5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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—
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.
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?
May I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he carries on congratulating Whips like that, he will go far?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the intelligence used by West Midlands police that led to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending Villa Park on 6 November 2025.
The ban on Israeli Jewish supporters was a disgrace and the justification given by West Midlands Police was, it turns out, based on fiction. The police said that their intelligence came from Dutch counterparts after the Ajax against Maccabi Tel Aviv match last year. West Midlands police called the Israeli fans “highly organised” and “co-ordinated” and “experienced fighters…linked to the Israel Defence Forces”. They said they intentionally targeted Muslim communities and 5,000 officers were deployed in response, but that was contradicted by an official Dutch report and the Dutch police themselves. They called the West Midlands police claims “not true” and “obviously inaccurate”. In some cases, such as the Israeli victim thrown into the river, the facts were inverted with Israelis presented as aggressors. West Midlands police repeated their claims to the Home Affairs Committee Chairman on Friday and refused to answer specific questions from The Sunday Times or to justify their claims, so will the Minister ensure the publication of all intelligence material relating to the ban? It is mostly not sensitive; it can be redacted where necessary. Will lists of individuals and organisations consulted by West Midlands police and the safety advisory group and all those who submitted evidence be published? Can the Minister confirm that no organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or subject to Government non-engagement participated? Will she confirm that Hind Rajab Foundation submitted a paper and that this was accepted by West Midlands police? What intelligence was shared by West Midlands police with the United Kingdom football policing unit and the National Police Chiefs’ Council? Which information was given to Home Office Ministers and officials, and when? Officials were told about the options under consideration on 2 October, two weeks before the ban was announced, so what did Ministers do in the intervening period? Under pressure from Islamist agitators, local politicians and thugs, an English police force is accused of fabricating intelligence and misleading the public. This could hardly be more serious. We need Ministers to hold the chief constable to account and give the country the truth.
I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.
Did I hear the hon. Member correctly when she said one whole year?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Government Departments must reply promptly to questions; one whole year is very shameful indeed. The delay outlined by the hon. Member would suggest that something has gone seriously wrong in the Treasury in relation to answering this question. I assume that those on the Treasury Bench will relay the point to colleagues forthwith. I suggest that the hon. Member also ask the Chair of the Procedure Committee to look into the matter, because nobody should be waiting one whole year for a response to correspondence. English Devolution and Community Empowerment (Programme) (No.2) Ordered, That the Order of 2 September 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1 and Part 2 The moment of interruption on the first day Second day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day (4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Stephen Morgan.)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 44—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London. New clause 2—Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils— “(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows. (2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’). (4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’” This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases. New clause 4—Application of CIL to householders— “(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows. (2) In section 205 (The levy) after subsection (2) insert— ‘(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use. (2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).’” This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use. New clause 5—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government— “(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert— ‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government (1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with— (a) principal local authorities within their area, (b) public service providers in their area, and (c) town and parish councils within their area. (2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’ (2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert— ‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government (1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with— (a) principal local authorities within their area, (b) public service providers in their area, and (c) town and parish councils within their area. (2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’ (3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert— ‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government (1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with— (a) principal local authorities within their area, (b) public service providers in their area, and (c) town and parish councils within their area. (2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’” This new clause would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area. New clause 7—Consideration of existing adult skills provision— “(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider— (a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and (b) existing higher education provision in its area when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act. (2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.” This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions. New clause 8—Annual reporting on adult education funding— “(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions. (2) A report under this section must include— (a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs; (b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority; (c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding— (i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning, (ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and (iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs. (3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about— (a) any further content of, and (b) publication of reports under this section.” This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers. New clause 9—Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans— “(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the strategic authority’. (3) After subsection (7) insert— ‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that— (a) the strategic authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan, (b) the plan has been agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and (c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries. (7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), ‘joint leadership’ means that— (a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and (b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined. (7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the strategic authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations. (7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may— (a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement; (b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination; (c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making; (d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement. (7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to— (a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area, (b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs, (c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and (d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’ (4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows. (5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert— ‘“strategic authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”. This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties. New clause 14—Policy delivery in areas of competence— “(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which— (a) relates to an area of competence, and (b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority. (2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of— (a) the relevant strategic authority, or (b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority. (3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions. (4) For the purposes of this section, “a constituent member” means any elected representative who is— (a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority; (b) acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).” This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative. New clause 15—Duty to ensure public trust and financial transparency— “(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or combined county authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that information regarding the authority’s financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner. (2) The mayor must publish a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions, and review this policy periodically.” This new clause requires mayors of CAs and CCAs to ensure that financial information is accessible and understandable to local communities. New clause 23—Transport authority functions: funding and support— “(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act. (2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means— (a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and (b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.” This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions. New clause 24—Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (‘the strategy’). (2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority. (3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas. (4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy. (5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and (b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.” This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution. New clause 25—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on— (a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges; (b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and (c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred. (2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include— (a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges; (b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred; (c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and (d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors. (3) In this section— ‘charging authority’ has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act; ‘technical error’ means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.” New clause 28—Regional governance— “(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body. (2) Regulations made under this section must— (a) provide that— (i) a regional governance body is a body corporate, (ii) the name of any such body is determined locally, and (iii) the structure and membership of any such body is determined following consultation with people who live in the relevant part of England; (b) confer functions upon a regional governance body in relation to— (i) education and skills, (ii) transport, (iii) health and social care, (iv) housing and planning, and (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (3) in making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to— (a) the promotion of effective and accountable regional governance, (b) the identity and aspirations of the region concerned, and (c) the principle of subsidiarity. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This new clause would enable the establishment of regional governance bodies in parts of England, such as a Yorkshire Parliament or Cornish Assembly, with locally determined names and structures, and allow them to be conferred with responsibilities in areas including education, transport, health and housing, where there is local support. New clause 29—Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets— “(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to— (a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; (b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021; (c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and (d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1). (3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1). (4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.” This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives. New clause 30—Visitor levies— “(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area. (2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.” New clause 31—Overnight accommodation levy— “(1) An EMSA may impose a levy on any overnight accommodation provided within the EMSA’s area (‘the OAL’). (2) The levy is payable by persons staying for one or more night in exchange for payment in any— (a) hotel; (b) guest house, or bed and breakfast; (c) self-catering accommodation; (d) short-term let; (e) campsite or caravan park; (f) any other premises that the mayor of an EMSA may designate. (3) Before introducing or modifying an OAL the mayor of an EMSA must consult such as persons as they consider necessary, which must include communities, business and organisations working in or affected by the tourism industry. (4) The mayor of an EMSA may determine the rate and structure of an OAL, including concessionary rates and exemptions where they consider it appropriate. (5) The mayor of than EMSA may specify arrangement relating to— (a) the collection of the OAL, (b) the administration of the OAL, and (c) arrangements for circumstances in which the OAL is not complied with. (6) Receipts from the OAL are to be paid into the general fund of the EMSA. (7) Monies received under subsection (6) may be used by the mayor of the EMSA for the purposes of— (a) promoting, developing and managing tourism within the EMSA area; (b) enhancing infrastructure for the purposes of benefiting tourism in the area; (c) supporting cultural, sporting and business activity; (d) preserving or improving heritage assets; (e) supporting economic growth in the EMSA area provided that, in the view of the mayor of the EMSA, such use is consistent with the EMSA’s local growth plan.” New clause 32—Greater London Authority: decision-making— “(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’. (3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)— (a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’; (b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’. (4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)— (a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’; (b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’. (5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out ‘at least two thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.” New clause 33—Joint planning committees— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for local authorities which share a border to establish a joint planning committee. (2) Joint planning committees under subsection (1) may only consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of the adjacent authorities’ border. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish joint planning committees for adjacent authorities to jointly consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of their adjoining border. New clause 39—Regulation of waterborne transport services by regional mayors— “(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to waterborne transport services operating wholly within the authority’s area. (2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include— (a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of waterborne transport services; (b) requiring operators of waterborne transport services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a); (c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section; (d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c); (e) regulation of fares and fare structures for waterborne transport services, including imposing a fare cap; (f) functions relating to accountability of waterborne transport services providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries; (g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of waterborne transport services within an authority’s area. (3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult— (a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities), (b) any local transport authorities affected, (c) operators of waterborne transport services within the area, and (d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate. (4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor. (5) In this section ‘waterborne transport services’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that such specification must include— (a) ferry services, and (b) water taxi and private hire transport services, which carry passengers by water between two or more places within the area of the authority.” This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate waterborne transport services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares. New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum— “(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows. (2) In section 52ZC, before subsection (1) insert— ‘(A1) A mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year must be determined to be excessive if the financial year is the first financial year in which the authority has charged a relevant basic amount of council tax.’ (3) At the beginning of subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘In any other case, the’.” New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors— “(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to ferry services operating wholly within the authority’s area. (2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include— (a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services; (b) requiring operators of ferry services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a); (c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section; (d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c); (e) regulation of fares and fare structures for ferry services, including imposing a fare cap; (f) functions relating to accountability of ferry service providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries; (g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of ferry services within an authority’s area. (3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult— (a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities), (b) any local transport authorities affected, (c) operators of ferry services within the area, and (d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate. (4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor. (5) In this section ‘ferry services’ means services for the carriage of passengers or vehicles by water between two or more places, all of which are within the area of the authority.” This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate ferry services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares. New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality, and climate targets— “(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority shall refrain from taking any action or decision that would contradict— (a) the fulfilment of the carbon budgets and targets established under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; (b) the achievement of the environmental targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021; (c) compliance with the limit values provided for in Schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and (d) implementation of the programme for adapting to climate change prepared under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the requirements in subsection (1). (3) Guidance under subsection (2) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.” This new clause places a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to operate consistently with the targets and requirements in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act, the Air Quality Standards Regulations, and the statutory climate adaptation programme. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives. New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor— “(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows: (2) In subsection (1), leave out “one of the members of the authority to be the mayor's deputy” and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’. (3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’ (4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.” This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority. New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers— “(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows. (2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’) insert— ‘15A Mayoral special advisers (1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser (2) A ‘mayoral special adviser’ is a person (‘P’) who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3). (3) The requirements are— (a) P is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally; (b) the appointment will end not later than— (i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or (ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment. (4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (‘the code’). (5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions. (6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not— (a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or (b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority. (7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may— (a) engage in political activity; and (b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor. (8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser. (9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’” This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions. New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority— “(1) The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) is amended as follows. (2) In section 2(1) (levying authorities), for the definition substitute— ‘In this Act, ‘levying authority’ means— (a) the Greater London Authority; (b) an established mayoral authority in England; (c) a county council or county borough council in Wales. (3) Omit section 4(c). (4) Omit section 7. (5) Omit section 8. (6) Omit section 9. (7) In section 10, omit paragraph (2)(c) and subsections (10) and (11). (8) In Schedule 1, omit paragraphs 19 and 20.” This new clause would allow an established mayoral authority in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement. It would remove the ability of county and district councils in England to do so, and would remove the existing requirement for such a supplement to be approved by referendum. New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement— “(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows. (2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b) for ‘at least two thirds’ substitute ‘a simple majority’. (3) In Schedule 6— (a) in paragraph 8(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority; and (b) in paragraph 8C(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority.’” This new clause would require certain decisions of the London Assembly in relation to the mayor’s strategy and GLA budget to be taken by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority. New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions— “(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows. (2) After section 59 (review and investigation) insert— ‘59A Power of the Assembly in relation to proposed mayoral decisions (1) The powers of the assembly under this Act include— (a) power to direct that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take is not to be taken while it is under review and scrutiny by the Assembly, and (b) power to recommend that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take be reconsidered. (2) The Assembly must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of proposed decisions and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers. (3) Before complying subsection (2), the Assembly must obtain the consent of the Mayor to the proposals and arrangements. (4) In the proposals and arrangements published under subsection (2), the Assembly may make provision to require the Mayor to submit to the Assembly details of any decision the Mayor proposes to take. (5) Provision under subsection (4) may include provision for deadlines by which any such details should be submitted to the Assembly.’” This new clause would give the London Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the Mayor are not taken while under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly power to recommend that the Mayor reconsider a proposed decision. New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, carry out a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority. (2) The report must examine as a potential reform the scope for greater direct engagement with elected representatives of the London Borough Councils in decisions made by the Greater London Authority. (3) The Secretary of State must, within nine months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions. New clause 70—Duty to confer ESMA powers on Cornwall Council— “(1) This section applies where Cornwall Council has applied to the Secretary of State for a power available to an established mayoral strategic authority in or under any Act of Parliament (a “relevant power”) to be conferred upon it. (2) On receipt of an application, the Secretary of State must make regulations to confer the relevant power upon Cornwall Council. (3) Where a relevant power has been conferred, any reference in or under any Act of Parliament to the exercise of the power by the mayor of an established strategic authority should be read to allow the exercise of the power by the leader of Cornwall Council. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.” This new clause would allow Cornwall Council to apply to the Secretary of State to be conferred ESMA powers and requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to that end upon receipt of such an application. New clause 71—Requirement to establish and consult neighbourhood area committees— “(1) The Secretary of State may not make an order or regulations under any Act of Parliament to establish, expand or confer functions on any strategic authority until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the strategic authority will, at the moment of establishment, expansion or conferral of functions, have in place— (a) neighbourhood area committees which collectively cover the whole area of the strategic authority, (b) mechanisms to ensure that the neighbourhood area committees are consulted on any decision the strategic authority may take that might affect the area covered by the neighbourhood area committee. (2) A neighbourhood area committee must ensure that, when consulted by a strategic authority under subsection (1)(b), it responds to the consultation in accordance with any reasonable deadline set by the strategic authority.” New clause 72—Visitor levies (No. 2)— “(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a levy charged on the purchase of overnight accommodation. (2) Following consultation, regulations under this section must— (a) define the basis on which the levy is to be calculated; (b) specify the process and consultation requirements for an area seeking to impose a scheme; (c) set out reporting requirements for relevant businesses and mayoral strategic authorities; and (d) specify the investigatory powers and penalties available to mayoral strategic authorities for the enforcement of a scheme. (3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on, and subsequently make, regulations enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation. New clause 74—Power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising— “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable mayors and local authorities to carry out functions relating to the display of advertising. (2) Such regulations must— (a) transfer or otherwise provide for the exercise of powers under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mayors and local authorities; and (b) provide that such functions include— (i) a duty to consider the impact of advertisements on public health, and (ii) the regulation of content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health or likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes. (3) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under an Act passed— (a) before this Act, or (b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This new clause would provide mayors and local authorities with the power to regulate advertising, and include duties on their use of that power in relation to public health and health inequalities. New clause 76—Duty to establish a London Combined Board— “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a London Combined Board (“the Board”). (2) Regulations under this section must— (a) specify the Membership of the Board as— (i) the Mayor of London, and (ii) the membership of the Executive Committee of London Councils; (b) make provision about joint decision-making between the GLA and the Board, including in relation to— (i) powers exercised by the GLA on behalf of any London borough; (ii) funding devolved to the GLA; (iii) governance of any integrated settlement for London. (3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consider— (a) existing best practice cooperation within other combined authorities in England, and (b) existing cooperation between the GLA and London boroughs. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a London Combined Board to ensure cooperation and joint decision-making between the GLA and representatives from London borough councils. New clause 77—Proposals for alternative models for devolution— “(1) One or more leaders of any strategic authority may notify the Secretary of State of— (a) any changes to the boundaries and structures of a strategic authority; (b) any changes to the governance of strategic authorities, including the relationship between a strategic authority and any local authority within its area; and (c) any other changes to the structure of local devolution in its area which the leaders believe would contribute to securing the effective exercise of functions either by the strategic authority, or by any local authority within its area. (2) Before making any notification under subsection (1), the relevant strategic authority must consult— (a) local authorities within its area; (b) representatives of the community within its area, including businesses, education providers, health providers, and civil society, and (c) any other persons that the strategic authority considers expedient. (3) The Secretary of State must respond to a notification given under this section within three months beginning on the day on which it is submitted to the Secretary of State. (4) A strategic authority may publish a notification made under this section, and the Secretary of State may publish a response to any such published notification.” New clause 78—Abolition of PCCs— “(1) In any mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer all PCC functions to the mayor and abolish the PCC. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to abolish the PCC and transfer their functions to the mayor in authorities which already have a mayor. Amendment 175, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(d) Cornwall Council.” Amendment 176, page 2, line 6, at end insert— “(d) Cornwall Council, notwithstanding any requirement for the authority to have a mayor.” Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development” insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”. This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas. Amendment 37, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert— “(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority. (2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if— (a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.” This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State. Amendment 104, page 2, line 31, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 32 and insert “a referendum has been held in which residents of the council have consented to the designation.” This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State designating a council as a strategic authority. Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, at end insert— “(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority. Amendment 61, page 2, line 32, at end insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition. Amendment 165, page 2, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State may not designate a council if the council’s area is within, or is, the area of a National Park unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the authority for that National Park.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the area of a council which the Secretary of State is designating is within, or is, the area of that National Park. Amendment 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9. This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy. Amendment 161, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “not more than 7”. This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority. Amendment 162, page 11, line 29, leave out “not more than 7”. See explanatory statement for 161. Amendment 77, in clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert— “(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.” This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities. Amendment 79, page 23, line 6, at end insert— “(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy].” This amendment is consequential on NC24. Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (b) and insert— “(b) one or more of the following— (i) health and social care; (ii) planning; (iii) environmental concerns; (iv) funding; (v) sustainability measures; (vi) education; (vii) transport provision and (viii) green and community spaces.” This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners. Amendment 27, in clause 40, page 41, line 11 , at end insert— “(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area. (1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include— (a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and (b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1). (1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes— (a) form of engagement used; (b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and (c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1). (1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’” This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils. Amendment 75, in clause 43, page 44, line 21, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2). (2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas. Government amendment 116. Amendment 92, in clause 43, page 44, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”. This amendment is linked to Amendment 93 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”. Amendment 72, page 44, line 36 , at end insert— “(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”. This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities. Amendment 87, page 44, line 36, at end insert— “(e) access to green space and nature, (f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”. This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm. Amendment 88, page 45, line 3, at end insert— “(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes— (a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and (b) any urban or rural natural feature, that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section. Amendment 172, page 45, line 11, at end insert— “107ZBA health inequalities strategy (1) Each strategic authority must prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how it will operationalise the duty under section 107ZB. (2) The strategy may be a standalone document or incorporated within another statutory or strategic plan of the authority. (3) The strategy must promote health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in the strategic authority area. (4) In preparing the strategy, an authority must have regard to relevant national and local strategies relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities. (5) The strategy must set locally appropriate targets and policies designed to meet them, set for the end of a 10- year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published. (6) The metrics may include, but need not be limited to metrics relating to— (a) healthy life expectancy, (b) infant mortality rate, and (c) poverty (including the child poverty rate). (7) The strategic authority must, once every five years, alongside its local growth plan, produce and make publicly available a report on progress against the strategy.” Amendment 76, page 45, line 21, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1). (2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas. Government amendment 117. Amendment 93, page 45, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”. This amendment is linked to Amendment 92 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”. Amendment 73, page 45, line 36, at end insert— “(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”. This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities. Amendment 89, page 45, line 36, at end insert— “(e) access to green space and nature, (f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”. This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm. Amendment 90, page 45, line 39, at end insert— “(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes— (a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and (b) any urban or rural natural feature, that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section. Government amendment 118. Amendment 47, in clause 45, page 50, line 31, at end insert— “(c) a draft of any such order is subject to the affirmative procedure.” This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 48, in clause 46, page 53, line 43, at end insert— “(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 40, in clause 49, page 55, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert— “(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors. (4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument. (5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is — (a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it— (i) amends an Act of Parliament, or (ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence; (b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.” This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes. Amendment 36, page 55, line 21, at end insert— “(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless— (a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision, (b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and (c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. Government new schedule 1—Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways. Government new schedule 2—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London. Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 81, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b). This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 15, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved. Amendment 9, page 81, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b). See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 10, page 82, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 11, page 83, line 6, leave out paragraph 8. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 12, page 83, line 8, leave out paragraph 9. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, leave out paragraph 16. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 169, page 85, line 10, at end insert— “(3A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.”. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council. Amendment 54, page 85, line 27, at end insert— “(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated. Amendment 166, page 85, line 27, at end insert— “(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a new combined authority is within, or is, the area of that National Park. Amendment 170, page 85, line 40, at end insert— “(1A) The order does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council. Amendment 105, page 86, line 28, at end insert— “(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed combined authority have consented to the area being established as a combined authority.” This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making an order to establish a combined authority. Amendment 62, page 86, line 37, at end insert— “(8A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. Amendment 14, page 88, line 14, leave out paragraph 19. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 50, page 88, line 20, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority. Amendment 171, page 88, line 20, at end insert— “(1A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if the area in the proposal includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council. Amendment 167, page 88, line 41, at end insert— “(5A) If the proposed local government area or existing area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the local government area or existing area the Secretary of State proposes to merge is within, or is, the area of that National Park. Amendment 55, page 89, line 2, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority. Amendment 56, page 89, line 9, at end insert— “(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority. Amendment 51, page 89, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 12 on page 90. This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority. Amendment 15, page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph 20. See explanatory statement for Amendment 8. Amendment 16, page 94, line 36, leave out subparagraph (b). This amendment, and Amendments 16 to 21, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved. Amendment 17, page 95, line 21, leave out subparagraph (b). See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 18, page 97, line 10, leave out paragraph 33. See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 19, page 97, line 12, leave out paragraph 34. See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 52, page 98, line 22, leave out paragraphs 37 and 38. This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation. Amendment 20, page 98, line 34, leave out paragraph 38. See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 164, page 99, line 27, at end insert— “(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a CCA is within, or is, the area of that National Park. Amendment 106, page 100, line 26, at end insert— “(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed CCA have consented to the area being established as a CCA.” This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making regulations to establish a CCA. Amendment 21, page 102, line 16, leave out paragraph 41. See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 22, page 104, line 13, leave out paragraph 42. See explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 86, page 112, line 1, leave out Schedule 3. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 32. This amendment removes restrictions limiting appointments by mayors to one commissioner per competence. Government amendments 122 to 124. Amendment 24, page 117, line 25, at end insert— “(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.” This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority. Amendment 151, page 120, line 32, at end insert “or,— (c) prevent the commissioner from operating collaboratively with other commissioners across different areas of competence, recognising that the work of commissioners will often intersect and benefit from integrated working with a spatial lens to meet the needs of, and drive positive outcomes for specific places as a whole.” This amendment broadens the scope of paragraph 4 of this Schedule to ensure that commissioners appointed by the mayor for the area of a combined authority are not only permitted to work incidentally across areas of competence but are also encouraged to do so collaboratively and with a spatial, place-based perspective. Government amendments 125 to 134. Amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 136, line 11, at end insert— “(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license. (4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway. (5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.” This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license. Government amendment 137. Amendment 35, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, at end insert— ‘3 “(1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows. (2) After paragraph (4) insert— 4A “(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement. (2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred. (3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2). (4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on— (a) the obstructing vehicle class, (b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or (c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration. (6) In this paragraph— (a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and (b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. 4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority. (2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act. (3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act. (4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.”’ This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities. Amendment 74, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, insert— ‘3 “(1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert— “Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement 11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by— (a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or (b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.”’ This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials. Government amendments 138 to 144. Amendment 25, in schedule 12, page 174, line 24, at end insert— “61DCB Density requirement (1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which— (a) will deliver greater density in urban areas, (b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or (c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4. (2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation. (3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.” This amendment would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land. Government amendments 145 and 146. Amendment 71, page 175, line 22 at end insert— “(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert— “(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure— (a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and (b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area”.’ This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area. Government amendments 147 to 149. Amendment 26, in schedule 17, page 207, line 27, 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.’” Amendment 69, page 210, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 13 and insert “the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”. This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils. Amendment 65, in schedule 19, page 214, line 30, at end insert— “(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and (e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority. (2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.” This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 80, page 214, line 30, at end insert— “(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by— (i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, (ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and (iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.” This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans. Amendment 159, page 214, line 30, at end insert— “(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.” Amendment 173, page 214, line 30, at end insert— “(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and (e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.” Amendment 174, page 214, line 30, at end insert— “(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.” This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas. Amendment 83, page 215, line 19, at end insert— “107MA Funding and support relating for local growth plans ‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the— (a) preparation, (b) publication, and (c) delivery of local growth plans. (2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the— (a) strategic importance, and (b) complexity of any such plans.’.” This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans. Amendment 66, page 216, line 29, at end insert— “(d) comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area covered by the authority, and (e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.” “(2A) The Secretary of State must make provision to support a mayoral CCA in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.” This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 81, page 216, line 29, at end insert— “(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by— (i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, (ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and (iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.” This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans. Amendment 160, page 216, line 29, at end insert— “(2A) The mayoral CCA must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.” Amendment 84, page 217, line 15, at end insert— “32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans (1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the— (a) preparation, (b) publication, and (c) delivery of local growth plans. (2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the— (a) strategic importance, and (b) complexity of any such plans.” This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans. Amendment 49, in schedule 21, page 224, leave out lines 6 to 12. This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area. Government amendments 112, 135, 136 and 113.
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.
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Order. Ms Berry, if you need some information on how to process procedure, please ask the Clerks or the Chair—you can come to me in a minute. We are speaking to all the amendments. Ms Slade, continue.
I am trying to calculate the time; I hope that we have more than one speaker bobbing.
Marvellous. As we have four more speakers and we definitely have to finish business by 10 pm, Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of 10 minutes.
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.
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.
We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?
I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?