, page 48, line 8, leave out “mayoral”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

Amendment 203, in clause 44, page 48, line 19, leave out from “there” to the end of line 22 and insert—

“is a separate component in respect of the mayor’s PCC functions,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.

Amendment 204, in clause 44, page 48, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/112),

(b) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 5 to the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023 (S.I. 2023/1432), and

(c) paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1 to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024 (S.I. 2024/414),”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would remove the unnecessary word “after” from paragraphs (a) to (c), insert references to the relevant Schedules to the Orders, and correct the citation of the South Yorkshire Order.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper.

Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution.

We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.

[Vikki Slade]

The Lib Dems have long wanted to see the end of police and crime commissioners, and we know that that has also been Labour policy for at least 12 years. [Interruption.] Do I hear a “Hear, hear!” from the Government Benches? I believe we are in violent agreement on that, which is great. Where we differ is in the how. I spent a lot of time as a councillor trying to get through the police and crime commissioners, who really take no accountability for what goes on. If I ask the police and crime commissioner about a particular incident, the answer always comes back, “That’s an operational matter. That is not for me.” It is always the local councillors who end up dealing with issues, and they are always the ones held accountable by the residents.

Where we disagree is that we do not believe that a police and crime commissioner should be an appointment of the mayor. We think that they should be held accountable to boards of councillors within councils, as was formerly the policy of the Labour party. Quite straightforwardly, the amendment would remove the provision allowing the mayor to appoint a person to manage policing and crime. We do not actually believe that this should be a mayoral appointment; it should be down to the elected persons of the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

PCCs and police areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

I talked about amendment 26 by mistake, but no doubt the Liberal Democrats will discuss it, and I will respond to their comments.

[Paul Holmes]

As with the previous clause, we see that clause 45 is a perfectly sensible provision. The Minister has done an admirable job on what I know has been a long day, particularly after the late night yesterday. She is explaining the legislation in an excellent way.

I wish to touch on amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. In order to dispel the myth, for the hon. Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth, that there is a coalition going on, this is where unfortunately the coalition comes to an end. Amendment 26 is not pragmatic or sensible. It would essentially remove the mayor’s power to appoint a deputy mayor to a day-to-day role for policing. The amendment would be bad for the legislation because, as I outlined in relation to the previous clause—and as we on the Conservative Benches agree—the mayoralty is a multifaceted role, and a role that is accountable to the public. In many previous sittings of the Committee, we have outlined that there has to be that democratic accountability. That is given in this legislation by a mayor appointing a deputy mayor for policing who is accountable to the public, but also accountable to the mayor who is accountable to the public.

I understand the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding view that PCCs should not exist. We fundamentally disagree with that. We think PCCs are one of the better solutions of the coalition Government. We believe that policing is a public priority and that the public should have a say in the way in which their police forces are run. I am not sure whether opposition to PCCs is a widely held view within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hamble Valley, who stood against me, also stood for the PCC election for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and put himself forward for election as Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent.

[Vikki Slade]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

In one moment. It seems that that Liberal Democrat candidate perfectly endorses the solutions that the Government are putting forward, and actually wanted three jobs at once.

[Vikki Slade]

There is a fairly well established position in which those people who wish to see something abolished have to work within the current system. I believe that our dearly beloved Lord Paddy Ashdown desperately wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords and yet was able to take up a seat. It is quite common for people to go into a role knowing that their job is to try to reform or remove that role.

[Paul Holmes]

I would say, in a respectful tone to the hon. Lady, that the thing that the Liberal Democrats are most known for is saying one thing and in their actions doing another, but we will leave that there. Clause 45 is perfectly sensible. We will oppose amendment 26 if it is pushed to a vote. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has reverted to the Liberal Democrats’ traditional position of holding many positions at once. We support the clause, and oppose amendment 26.

[Andrew Cooper]

I agree entirely with the principle of mayors holding responsibility for police and crime commissioners where the boundaries of the roles are coterminous, and the idea of appointing a deputy mayor to that role makes absolute sense, as does the power to align boundaries where it makes sense administratively. That all works in principle. My concern is about how this will be applied in Cheshire. Halton local authority is part of the Liverpool city region. That was a decision made when the Liverpool city region was first proposed—at the time the Minister may well have been in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a civil servant—and for Halton, then, it was the only game in town.

The proposed Cheshire and Warrington combined authority will cover the remainder of Cheshire—Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington—and is not coterminous with Cheshire police, which covers all of Cheshire and includes Halton, as does Cheshire fire and rescue. This measure will therefore allow the Home Secretary to change the police boundaries, and there are significant concerns within Cheshire police that, were this to go ahead, their viability would be at risk, as well as practical concerns about the location of the custody suite.

This power already exists regarding fire and rescue services, but, under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the order is in the interests of public safety before it is made. That test is not included in this Bill. In her summing up, could the Minister provide some reassurance that this power will not be exercised in Cheshire’s case without due consideration of that public safety factor, as well as significant consultation with local stakeholders to make sure that any future alignment is right for Cheshire?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

In the absence of Mr Simmonds, I call Mr Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I will do my best not to disappoint you, Sir John, or the Minister or Government Back Benchers. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she feels refreshed after last night’s late sitting; we will try to make this as easy as possible.

In relation to schedules 12 and 13, this is a standard procedure used by the Mayor of London. We see this as a perfectly sensible proposal that unifies the regulations with those existing in London. I will just say this to the Minister, if I can without disappointing her. On proposed new section 61DCA, the Minister outlined that the Secretary of State could direct or issue an order, should local authorities not agree to a mayoral development order. I understand that details will come out in secondary legislation, which is perfectly acceptable, but could she outline to the Committee the balance of power? As I think the Minister respectfully acknowledges, we have been consistently worried that, if this is supposed to be a true devolution Bill, giving power to the Secretary of State to order or issue kind of breaks the spirit of that devolution.

Could the Minister give the Committee some reassurance that the views and objections of local authorities would be taken into proper consideration? What would that balance of power be, should the Secretary of State have to use that order? We do, however, see this as a perfectly reasonable schedule, and will not seek to divide the Committee on it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for supporting the measure. In the event that there is not consensus between a constituent authority and the mayoral strategic authority, it would go up to the Secretary of State in the way that planning applications do currently. The Planning Inspectorate will review it based on its planning merits, in the light of issues and objections that have been raised locally, and the full suite of evidence. It is consistent with the current process for planning applications that are called in. We think this will essentially standardise what we do for individual local authorities currently.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 12 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 33

Power to charge community infrastructure levy

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir John. I welcome the introduction of MCIL. We have spoken before about how these authorities will be funded, and this is another tool in the toolbox. I am slightly concerned about how it will sit alongside strategic CIL and neighbourhood CIL. I would be really concerned if this took away the portion of money that is available for local neighbourhoods through neighbourhood forums or town and county councils to spend on hyper-local infrastructure, which can otherwise never be funded. I am also interested in the pieces of infrastructure that currently are funded through strategic CIL by an upper-tier authority. Will those responsibilities pass in full across to the mayor, so that we do not end up with a situation where the mayor gets the CIL, but the council gets the responsibility?

That is one of the reasons why we have tabled new clause 1, although the Minister may say we do not need part of it. The first part of the new clause states that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of the Act, prepare and publish guidance on the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges—tt may be that that is going to happen anyway. More importantly, there is the issue of error and incorrect charging. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who has been involved with the CIL Injustice Group, where there have been miscalculated charges, with councils charging up to £100,000 for the community infrastructure levy completely incorrectly. We know that CIL is supposed to be charged on additional dwellings for commercial use, not on self-builds or extensions, but that has happened in a number of councils around the country. There are a couple of councils in Surrey—Waverley in particular has a huge problem. The new Liberal Democrat council in West Berkshire had to pay back £300,000 in total to 18 different constituents who had all been incorrectly charged. In my own county of Dorset, there are cases where people have been incorrectly charged.

In some instances, people have been building their own home and suddenly had a notice put on the path outside. Some have been chased down for huge amounts of money, and some for tiny amounts of money, and have had court charges applied to them. It is a problem that needs solving. Last Monday in the Chamber—I believe you were present, Sir John—two Conservative Members raised cases from their own constituencies. A previous Minister said that a series of households had been badly hit. It is clear that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate in this way. We do not believe our new clause would create a significant new burden on the Secretary of State; it is there to assist, and we would be grateful for a commitment that its provisions will be rolled into the legislation.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak to amendment 289, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, on behalf of the official Opposition. I will also briefly speak to new clause 1. The hon. Lady has just very expertly outlined why the Government should accept it, and the official Opposition agree with her. She is absolutely correct that CIL, although a very good thing, is—not always intentionally, but sometimes negligently—being used in inappropriate ways. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned a case in his constituency with his local authority, where somebody was being charged £70,000. That is clearly unacceptable.

Any measure that could improve the regulation and guidance to local authorities, not necessarily to restrict them but to give them clarity—it would also slightly pull on the tail of their coat, so they do not act irresponsibly to people who are responsibly improving their homes—is a good thing. We will therefore be supporting new clause 1 if the hon. Lady chooses to press that to a vote. It clearly does not place an undue burden on the Secretary of State, and it would mean that the system would become more streamlined and transparent. It would give protection to people who are doing the right thing and ensuring that they are following the rules, but the rules are clearly being interpreted in different ways.

Amendment 289, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would ensure that the mayors charging CIL report on the effect that this has on housing development. Similarly to new clause 1, we do not think that that would place an undue burden on the legislation or on the necessary parties because, where the community infrastructure levy is being used at the moment, there clearly is a lack of transparency on what it is delivering for local people. The amendment will improve the transparency that mayors and local authorities would be bringing to the table.

CIL is meant to improve infrastructure and make sure that housing is delivered. We have seen across the country places where existing mayors are not necessarily delivering on their housing commitment, particularly in London. We argue that this amendment would bring transparency because a mayor has to account for how they are using CIL and the effect that that would have on housing development in a city region that they control. We think that is a perfectly reasonable amendment.

For that reason, we will press amendment 289 to a vote, and if the hon. Lady the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole chooses to press new clause 1 to a vote, we will certainly support that today.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will start by addressing some of the questions that were raised, and then move to amendment 289 and new clause 1. There is a key question of how to ensure that the mayoral strategic CIL does not undercut local CILs. The mayor will have to have regard to local CILs that are already being issued, to ensure that there is a balance. The CIL proposal will need to be done in the context of viability assessments, so the mayor will need to think about what is happening at the parish, town and local authority levels in terms of CIL before a strategic CIL is put in place. It is also worth noting that the charging schedule will be subject to statutory consultation. Again, that is another provision to ensure that the right balance is being struck.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked what the CIL will be used for. That will be set out in regulations, but we are clear, up front, that it will be for vital infrastructure that can unlock growth and economic development. Therefore, there will be broader permissiveness within that, but we will set that out in further regulations.

On amendment 289, while I fully support the need for transparency in the use of developer contributions to ensure accountability, the amendment is unnecessary because it duplicates existing regulatory requirements. All contribution-receiving authorities are already required to publish an infrastructure funding statement each year. This annual statement must include details on the amount of CIL collected and spent, and information on infrastructure projects funded, or intended to be funded, by CIL.

The CIL regulations are already very prescriptive about what must be included within an infrastructure funding statement. Introducing further reporting obligations is not necessary and potentially risks confusing things and increasing the administrative burdens on strategic authorities.

Finally, we have an additional safeguarding provision: the Planning Act 2008 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing reporting requirements, or create new requirements, if it is determined that existing arrangements are not necessary. We think that we already have sufficient provisions within existing legislation, which means that amendment 289 is not required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise for what I hope the Minister does not think is a discourtesy—it is due to my rustiness on Bill Committee procedure; I last served on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—but I wish to speak briefly to new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.

New clause 28 is designed to do exactly what I argue the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, wishes to achieve. In her response to new clause 1, the Minister outlined that the Planning Act 2008 gives guidance on the two charging and reporting mechanisms, and if there is a problem with the amount of CIL that has been charged, it gives applicants the right to try to rectify that through an appeal. That is clearly not working; otherwise we would not be talking about the situations that many constituents have faced over the past years, including the cases that the hon. Lady mentioned and the one that I mentioned in which £70,000 is being charged to someone and they are now, I think, a couple of years down the road and cannot get rectification.

New clause 28 is very simply worded and makes it absolutely clear that

“the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.”

I believe that last week in oral questions, the Secretary of State outlined clearly that he thinks there is a problem here, and that the system is currently not working, particularly for people who are doing property extensions for their own use. The new clause clearly aims to mitigate that problem.

[Vikki Slade]

Will the hon. Member comment on the fact that, according to the CIL Injustice Group, £1.65 million has been incorrectly charged. The Minister for Housing and Planning said:

“It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.”

Will the hon. Member join me in asking why the Minister would not take the opportunity to put that provision in the Bill, when it has a clause specifically about community infrastructure levy?

[Paul Holmes]

I cannot comment on the motivations of the Minister, who I believe is an hon. Lady of utmost integrity, but I suspect that the Government want to amend the Bill on their own terms. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I both speak for Opposition parties, but we would not make hay if the Minister chose to accept these new clauses. The Government have a position, stated on the Floor of the House of Commons, that CIL is not working for people who tried to follow the rules but are being persecuted and in many cases prosecuted by local authorities, through the wrong charging mechanisms being applied. The Minister outlined the mitigation and the appeal infrastructure that people can currently use, but they are not working either. New clause 1—an admirable new clause—and new clause 28 would make it very clear that people in that situation cannot be charged the CIL.

The Minister is in charge. She has the power to accept the new clauses and improve the legislation to change the lives of people who face injustice every day in the current system. I absolutely accept that the last Government did not do it, but she has a simple choice today: accept these new clauses, change the situation, and make sure that people do not have to go through what these people have been going through. I encourage her to accept these new clauses in the spirit of co-operation and tripartisanship—[Interruption.] Quadripartisanship! We would genuinely support her in doing that.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

First, I thank hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for raising the issue. I assure the Committee that we know there is a problem here. We are alive to the cases that have arisen, which demonstrate that the CIL, as it should apply, is not working in practice. Although exemptions exist, they are not being applied in the way that they ought to be.

We are giving careful consideration to this matter as part of our commitment to develop a far clearer and more effective contribution system. As I said, I completely appreciate that the intention behind the amendments is to protect a segment of the market that we want to protect; it ought to exempted. I can clearly confirm that we are looking seriously at this matter and we will revert to it at a later stage, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to allow the Government time to consider it properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 34 introduces schedule 15, which contains provisions to enable strategic authorities outside London to undertake their housing and strategic planning competences. These standardise the extension of powers relating to the acquisition and use of land currently held by Homes England and local authorities to strategic authorities outside London.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has outlined the clause and set out the responsibilities and changes she wants to make in a very reasonable manner. This seems a perfectly sensible solution; it encourages more transparency and accountability in some of the actions that Homes England undertakes. People in my constituency feel that some of the money allocated to development through the current channels of scrutiny and planning is not necessarily in lockstep with what they want for their local areas. As I have said throughout, a devolution Bill should mean true devolution, so I think these responsibilities coming under the remit of the new authorities is a good thing. I welcome this addition to the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15

Acquisition and development of land

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 109, in schedule 15, page 173, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;

(aa) in subsection (2), after ‘HCA’ insert ‘or a strategic authority outside London’;”

This would alter the amendment of section 9(2) so that the function there would not be conferred on the GLA (only on strategic authorities outside London).

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, amendment 170 is a straightforward technical amendment to correct a reference in the Bill to the Housing Act 1985. The change ensures that it is clear that both duties in relation to buildings suitable for housing apply to combined authorities, combined county authorities and two-tier county councils.

[Paul Holmes]

We know that these powers are used by existing authorities, so we are not going to rock the boat on this one, but I will briefly respond to the Minister. She stated that housing is, quite rightly, the Government’s top priority, and that these provisions enables that priority to be delivered, but where these powers already exist we see mayors not delivering on housing commitments. I think of London, where the mayor who has these powers is not delivering houses; in fact, building in London is at an all-time low, and houses are not being delivered for the people who genuinely need them in our capital city.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

A big reason we have a problem with housing numbers is the Building Safety Regulator. There will be a Back-Bench debate on it on Thursday, which I am sure the Minister will attend in order to give the Opposition’s views. It is critical that we get that sorted to get house building going.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Minister; I cannot wait for that to happen one day. I suspect that I will have more grey hair, and less hair. He is correct, and I am on the record as having spoken about this: the Building Safety Regulator is a barrier to building. I know that this is slightly out of scope, but I have offered to work with Ministers on a genuine cross-party basis to try to remove some of the burdens on the Building Safety Regulator, which I think has purview over too much that is not material to the delivery of housing.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in terms of the current powers, the mayor is not delivering, and the Government are not delivering on their promise of 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State yesterday said that his job would be on the line if he did not deliver the 1.5 million homes. I suspect that we will see a sacking in the not-too-distant future, because everybody in this country who is an expert in housing—there was a documentary on it just this week—says that the Government will not achieve their stated aim of building that number of homes.

The clause in itself is not a panacea that will unlock huge housing growth in our cities. The Minister should be careful not to overpromise and underdeliver, as her mayors consistently do across the country. However, we know that this is a unification and simplification of the system. We will not divide the Committee on the clause. This is a perfectly sensible solution, but let us not pretend that it is a sledgehammer that will crack a nut, and cause the Government to achieve their aims across the country.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It would be remiss of me not to address some of the issues in London. We recognise that we have a housing challenge in London and across the country. I suggest that the hon. Member show a little more humility, because the consequences are the legacy of the Conservative party. He did not mention that the Conservatives in government slashed housing targets across the country, which throttled development; or that they crashed the economy and caused mortgages to rise, which had an impact on demand. He did not mention their record on inflation, which increased construction costs.

Anyone who knows housing knows that there is a lag, so the impacts of the Conservative party’s failure—[Interruption.] The hon. Member solicited this by attacking our brilliant mayor. The Conservatives’ failures are feeding through, and we are now trying to accelerate progress. That is why record investment of £39 billion is going into social housing, and it is why we are seeing housing targets across the country. We are doing our part to get the country building again. Ultimately, we will be the ones to solve the housing crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We really should not accept this party political broadcast. One million homes were built over the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why housing delivery is at an all-time low? Why is it that experts in the housing sector, including the Home Builders Federation, say that the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised simply cannot be delivered, and the Chancellor’s own figures show that only 1.1 million homes will be delivered? That is a failure on the promise that she made, is it not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

If we look at a graph, we see that housing starts plummeted in 2023. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to remind the Committee who was in power at that time—it was the Conservative party. We are trying to accelerate housing development, and we have a 1.5 million target that we are committed to delivering. That is not to underestimate the incredible difficulty, but we believe that homes are a requirement and a necessity. We have a homelessness crisis and a temporary accommodation crisis, so we have to get to grips with this. That is why we are doing the job of accelerating housing development. The amendments, and giving strategic authorities the powers that will enable them to play a role, are critical to that endeavour.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause grants mayors of strategic authorities outside London the power to create mayoral development corporations. They are another tool for mayors to enable regional regeneration and economic development. Stripping away these provisions would limit regional ambition. The clause gives effect to schedule 17, allowing mayoral development corporations to spearhead land acquisition, planning and infrastructure projects. This will help to foster jobs, unlock growth, drive infrastructure development and attract investment into our regions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17

Mayoral development corporations

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 290, in schedule 17, page 193, line 2, at end insert—

“7A After section 202, insert—

‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land

Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”

I rise to speak to the amendment, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Although we welcome mayoral development corporations, since this Government came to office an environment has been created, if Members will forgive the pun, where it is easier to build in rural areas but harder to develop our urban centres. As we mentioned in a debate last week, the Government’s planning and building conditions are making it harder to densify urban centres. We have discussed the housing targets in rural and urban areas, and now mayoral development corporations are being created. That is perfectly acceptable, but we do not think it protects the green belt across this great green and pleasant land, and it will essentially allow mayors to build on greenfield land without the necessary checks and balances.

The amendment is simple. We tabled it because we want to make it much easier to build in areas of existing development where there is scope for densification, and we want to protect green belt and greenfield land by restricting building on it where many people to whom the mayor is accountable simply do not want that to happen. The amendment would not rule out such development completely, but it would make the MDC more streamlined and disciplined about unlocking areas where infrastructure exists and it is easier to build, rather than using green fields, where we believe development is more difficult and takes longer.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework.

We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, and I am inclined not to press the amendment to a Division but to treat it as probing. She is aware that I have long advocated for, and pushed her and the Government on, the incentivisation of densification. In our debate on amendment 304 last week, I think she reasonably accepted that a densification strategy was needed. She has come back to the NPPF today, but that is simply not working. We tabled amendment 304 and this amendment to solidify the position. We think that that is a perfectly reasonable approach to the guidance and regulations.

I hope for some reassurance from the Minister that she and the Government will look at further action regarding that incentivisation. If I get that reassurance, I will withdraw the amendment.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to provide reassurance in writing.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Strategic authorities, as we have said consistently in discussing the Bill, are a key driving force for local growth. To lead growth for its area, the authority must understand its local economy. That is why this clause will provide combined or combined county authorities with a duty to assess the economic conditions of their areas.

Local councils will continue to play a critical role in formulating the strategic authority’s understanding of the local economy. Combined and combined county authorities will be required to consult and work with the councils in their area when building their assessment of economic conditions. This requirement will ensure that the economic strategy for an area combines a strategic, regional assessment of opportunities with a ground-up understanding of local economies. The duty has been long held by strategic authorities without issue and empowers them to develop a holistic understanding of their local economies.

[Paul Holmes]

Briefly, could the Minister elaborate on some of the consultation mechanisms that the strategic authority would use with the authorities that currently have the power? We completely understand why she has introduced this, but throughout proceedings in Committee, we and the other Opposition parties have expressed concern about the erosion of existing authorities’ responsibilities with the centralisation that is going on. Will the Minister elaborate on how much weight the new authority will give local authorities’ considerations?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that although we want a strategic assessment of the economic opportunities and risk in an area, and a local growth plan that crosses that area, it must be informed by constituent authorities. The way it is working in practice—we hope the legislation enables this—is that constituent authorities bring into the conversation their understanding, insights, analysis and key priorities for the area, and a collective decision is made. Ultimately, I come back to the point I have made consistently: the mayor’s capacity to be effective and deliver is only as strong as their relations and collaboration with constituent authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 38

Local growth plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

That is a good question. Where there are opportunities to develop new industries and new jobs and create new economic activity, my new schedule enables local communities such as those in Cornwall to set inclusive economy indicators. In the examples given, that might mean that those new industries are owned and managed by the local people and the local community, rather than through outside investment from extractive industries that will take the profits elsewhere. Those are things for the local community to decide under the new schedule.

I will just finish the quote from the report by the New Economics Foundation and its allies:

“At a time of eroding trust in politics, this is a major problem for combined authorities elected to make the economy work better for people .”

My new clause and new schedule will help authorities to become more purposeful about developing their own unique economies and economic opportunities in a way that truly builds a better economy that serves local people, and not just more production and profits that can be extracted away from them without improving everyday lives. It will bring more people more inclusively into the local economies that we want to develop.

I will not press my proposals to a vote today, but I hope that the Minister has listened and will recognise that the current Government proposals could create the wrong incentives and the wrong measures of progress, and might risk producing the wrong outcomes for the people who live in the areas that will be governed by these economic plans. I also hope that she will make improvements similar to my proposals before the next stage of this Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly not only to clause 38 but to new clause 9 and new schedule 1. Although the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion has indicated that she does not wish to push these measures to a vote, it is important that we address her well-intentioned amendments. I absolutely agree with her about the economic situation that this country currently faces, caused by the Labour Government. However, we have a fundamental disagreement about the solution that she outlines.

That is because the Government are doing the right thing here in making sure that local growth plans are adequate and can do what they say on the tin: deliver economic growth for the people the mayor serves and the people we serve. I would argue that, if the economic situations are right, as set down in the powers that the Government are outlining, inclusivity is absolutely enshrined within those powers. If we have growth, twinned with the protections currently within legislation in this country, such as environmental protection, corporate social responsibility and some of the equality legislation that we have, inclusivity will be delivered by the new businesses created by the people being empowered to set them up, and those businesses will be able to grow because of some of the measures that the Government are introducing.

The hon. Lady mentioned consultation and inclusivity in terms of people being able to shape their futures. I believe that that is a debate that we had last week when we were considering her amendment on citizens’ assemblies—she knows my oft-stated view on those. I will not tell the Committee that view again, because my blood pressure might rise slightly if I did. Once again, however, I will argue that the point at which there is inclusivity and advocacy from people is at an election, and that the mayor will be judged at an election on whether they have been able to deliver economic growth and whether they have fundamentally made life better for their constituents over the time that they have been in office.

[Siân Berry]

Is the hon. Member really saying that that he is against asking the people of a local area what would constitute a good economy for them and making that the focus of the mayor’s economic indicators? Also, if all of these proposals are going to be put into manifestos at election time, how long does he envision the manifestos for these mayoral elections being?

[Paul Holmes]

The way that people want their economy to go is to have growth, and for them to be able to pay their bills, feed their families and have good jobs. I say to the hon. Lady that any mayor who does not put those things in their manifesto is not worth electing. An election is the point at which the mayor should be held accountable. Any mayor who says that they would not want to make their local economic situation better and improve the lives of their citizens should not be elected. The current legislation that we have enables people perfectly reasonable input into the journey that a mayor might take over their mayoral term.

I believe that over the course of the last few Governments, the House of Commons has made great strides in protecting the environment and in making sure that mayors and public authorities, as well as private businesses, are responsible in how they treat their people, but also grow with the environmental and other protections that are necessary. While I understand the hon. Lady’s argument and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for her, the unintended consequences of the new clause and the new schedule will be to restrict growth, and to restrict the power of the mayor to have a responsible attitude to enabling growth on an even basis within the system that we currently have.

The hon. Lady’s proposals would be restrictive, but they would also take us back. A mayor should be unrestricted in their ability to deliver the growth and prosperity for the people they serve. I do not believe that the new clause and new schedule would do that. I know that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not pushing those to a vote, but if she did, we would not be able to support it, and we would vote against it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clause and new schedule. Let me put on record that I completely agree with the goals of an inclusive economy; they are right, and we have a lot of sympathy for that. This Government are clear that we have to get the economy to work better for people, and I am obliged to remind everyone that over the last 14 years that was not the case.

Ultimately, mayors must have a democratic mandate, and the mark of success will be not just economic growth, but the economy impacting on people’s living standards, jobs and wages—bread and butter, tangible things. We think that the aims that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve are already locked into the Bill. If we achieve growth only on a graph and people do not feel it, our residents, voters and electorate will ensure that we pay the price. Therefore, that democratic lock is already baked into the Bill.

It is also worth saying that local growth plans, as set out in the Bill and as conceived, are a manifesto commitment for this Government, and the existing, established regional mayors have already developed their plans, with many starting to publish them already. By focusing on challenges around housing, transport, skills, employment and innovation, those plans will set the framework for unlocking the growth potential of those areas. As I said, growth only matters if it has a tangible impact on people. The strategic authorities that we are working with absolutely understand that and are trying to drive through measures that will deliver it.

We have already agreed growth priorities with 12 mayors. Those priorities are underpinned by a robust evidence base and a shared understanding of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and opportunities for economic development in those areas. Inclusivity, people and the impact on communities are absolutely central to that. The Government want to see more jobs, more money in people’s pockets, higher wages and investment that touches each and every one of our communities. One of the things we think mayors can do, when we devolve, is to ensure that they rewire their local economics in a way that gives people a greater stake.

Through co-operative ways of organising things, as in Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester, we are seeing new models that put people and communities front and centre to ensure that the growth and development that happens fundamentally benefits people. I believe that we have already baked in the intent behind the hon. Lady’s new clause and new schedule within the very design of this policy, but, more importantly, the power of democracy will drive and unlock it: if mayors and this Government do not deliver for people in our communities, we have the ballot box by which people can show their discontent. I think the hon. Lady has already said that she is not pressing the new clause and new schedule to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

It is interesting that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, referred to previous Governments making great strides in environmental protection. It is hugely important that that is actually baked in here. Without a specific reference to both the land use framework and the requirement for the growth plans to comply with local nature recovery strategies, there is a real risk that we will end up losing the very things that make these places special.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady and I are veterans of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to outline some of the comments made in that Committee, because that Bill has fundamental consequences for this legislation. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns that not only is nature not included within local growth plans, but the consequences of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will mean that nature will not feature at all in some of the planning decisions made in the development of those local growth plans?

[Vikki Slade]

The shadow Minister is exactly right; that is why so many people are so worried about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. My inbox has been filled with people asking how they can block it, because of the damage it will do to so much of our nature.

The piece missing from this measure is that economic growth in rural areas is fundamentally entwined with nature recovery. In my area in Dorset, Purbeck Heaths is a new national nature park, and nature tourism is actually one of our growth industries. We have incredible charitable businesses, such as Birds of Poole Harbour, that have brought back species to Dorset—species that have been missing for generations and are now thriving—and we now have a whole industry growing around that. The National Trust is also buying land that is no longer commercially viable and restoring it for rewilding, ensuring that it is there for generations to come. Failing to think about that as part of the local economic strategy is a missed opportunity, and it risks subverting development that is already there.

Economic development is not independent of our lives. People move to places because they have nature around them. Those places may have great shops, town centres and theatres, but people will also move there because of the great quality of life. A lot of people will say that being in nature is a part of making their lives better and happier. If times are tough and people do not have a lot of money in their pocket, being close to nature is something that they can still enjoy and that restores their mental health. We underestimate the power of that at our peril.

We have huge areas of countryside where farming is becoming a marginal activity. Rather than being the driver, it is almost becoming something that people are doing because they love it—but they are losing money hand over fist. If we do not bake in that land use framework, which already pre-exists the local growth plan, it will be much easier for farmers to “get rich quick” by moving land out of its existing use and into what the economic development plan sees as the latest, greatest new thing—losing that land forever—rather than complying with a land use framework that explains why it is so important to keep that land in use, and helps to retain the value of that land for farming, or ancient industry, into the future.

I recognise that the Minister has not yet accepted any of our amendments, so I recognise that getting this one through may be a real struggle, but it is so important, particularly given how, as the shadow Minister has already explained, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has really squeezed out nature. I say to the Minister, “Please put nature back in and recognise that the land use frameworks and nature recovery strategies matter.” In many places they already exist and already have local buy-in, and we would not want to see mayoral authorities ride roughshod over what is already there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.

Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady has made an excellent case, as she has done throughout the Bill Committee, for our excellent town and parish councils, which serve my constituency well. Does she agree that many district councils, in anticipation of being abolished, are already transferring assets—some of which are crucial to local growth and local planning—to parish councils, which are adequately taking them on? If the Bill goes through, however, those parish councils will have no consultation even though they have already taken on some assets that are crucial to the local growth that we are talking about.

[Manuela Perteghella]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term.

Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors. I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.

[Paul Holmes]

In the brief time that I have, I want to back the hon. Lady’s excellent points. Throughout the Bill Committee so far, town and parish councils, which deliver so much for our constituents and are being asked to do more in the future, have been wilfully neglected. They are vital to the economic growth that the Minister rightly says needs to be delivered in our local areas, but the structures currently being proposed do not include them, as the hon. Lady has outlined and as I outlined in my intervention.

Assets are already being transferred in my constituency. Our country parks are currently looking at being transferred from our district council, Eastleigh borough council—I have many disagreements with it, but it is doing the right thing in this case—to our town and parish councils. In country parks specifically, there are business opportunities for raising revenue, development opportunities, and nature protection opportunities that town and parish councils simply will not be able to intervene on or to consult on with the new mayors.

[Manuela Perteghella]

On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.

[Paul Holmes]

Is there a clearer example than that of how this issue could contribute to the local growth plans that we are discussing?

The legislation is being drafted at a time when the operational environment is changing. The Minister needs to accept that, as the hon. Lady outlined, because of the proposals, there has been a major asset transfer to our town and parish councils that means they have become quite fundamental and large-scale landowners. Some of that development opportunity—that opportunity to look strategically at where growth needs to come into our local communities—is, crucially, allocated to some of our town and parish councils, but the legislation completely and wilfully removes them from any consultation exercise with a mayor.

I think that this is a pragmatic Government, and that the legislation was drafted before they realised that the consequences of some of the proposed measures were that district councils, because of the funding situation, had started to move some of those assets. The Minister needs to realise that the operational environment has fundamentally changed because, as I have said, it is crucial that town and parish councils are included in relation to land holdings as well as some of the operational responsibilities that they now have. Otherwise, the proposed local growth plans will not deliver on the key aspiration that has been outlined.

[Siân Berry]

Apart from seeking views, there is a requirement in the amendment to share draft proposals and the evidence base. Does the hon. Member consider that to be an important part of correcting errors in the evidence base and in the assumptions of the draft proposals, which only those councils might have information about?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree, because local parish councillors are experts in the areas that they represent—sometimes more so than district councillors or county councillors, because it is a smaller area. I think that the amendments from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon are perfectly acceptable—I hope that the Minister agrees—and that she is trying to rectify an unintended consequence of the legislation. In many areas, it tries to streamline some of those aspirations, but in this area it is cutting its nose off to spite its face. We will support the amendments, and I hope the Minister will also support them and come back to us on how she imagines that she will strengthen her ability to consult town and parish councils.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

First, let me thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who has been a consistent champion and advocate of town and parish councils throughout the Bill Committee. Let me put it on record again that town and parish councils play an important role in their communities. That is a role that we understand, that we appreciate and that we want to support. We have been clear that the—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

As I indicated, I would like to make a rather speculative suggestion in relation to schedule 5, which is to ask whether Ministers have considered, or might consider, extending these kinds of provisions on the licensing of micromobility to also cover managed delivery services, many of which currently use micromobility-type vehicles, or vans. Those tend to cause similar problems, which could be solved in similar ways, and that would add up to helping to achieve the same goals as this schedule.

Essentially, Ministers could add delivery vehicles and managed delivery services to be licensed in the same way as micromobility vehicles. As with this schedule, the details of how that was done would come in guidance afterwards, so Ministers could choose between something relatively light-touch or something a bit more useful.

Reasons to consider this suggestion include traffic generation and the ability to speak regularly to, or regulate, the companies involved to allow for more consolidation, so that journeys are carried out more efficiently. Powers to regulate and license food delivery by bike might be very useful in relation to issues of safety and workers’ rights. We know that freelance delivery riders report huge time pressures and poor working conditions, and people who have problems with how some of the micromobility hire services are used by users also often report the same kinds of issues with delivery riders. Although I do not want to create a huge amount of bureaucracy, I think the issues are similar, and Ministers might look either now or in the future at widening the scope of these kinds of powers for the authorities that we are considering today.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as usual, Ms Vaz. I want to make a quick remark, notwithstanding the fact that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, may want to speak to this. Briefly, I welcome that the Minister’s and the Government’s recommendations, contained in schedule 5. The Minister does not know those of us on the Opposition Benches too well at the moment—she will do by the end of this Bill Committee—but, if she can get my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to agree to extra regulation, that is absolutely good enough for me. He is well known as somebody with strongly held views about the role of the state in local government from when he ran his excellent local authority and administration. The Minister has managed to achieve something that I, as his Whip, have never managed to achieve.

I welcome this sensible piece of regulation. One of the things I welcome in the Bill is the assurance the Minister has given, and which is set out within the House of Commons Library paper, that it would grant strategic authorities and county or unitary authorities where a strategic authority does not exist. That is a sign that the Government are listening to the wants of local authorities—as the previous Government did when they licensed pedicabs, for example, with my former colleague Nickie Aiken getting that Bill through. I wanted to place on the record that I believe this is a welcome piece of regulation—but the Minister should not get too carried away and start making regulations everywhere willy-nilly.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I have nothing to add, apart from the fact that this is a good addition; but the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned pedicabs, and I cannot let that go by without asking the Minister to look again at that issue, because they are absolutely blighting the part of London where we work, making tourists’ lives utterly miserable, and contravening virtually every traffic law I have seen, with little enforcement. If there is any opportunity to go further on pedicabs, bring it on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the Lib Dem spokeswoman, for her excellent speech. Will she acknowledge that—as much as she gets emails, every colleague across the country gets such emails—this is about making it easier for the end user, our constituents, to report stuff? Does she agree that Guide Dogs, which has been running an excellent campaign on behalf of the blind for many years, would be pleased to see the Minister accept amendment 348?

[Vikki Slade]

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Guide Dogs. I have Guide Dogs written down on my notes, as well as the RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, of which I am a champion. They have been campaigning for the full change, but amendment 348 would certainly be a step along the way. I also understand that it would implement the Transport Committee’s 2019 report recommendations. A lot of work has already been done on the issue.

The second element of amendment 348 contradicts something that the shadow Minister talked about in connection with Conservative amendment 291, which relates to parking fines. As a councillor and former leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, I was delighted that over the summer a Minister gave permission for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to have a trial of extended fines. That is not about councils trying to make money, but about councils trying to balance the books and local taxpayers not carrying the burden.

Let me give the Committee an example. A parking fine for someone who parks in the middle of a roundabout, on a grass verge or somewhere else dangerous—I am talking not about not paying in a car park, but about a dangerous piece of parking—is £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days. For someone who has travelled down to Bournemouth for a day at the beach, parking will cost between £25 and £30. It will cost a similar amount to park in Brighton, Bath or Oxford—in most of our thriving places.

Someone might as well pay £35 between four adults in a large vehicle that can bump its way up the kerb and park right next to the beach, where it is really convenient. The vehicle will need to be ticketed and, at some later stage, probably towed away if it is causing a danger to ambulances or bus routes. Even if it is towed away, the fine that can be levied is £150, and yet for the council to have that vehicle towed away can cost up to £800. The difference is paid by the local council taxpayer. In a typical summer in somewhere such as Bournemouth, something like 1,500 tickets are given out. Members can imagine how much of a shortfall there is.

Amendment 348 seeks to give the ability that already exists in London to other places, so that they can apply a different parking fine where deemed appropriate, potentially in limited circumstances. The system is not working at the moment. So many people think that it is perfectly okay to turn up to places and do that, although I do not think it happens quite so much in Cornwall. When I visited there, people behaved incredibly well, but people who visit places like Bournemouth behave incredibly badly, and to have that freedom would be useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I shall speak to amendment 304, which stands in my name. I would like to think that it is one of those amendments that the Government will adopt, if they are wise, because it would do something practical towards the delivery of a higher level of housing through the Bill.

Despite the provision of very large amounts of capital funding by the previous Government, the Mayor of London has been a case study in the failure to deliver. There will be complex reasons in the wider market why it has been a challenge, but the previous Government delivered just shy of a net additional 1 million new homes over the life of the previous Parliament, in line with the target. Since then, house building has collapsed. Partly that seems to be because operators in the market—big developers and house building companies—are looking at the Bill and seeing opportunities to increase the potential value of their sites by arbitraging between all the different layers of bureaucracy, rather than delivering homes.

However, many of our constituents look at areas that have good PTAL—public transport access levels—scores, and so an ability to access effective public transport, as offering a high degree of opportunity. The Opposition’s view is that we should prioritise sites like that, which in some cases are quite close to securing planning consent, because of their ability to densify our urban centres. In London and other big cities, such as Manchester, where we had our recent party conference, we see examples of this approach delivering large amounts of additional housing in city centre areas. It contributes to growth, to housing delivery and to the economy of those local areas.

For all those reasons, the amendment is positive, so I hope that the Government will accept that it would add significant value to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Paul Holmes]

I echo some of the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, and I want to talk briefly about one of the things I feel particularly passionate about in planning: the densification of our urban centres. I spoke at a number of events at Conservative party conference where I advocated for it, as my hon. Friend has, as well as speaking about where we did not get it quite right when we were in government.

I am the first to say that we did not come down as hard as we should have on many speculative developments on green spaces, both in my constituency and across the country. We lost a lot of the ability to regenerate some of our urban centres, which is a fortunate and necessary by-product of unlocking some of the sites in our urban centres, as amendment 304 is intended to do. Our urban centres are where many of our younger people want to live. There is a connectivity already. The infrastructure exists, although I am the first to say that much of the infrastructure in our urban centres needs to be improved. That is where our younger people, our more mobile people, our entrepreneurs and those who want to make a success of their life, particularly in tech centres and economic centres, want to live; but, unfortunately, that is where the higher-priced properties are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.

The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.

I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is right to say that the NPPF outlines previously developed land, but it does not include density, so it is not necessarily relevant to this amendment. We seek an incentivisation of densification: does she agree with that policy basis?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national planning policy framework, which tries to encourage and incentivise the use of previously developed land, and to make sure that within our urban centres we are building out as much as we can. That is an issue for the NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would not be right, in the context of mayors specifically, to constrain them and say, “You can only use one land type.” We must allow the flexibility but use national planning policy to encourage urban regeneration and urban densification.