PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - 24 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

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.

I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.

This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.

We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.

Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.

Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.

Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.

Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.

It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.

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

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

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

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?

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

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress on the things we will be debating today. In Committee, we amended schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill to state that combined foundation strategic authorities’ decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the local transport plan are key strategic decisions that all councils should agree to in the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Further amendments to schedule 1 will also require the consent of relevant constituent councils in matters that could result in a financial liability on that council.

Moreover, we believe that strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their areas. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those aged over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year will pass between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and that authority being able to exercise the six adult education functions. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise those functions.

Turning to local growth plans, we have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the Government agree with mayors. This reflects our original intentions as set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that their agreed priorities will be acted on, and that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.

I now turn to the more substantive amendments that the Government are making on Report to these parts of the Bill. The Bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule 4 allows non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purposes of economic development and regeneration. Our amendments remove that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use in the same way as local authorities of the general power of competence.

I will not be the only MP who has received correspondence from the Country Land and Business Association. That organisation is quite clear that it fears that rural regions will be left behind, and is worried about mayors taking unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that mayors will understand what uses of those powers will genuinely support rural businesses, which must not be left behind?

I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.

During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance and to make mayoral development orders to better support growth in their area. Those powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance, our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing, so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made.

To be clear, we want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of mayoral decision making. Applications of potential strategic importance that a mayor is dealing with will often be significant developments with wider ramifications for the area, so it is crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial, such as where an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission and the planning matter has already been established. We believe that this provision, which creates options and gives flexibility to the mayor, could save up to several months, such as by avoiding an unnecessary repeated oral hearing period.

I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.

We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.

Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.

Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.

I completely agree with the hon. Member. We want pace in planning and pace in development. One of the frustrations for us on the Government Benches is that we inherited a system where the development and the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last Government. We are trying to grip that, and through these mayoral development orders, we think we can deliver pace and strategic clarity so that our mayors can designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, working alongside their constituent authorities.

The Minister mentioned the hospitality sector earlier, and I briefly want to come back to that. Bath council and I are seeking the power for local authorities to introduce a modest visitor levy, alongside our proposed 5% cut in VAT for hospitality. Does she agree that a visitor levy on overnight stays would generate a new ringfenced revenue stream for the hospitality sector, which would be beneficial?

Mayors across the country have been strong advocates for a visitor levy, but the hon. Lady will forgive me, because that is within the Chancellor’s remit, and I would not dare to pre-empt anything that the Chancellor may or may not say in the Budget, which is only 48 hours away. Suffice it to say, our mayors have been making the case vociferously for the benefits of such a levy and what it could do for their visitor economy while critically enabling them to unlock some of the investment that they want in their areas.

I have been clear throughout this process that the devolution framework is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. Where there are sensible opportunities for us to go further and devolve more powers to mayors, we should take them. We have therefore brought forward an amendment to devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting the decision in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.

Order. May I urge hon. Members to make short interventions?

Yes, I will do. I welcome the lane rental measure, which the Government put in the White Paper and is now in the Bill. However, why do the Secretary of State and the Minister not trust other authorities? Why does it apply only to elected mayoral authorities? Would it not be fair for all authorities to be able to use lane rental, which is so important in improving roadworks?

Lane rentals are there for all highways authorities. This is about the approval of lane rentals, which currently sits with the Secretary of State for Transport. We think that if we can devolve that to another democratic person, namely the mayor, that will be a good and quick way to do lane rental—and it will, critically, ensure that we are responsive to what is required locally. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for his efforts in pushing an eminently sensible amendment.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Very briefly.

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

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

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.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Very briefly, but I must then make some progress.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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—

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

“not intended to operate in this way”,

and that the Government are

“giving very serious consideration to amending them”

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

“has not issued any formal or informal communications”

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

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

We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.

Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.

As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.

As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.

Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.

Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.

That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.

Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.

We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.

I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.

Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.

Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.

If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.

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

“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—

within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really welcome devolution and look forward to a time when every local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn.

First, on the question of commissioners, I have to say that I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) in her amendment 85 to clause 9. I really welcome commissioners being brought in; I think that if we want our mayors to do a good job, we need to give them tools that enable them to do that. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.

However, I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter, because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I have a gut feeling that we just went down the list and counted all the responsibilities that there were and came up with the number seven. As it stands, an individual commissioner can work in only one specific area, which I think gets rid of any sense of bringing in people with cross-cutting responsibilities. The Government talk a lot about governing in missions—what if mayors want to do the same kind of thing? We could get rid of the cap of seven or that list of responsibilities in order to enable people to look at different things. Of the responsibilities that mayors have at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they have the most. If we wanted to stick with the number seven, and a mayor wanted to look at somebody who was doing more of transport—an active travel commissioner, or anything like that—we should let the mayor decide.

New clause 60 is on the question of deputy mayors. This is, I think, a bit of an oddity. At the moment, the pool of people from which a mayor can choose their deputy is really limited, as it is made up of the people in their cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. That means that we could have a situation—as we already do in one part of the country—where a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party. My new clause would open this process up so that they could choose a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities that they represent. This would not solve the problem entirely—it would not help if an independent were elected, for example—but for the vast majority of people, whether the mayor is from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the Greens, or Reform, probably, it would solve that problem.

New clause 61, which brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers, is not going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. I just think this process needs to be more transparent; it happens at the moment, but it happens with a wink and a nod. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors.

On a more general level, it continues to concern me to some extent that all this devolution is based on the Greater Manchester model, and I think we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because it has a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion, and so the mayor ends up with a cabinet of people of the same political persuasion. That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further, and I think we need to think about that carefully. Also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we will have fewer councils from which cabinet members can be drawn, so it will be much easier for one individual to block something. Mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive governance.

I turn to transport and clause 27. I often bore Transport Ministers because I really do think that bus stops, bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual. They are not at the moment, and that is down to the long-standing issue of a split between transport and highways. My area has a unitary authority, so those responsibilities are together, but they would be split up as soon as we got a mayor, as I hope we will, eventually. I very much welcome the power of direction on key route networks and—looking at that split—we could take that further.

I have some sympathy with amendment 23, tabled by the Conservatives, on micro-mobility. It seeks to ensure that there is enough parking for e-scooters. That, again, is a reason for looking at the highways and transport split. I welcome the Bill. It presents a real opportunity, and it could well be the most consequential Bill of this Parliament. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get devolution right by considering a few tweaks.

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 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?

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.

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

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

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

Fantastic advice from a very experienced politician.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support my hon. Friend in his advocacy of new clause 29. The Minister mentioned that the Bill should be a floor on ambition, not a ceiling, and I am keen to seek reassurance on the climate duty, as I am sure my hon. Friend is. In particular, it is vital that local authorities can shape it locally, partly because they are responsible for a third of emissions, but also, interestingly, because organisations such as the Local Government Association, which is not known for wanting to increase obligations on local authorities, and UK100—I must declare my interest as its founder director—support giving duties to those local authorities. I am keen, as I am sure he is, for the Government to reassure us that they will seek such obligations in the future.

I agree. I recognise that this is quite a challenge, because cross-Department working—in these first 16 months of government we have been exploring how siloed the previous Government left Whitehall—will be critical to getting the legislation right. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavillion for tabling the new clause, but it could be refined. Hopefully that will happen in the other place.

As a general observation, I listened to Conservative Members’ extensive contributions in Committee but could never quite get their position. At one point, it was that there should be more bureaucracy, more measures and more restrictions on mayors, but at the same time, they were arguing against powers, and wanted more freedom for mayors to choose. We even see that in the amendments before us. Some put restrictions on mayors and combined authorities, and others open up the stocks. Perhaps it is difficult to provide effective opposition in a party without real policy. I particularly appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) trying to bring in changes that would ensure support for oppositions that were ineffective in holding mayors to account.

I will finish my observations where I came in. I will talk about the south midlands and how my constituency is impacted. I have written about this publicly, so hopefully I am not overstepping the line. The south midlands region, which is critical to the Oxford to Cambridge arc, has been slightly forgotten in the devolution argument. We had a deal, but it fell apart, partly owing to political wrangling between my party, the Conservatives and a party that is barely here in the House. We need strategic leadership in the south midlands region to drive growth. The Government have centred much of the focus on clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the OxCam corridor. We see a lot of focus on Oxford and a lot of focus on Cambridge, but not a lot of focus on the middle.

While we may not be getting a mayor in the early devolution pilot, perhaps the Minister will consider whether an economic development area or something similar could be brought forward, as backed by the South Midlands Business Board and called for by those who want to invest in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. While I recognise there may not be political consensus on how a mayoral area should be formed—perhaps we will see gerrymandering from both sides—we need direction from the Government to ensure that we are not losing out on billions of pounds of investment that could come into the south midlands region and the OxCam corridor.

Overall, I am pleased to speak in support of the Government. The Bill is a great step forward. There have been many observations on the brilliant things buried in the Bill that will help our constituents. I look forward to seeing it further improved in the other place and coming back in due course, so that we can deliver devolution, simplify government and get the best bang for our buck in all our regions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the advantages of this Government’s plan for devolution is that it offers the opportunity to address the country’s many regional inequalities. Indeed, strategic authorities, particularly those with mayoralties, have the ability to address inequalities within individual regions. The Bill’s original clause 43 addresses health, wellbeing and public services reform, and it is Government amendments 116 and 118 and amendment 172 that I wish to discuss.

This section of the Bill confers a new duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to improving the health of persons in their area and reducing health inequalities between persons in their area. Amendment 172 outlines the requirements for a health inequalities strategy, which may include the metrics for healthy life expectancy, infant mortality rates and poverty, including child poverty. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages has the interesting profile of sitting across a number of councils: the two unitaries—Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire county council—as well as Stafford borough council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council. I was also a councillor in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme for several years, so I have the advantage of a broad view across the long-recognised area of north Staffordshire. I should add that there is a road in my constituency, Uttoxeter Road, that has five lots of bins from five different councils, which is quite an achievement.

There are clear inequalities across all areas, and of course there are pockets of wealth and deprivation in all. However, the health statistics outline a harsh reality. When we compare Staffordshire county council and Stoke-on-Trent city council’s female healthy life expectancy, we see that in Staffordshire it is 63, compared with the national average of 61.5, but in Stoke it is just 55. Men in Stoke can expect a healthy life until they are 56, compared with 63 in Staffordshire, with the national average being 61. We see the same for overall life expectancy, with Staffordshire above average and Stoke below average. I have on many occasions raised the shocking fact that Stoke-on-Trent routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates, and the shocking statistic that a baby born in Stoke-on-Trent will have half the chance of surviving to their fifth birthday than the national average.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, because we have a similar issue between in Northamptonshire. We have a 15-year difference in life expectancy between Northampton town centre and rural areas such as Brackley. We are talking about an area of 20 or 30 miles. Does she agree that, although it is positive to see changes already in the Bill to address this, more could be done in the other place to improve the Bill further?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is with great sadness that I see this fight between cities and rural areas that demonises the city areas. Around Stoke-on-Trent we have a doughnut economy. Stoke generates wealth for north Staffordshire and it filters out to the rural areas, yet we hear people saying, “No to Stoke, no to Stoke.” People need to understand that we are all one in north Staffordshire.

I offer a new fact: the under-75 mortality rate from all causes for Staffordshire, as of the 2023 statistics, was 319.5, compared with an England national average rate of 341.6. However, in Stoke the under-75 mortality rate from all causes was a whopping 474. It is understandable that any devolution has to address this disparity, and I look at this broadening to help us to do that. I stress that this does not mean that improving Stoke’s outcomes means we are going to take away or reduce Staffordshire’s. This is often a knee-jerk fear reaction for some, and a tool for the Conservative and Reform parties to use for political scaremongering. I am saddened to hear the views on this of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who I greatly respect and personally like. I wish that there could be some understanding and cross-conversation on this issue.

I also wish to speak in support of Government amendments 116 and 118, which address health improvements, health inequality duties and health determinants. The Government are right to add environmental factors including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water. We have talked about boundaries. In my own constituency, the Meir tunnel has high levels of poor air quality in an area with high levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but fixing that issue is extremely difficult as it is on a boundary with neighbouring councils.

The value of green space is also an issue close to my heart. When Meir park, a much-loved green space, had all its trees knocked down, out of the blue, it caused some residents genuine fear, upset and hurt. Also, Trentham gardens are in the border area covered by Staffordshire county council, Stafford borough council and Stoke-on-Trent city council, with ensuing traffic problems. It has the most beautiful lake, and I one day I hope to find the time to go paddle boarding on it again. The quality of our environment is vital to mental and physical health, and I hope that the value of green space, good air quality and access to the advantage of bodies of water will always be central to any policy.

In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, we are looking to achieve an enhanced north Staffordshire unitary authority under local government reorganisation, and I am particularly supportive of the broader proposal submitted by Staffordshire Moorlands district council, which sensibly outlines travel-to-work areas, economic functional areas, cultural links and transport links. We sit at the beginning of a north midlands growth corridor to Derby and Nottingham that offers this country a huge opportunity to create a strategic centre for growth across the middle of England. While we have still to decide a devolution model for North Staffordshire, southern Staffordshire and Staffordshire as a whole, I ask that we think radically and consider our east-west links to the east midlands and the potential of a north midlands strategic authority. Whatever we end up with, I ask the Minister for more details for Stoke and Staffordshire as to the plans and timelines for devolution.

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?

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

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

Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members to address their comments to the business in front of the House, which is the remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

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?

The hon. Member talks about people in his community not wanting the measures in the Bill. I do not know about his constituents, but my constituents often talk to me about the many abandoned shops on the high street, and there are measures to tackle that in this Bill through the community powers, right to buy and the rent review powers. My constituents are frustrated about the lack of economic growth over the last 14 years and the lack of house building over a number of years. Again, there are a number of measures in the Bill to tackle those issues. Is it not true that the issues that people care about are directly addressed by the additional powers that local areas will have from the Bill?

Will the hon. Member give way?

I thank the hon. Member for his generosity and am happy to take him up on his offer to visit his constituency, have a drink and discuss local issues. He is welcome to come to my constituency, too.

I listened carefully to the 20-minute speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), but did not hear many proposals for the functions of devolution—the powers that could be given and the extra devolution empowerment that could take place. I heard a lot about the form of devolution—whether the county or regional mayor structures are right, for example. It is no wonder that we failed to grasp the issue of devolution and community empowerment in the previous 14 years, given that the Conservative party is still so obsessed by the form of devolution rather than by its function, which is to give away power and empower communities.

Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.

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?

I thank the hon. Member, who is making some interesting points. On his point about a referendum, the balance of numbers in a villages-versus-conurbation vote means that there might well be an obvious outcome to such a referendum. We have seen really good work in devolution in Greater Manchester. Previously disconnected towns and villages—terrible for young people trying to get to education and for people trying to get to work—have benefited from improved transport, thanks to a desire to see the region as part of an overall whole without damaging the character of those towns and villages.

In Staffordshire, which is quite rural—I have Stoke-on-Trent city centre in my constituency—we have that shared interlinking, and it is very important to the development of north Staffordshire. Staffordshire Moorlands council has shared services with High Peak in Derbyshire. Much of Stoke-on-Trent city council service provision is in the neighbouring town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and likewise with Stafford borough, which uses Cannock Chase services. Shared and interlinked services exist in rural areas and can work together.

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?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?

I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession: I was not on the Bill Committee. It sounds like I missed out, according to some of the descriptions of the fun that was had. It is not the first time I have heard that a Bill Committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.

Many of us across the House had extensive experience in local government prior to entering this place—I had 10 years’ experience of local government in a London borough—and will all have seen the fantastic role that local government can play, connecting communities, responding to concerns, and understanding, often before national Government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. However, as well as seeing that potential, those of us who served in local government will often have seen it held back and felt frustration at communities lacking powers and often funding to respond to social and economic challenges.

Our country differs greatly: local areas and communities are not all the same and they face different challenges. My Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency in Hillingdon in west London is very different from the constituencies of and challenges faced by many other hon. Members. It is right that cities, areas and regions of our country have the ability and the powers, and the funding when necessary, to respond to those issues.

My hon. Friend highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one elected Mayor of London, whose post was created 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Does he agree that, being strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner-city London borough such as mine in Hackney and one such as his in outer London, through measures such as the Superloop? I am sure my hon. Friend has other examples of how a mayor can serve all communities while having a strategic view of the whole.

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. We should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible. Clearly, some powers have to be exercised in this place, at national level, and also at regional level it makes sense to act, and the mayor rightly has the ability to co-ordinate our transport system in London. We do not want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure such as our tube network.

I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), but he had on his feet for over 20 minutes and I decided to give him a break. However, I want to raise that issue now. Much has been made about the conflict of planning—local planning going right to the boundaries, creating issues for infrastructure planning, which often sits at the wider unitary level. Devolution and wider strategic authority oversight, including greater planning oversight, will help to address some of the challenges and stresses we can face. Is that something my hon. Friend sees in the London boroughs?

That is almost certainly true. There are strategic issues that need to be considered, and whether they are strategic powers for planning or licensing, as we are discussing in some of the amendments, there is the need for a greater role for regional mayors and authorities. It is right that local communities can respond to local issues, but there is a need for guiding infrastructure decisions on things such as heating networks, energy networks and data centre networks, and co-ordinating them at regional level makes a great deal of sense. Despite the need for greater decision making at a local and regional level, we still live in one of the most centralised political systems in the western world. Our communities must be able to meet the challenges that they face, and that is why I welcome the raft of new powers in the Bill and the Government amendments. They will drive growth and provide opportunities to respond to new local challenges, now and in the future.

Many of us agree with the concept of genuine devolution and bringing power to communities, but is the real problem not that the measures in the Bill will mean a power grab away from communities, and that Whitehall will be giving directions to local government? That basic contradiction at the heart of the Bill causes so much trouble.

I respectfully disagree. One of the challenges of having one of the most centralised decision-making systems in the world is that we have to decide, in this House, how we give power away and devolve it. To be frank, while hopefully being respectful, we hear a lot from the Conservatives about the desire to empower communities, but their record speaks for itself. The last Labour Government set up the first mayoral authorities, including the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, and devolution to our nations, which has been built on over the years. With this Bill, we are taking another step forward on devolution. The Conservatives talk a good game on this issue, but they had 14 years to act.

The hon. Gentleman did not respond to my offer to come to his constituency for a drink, but he would be welcome in Uxbridge and South Ruislip at any time. It is a lovely place, with many fantastic options for drinks. I do not agree with the Conservatives that every structural change to local government requires a full referendum of current or potential constituents. As far as I am aware, no one voted for the establishment of the current London borough arrangements, or the county council arrangement. Apart from some less positive ones at a national level, I do not remember many referendums undertaken or proposed by the Conservatives about devolution or structural changes to our political system, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are different ways of consulting residents and engaging with communities.

I also voted against, in the alternative vote referendum, so we are united in our agreement on that.

I am a member of a new combined authority in the east midlands and there was no referendum on that. I do not believe that there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire combined authority either. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different ways of engaging on this issue, and that putting councils with local representatives at the heart of that process is a good thing?

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers that are being devolved to mayors, but does he accept that the mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have different powers from the London Mayor? In effect, those mayors will become puppets of central Government, because their local growth plans will have to be signed off by the Secretary of State, whereas the London Mayor is not answerable to the Government. Is that a matter of great concern to him?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Health and Social Care Committee, on which we have had many good and fruitful discussions, but I disagree with him on this point. There are significant steps forward in the Bill in devolving powers to communities at different levels—at individual and community level, as well as at regional and mayoral level. I would say that if we look at devolved regional arrangements, we see that the Mayor of London’s powers have not kept up. Arguably, greater progress has been made with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given his range of powers and the number of areas in which he operates. There are different arrangements in different parts of the country, so I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.

I speak in support of a number of amendments that will give local government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools. These will improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), to which I am a co-signatory, will allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays. For many years, many councils have been calling for this change; during my time in local government, I remember calling for an overnight stay levy. There is a range of reasons why one might want such a levy, and I note the welcome support from Labour Mayors Sir Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotheram. Clearly, tourism has huge benefits for our communities, including jobs, the cultural enrichment of visitors coming to our cities, support for existing and new businesses, and the revenue that tourism brings to our country.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the overnight stay levy, but I would like it to go further. Cornwall relies a lot on our tourism trade, but it brings with it a whole series of costs that are not recognised in any local government settlement. Cornwall is very long and thin, but by geography, it is the largest unitary authority in the country, and it is a very stable unitary authority, having been established for 15 years or so. A lot of visitors come for not one night, but a few days. Does he agree that by restricting the levy to an overnight stay, we would lose the opportunity to build revenue from those tourists who are coming for longer?

Communities in Cornwall, Dorset and Devon, in common with many in London, have experience of the overnight stay and tourist economy, and of the impact on local communities. They know about the powers, budgets and fiscal freedoms that councils and mayors have to respond to the issues. I agree that the levy should be charged per night of travel. One challenge that I have often heard is that if the levy were to apply to the hotel sector or formal visitor stay sector only, and not to the informal sector or the short-term let sector, that might disadvantage important businesses, jobs and institutions, and not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London, and in places like that represented by my hon. Friend.

Talking of the informal economy, Airbnb is a big issue in London. The old-style Airbnb, in which you simply stayed with somebody, has been overtaken, and people are now purchasing flats just to let them out through Airbnb. I believe Airbnb is within the scope of the Bill, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about how this issue should be captured? There are whole developments near my constituency that have been bought just to be let through Airbnb, but we desperately need that housing. We want the levy, which could increase income for councils, but we also need the homes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?

I wholeheartedly agree that that is an issue. As my hon. Friend points out, the short-term let sector is included in the amendment, although I do not think that the amendment will be enough to regulate the short-term let sector more generally; that is a slightly separate matter. The previous Government’s deregulation in this area, with the 90-day rule, has not worked in practice. We all know that, and it has impacted our communities. Lots of data and evidence has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and are now used as professional tourism accommodation. While that is good for the tourist economy, it is bad for our local housing system.

In my constituency, as well as in Camden, Islington, Southwark and other inner-London boroughs, schools are closing, apparently partly because of short-term lets. This does not apply so much in my constituency, but in some areas, the homes are there, but people do not live in them full time, or sometimes at all. Families do not stay there. That has a detrimental impact on the ability of our schools to stay open.

My hon. Friend describes perfectly the impacts that we see. Even in outer London and Hillingdon, we see the impact of the short-term let sector. We see it near Heathrow, which is very proximate to my constituency.

New clause 31 would enable differential charging. It does not mandate what the charges would be, or that one charge would apply to all sectors, so there would be the potential to charge the informal short-term let sector more per night or day than the formal stay sector.

I am quite interested in what my hon. Friend says about the differential approach. As a councillor, I know that Stoke-on-Trent is not necessarily known for its tourism industry, although that is absolutely a failure on the part of the country and of everybody, because we have great tourism attractions in Stoke. I have seen that when we have Airbnbs on family estates, and different people come and go, it creates an awful lot of unrest, antisocial behaviour and real concern about the revolving door of different people, which upsets local residents. [Interruption.] My apologies. Does he agree that the proposed approach would be of benefit?

I certainly agree. The costs that result from the visitor economy are not adequately met by the tax revenue for local authorities or mayoral authorities.

My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, another colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, for his offer to come to the Isle of Wight; I would be very happy to do so. I could experience the ferry issue, which I am sure he will talk about. I agree with his comments.

Revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than funding the local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy. The tourism levy proposed in new clause 31 would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities, and would create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives.

A tourist levy would not be unique to London; British tourists regularly pay a tourism levy when we visit other high-profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome and Berlin, to name just a few. Many will not even have noticed the charge of a couple of euros a night on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not have one in our cities in the UK? The creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers, and none of us would be put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.

A tourist levy would also be fairer to the residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would ensure that visitors paid their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visits to the UK every year, half of which are to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial pot of revenue to improve the experience of residents and visitors alike in London. It could fund and support cultural activities, such as the Christmas and other light displays that we want to see around our city, but that have become more difficult to afford. It could pay for additional security for our town centres and high streets, whether it is Oxford Street or major town centres in our boroughs. It could pay for the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but that has not been delivered for many years.

Through this measure, which has been long discussed but which we have failed to deliver or grasp time and again, we could let areas decide whether to levy such a charge and enjoy the proceeds of that revenue.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Order. The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is seated.

If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?

That is an excellent point well put. Far too often, we see these trends emerging at a local level. We see a new industry using new technology, and we will be tearing our hair out trying to respond with our limited and restricted powers. We try to come up with creative ways around the system to do that and traditionally bang on the door of Government to try to make changes to legislation—as we all know, that can take a long time—while communities struggle with the impacts. This right is an excellent provision in the Bill that will enable Government to work smarter, quicker and more collaboratively with local communities.

Let me turn to the issue of licensing reform, which is also proposed in the amendments before us. London’s hospitality and cultural life is at the very heart of our economy. It is a huge industry and has driven a great deal of creativity and growth throughout our history. Our hospitality, culture and nightlife sectors are critical to the capital’s success and national economic growth, with London’s hospitality industry alone generating £46 billion annually and accounting for one in 10 jobs in the city. Those jobs are right across all our constituencies, in London and the UK too. I have had offers to visit great pubs in the Isle of Wight and in other places, which I look forward to doing.

However, these vital industries are under increasing pressure from rising costs and outdated systems, including our licensing system, which can be inconsistent, lack transparency and be overly weighted towards objections. That is why I welcome Government new clause 44 and Government new schedule 2, which will allow the Mayor of London to set strategic licensing policy that local licensing authorities must take into account when making licensing decisions and setting their own policies.

HMOs are an increasing challenge in all our constituencies—certainly in my own—and they are a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing family homes and selling out rooms—they are even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds—is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes we need.

I welcome the Government’s measures to address the root cause of the problem, but in immediately responding to those concerns I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils have some powers—my own council is reluctantly and eventually getting around to consulting on those proposals after many months—but we need to enable councils to go further and act faster and not have to consult as quickly, or at least to speed things up by allowing shadow licensing conditions before or while consulting.

I cannot help but note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) was concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, which is not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need new homes because individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes? Does he also agree that there may be a contradiction in what the hon. Member for Broxbourne has just said?

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.

Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.

I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.

The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.

I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.

I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.

Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.

I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.

I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech.

My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work.

In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out

“sector skills priorities at the outset.”

That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding.

New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either.

Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact. Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary.

The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.

I rise to speak to new clause 70 in my name. The case for this new clause is clear, because Cornish national minority status must be respected and upheld. Article 16 of the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities states:

“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”

It is perfectly evident that unless new clause 70 is accepted, this Bill is in direct contravention of the convention.

I tabled new clause 28, which would make provision for a new form of regional governance. The explanatory statement specifically mentions that it would make provision for a Cornish assembly. I understand that when the hon. Member was on the Bill Committee, he might have abstained on such a measure. Can he elaborate on his thoughts about what he would like to see at a Cornish level?

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

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

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

It also called on the Government of the time

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

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

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

Similarly, on 19 November he said:

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

However, the Bill does the opposite.

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?

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

The hon. Member speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues that he is raising resonate with me and with my constituents on the Isle of Wight. We are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate in the new combined authority will live and where some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, Isle of Wight council, will instead be exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with the 93% of the population who do not live on the Island. If the hon. Member cannot achieve what he seeks to achieve on the Government Benches I worry about what I might be able to achieve, but it is good to hear another voice speaking about those same issues.

There is a fundamental difference between the position of the Isle of Wight in relation to the mainland and the position in Cornwall. It is the difference between identity and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football team, a pop band or a place, but that does not give it legally binding provision as does national minority status. That is the basis of my argument.

I will, as always, give way to my Cornish friend.

Meur ras! I just wanted to address the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. All six Cornish Members are clear about the fact that, for us, this is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity. It is a positive, forward-looking proposal on behalf of Cornwall, based on our unique cultural and historic past, and it is not born out of anger and resentment: it is important for that to be understood.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we, as a Chamber, do enough to celebrate the diversity of the islands in which we live, and we do not do enough to celebrate the different nations within those islands. It is wonderful to share our cultural identity, our language and our national minority status with people who move to Cornwall and embed themselves in our culture and language. I would encourage them—when, hopefully, they are given the opportunity in 2030-31, if we get that magical tick-box on the census—to tick “Cornish” to denote who they are.

It does not have to be this way. We just have to consider the consequences of a mayoral combined authority shared between—God forbid, although I love them dearly—Devon and Cornwall. How will the taxpayers of Devon feel about funding Cornish language lessons in Cornish schools, Cornish language road signs or Cornish cultural events? I doubt that they will be doing cartwheels.

We stand at a crossroads. I urge Ministers to be bold, be flexible and empower our communities. They should not impose their ideological governance template on us. If the Bill is unamended, its impact will be that Cornwall will be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest levels of devolution, based solely on who we are. That is rank, blatant discrimination, and I cannot and will not accept it. Ministers know all this, because we have had several discussions and meetings to look at the risks. To that end, and with a heavy heart, I have to say to Ministers that I will not support the Bill in its current unamended state.

This should, and I believe still could be, a historic moment for the relationship between Westminster and Cornwall. I urge Ministers to listen to us. Let us make this a historically positive arrangement.

I was fortunate to be part of the Bill Committee for this monstrous Bill—monstrous in size, I should clarify—so my summer was spent digesting each and every clause, and seeking to understand whether it does fulfil its ambitious title and move powers closer to communities. I must be clear that the last Government started the process of creating regional mayors and limiting the ability to access funding through this mechanism. I recall visiting the former Secretary of State in his office in Marsham Street, alongside my then council chief executive Graham Farrant and the former Member for Bournemouth West, to seek the zoning of Bournemouth town centre as the first retail-led investment zone, only to be told that unless I presented it as a devolution programme, there would be no money. We have been here before.

Devolution was expected in this Parliament, though perhaps not in this form, and it does have the potential to improve lives. A problem arises with this Bill, because for many people in England, it gives with one hand and takes with the other. Yes, it shifts some power and money from Westminster to the regions, but it abolishes the very councils that deliver vital services and completely ignores the hyper-local councils that residents know best: their town and parish councils. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), loves hearing my references to towns and parishes.

This Bill could and should be so much stronger. As noted by the shadow Minister, the Bill Committee tabled many sensible amendments, and it is disappointing that so few have been accepted. Let me highlight just a few that sit in today’s grouping. I welcome new clause 29, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which would require mayors and strategic authorities to act in accordance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and other environmental laws.

May I invite the hon. Member to move new clause 29? I do not know if that is possible at this stage.

I am very happy to move new clause 29, should the hon. Member not have the opportunity to—

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.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Without new clause 29, my concern is that a mayor who does not honour the net zero commitments of the councils that sit within their area may undermine those councils’ principles and hard work, which will have been done over many years.

New clause 4, in the name of the shadow Minister, and new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), relate to the community infrastructure levy, which is an important measure that councils rightly need to mitigate the impact of new homes. When residents come to me worried about developments, they are always asking about what will happen with new roads, schools and services, which is why CIL matters so much. However, in Dorset and elsewhere, homeowners have been wrongly charged CIL for extensions and self-builds, with £1.6 million taken in error. Ministers say that the system works, but if so, what do they say to homeowners out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds? Accepting these two simple amendments or introducing clear and robust regulation would reassure homeowners that they will not be facing unfair bills.

I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point.

My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting. I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today.

I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience.

My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution.

New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place.

In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty. The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are.

However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill.

Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors.

The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things.

I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under.

New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse.

Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control. There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.

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?

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

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about his constituents’ need for joined-up transport. He spoke about the ferries, and about buses and trains. This is not just an economic argument; he talked about the importance of people being able to move around and connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health. I urge my hon. Friend to talk about the importance of democratic accountability, and getting strategic transport plans for our constituents across the country.

My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries.

I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island.

Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.

I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.

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.

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I also have ferries in my constituency, but I have not tabled amendments to deal with them in a Bill about devolution. I will return to the Cornish question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—I will call him my hon. Friend. I will concentrate on whether it is appropriate to deal with the idiosyncrasies around the country in the way that he proposes in new clause 70, or in the way that I have done in amendments 175 and 176—our amendments would treat Cornwall as an exception—or whether the issue should be treated as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has done in new clause 28.

I accept that everywhere is special and unique. The question is often asked: why is Cornwall asking for more consideration than other places? The answer is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that special legislation and regulations apply to us; there is our national minority status, recognition of the Cornish language, the existence of the duchy, and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown. Of course, all places are the result of the accidents of history and geography, and in Cornwall, there is a confluence of the two. If we are not to go in the direction of breaking down all barriers and having one world government, with no distinction between one place and another, we must recognise the tipping point—the difference between English counties and Cornwall, which is a rather unique place that, as he and I believe, needs to be given special consideration.

Like my hon. Friend, I describe myself as Cornish and not English. That is not being anti-English; I am proud of my relationship with England, as all Cornish people are, but we as a people have a separate history. We start our contributions to these debates by saying “Meur ras”, to introduce the Cornish language. Although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language now, not many people in Scotland speak Scottish Gaelic, but that is not to say that Scots are less Scottish because of that. The fact is, the last person who could not speak English died nearly 200 years ago.

There has recently been a great deal of coming together to recognise the importance of identity and our Celtic past. Indeed, I have spoken about the Cornish language with Breton friends, and found that there is a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany than between Cornwall and Wales, from which we were separated by the Saxons some 1,500 years ago. Indeed, Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936 because he felt that the Cornish were not worth the effort of inevitable annihilation.

All that history is interesting and relevant, and feeds one’s understanding of who one is, but as I said in an intervention, I am not interested in being backward-looking or insular. Rather than cut ourselves off, we need to cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, and use our identity as a strength that helps us to look forward. Indeed, we had a very welcome statement earlier on the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and Cornwall can and should be looking forward with all our strengths in the space sector, critical minerals and green energy. We have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on what to do.

I totally agree with what the hon. Member is saying. The challenge that I have—he may have found this when he first came to this place—is that I am staggered at how few people here on these Benches understand Cornish national minority status or how important it is to us in Cornwall. I make these references not for him or for people in Cornwall who know this stuff, but more to ensure that the people here get a better understanding of who we are, why we have this separate culture and language and why we are keen for people to come and celebrate it. Does he agree with that approach?

I do indeed. It is the desire of a centralised state to render its dominion homogeneous, and in a nation such as the UK, where the culture has been so centralised for centuries, it is difficult to understand that the process of devolution is about letting go, not about holding on to power. In effect, the purpose of my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) was to point out that, within the Bill, there is still that desire to hold on. In other words, directly elected mayors could become puppets of central Government under this Bill. I fear that that may be the case as a result of clause 38. There is a weakness there, including the possibility of the Government still holding on and controlling the way things go.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and I hope that the Minister will listen. Even if she does not accept these totemic amendments now, I hope that the Government will be listening to Cornwall’s case as the Bill proceeds through the other place.

It has been a long afternoon. I thank my Lib Dem colleagues in Committee who bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like the role of town and parish councils to continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am still a sitting district councillor. District councils play an interesting role when we have town and parish councils because they form the connection between the towns and parishes, the district and the county. Those three layers work together, and they pull in a similar direction when it is working well. I could regale the House with the achievements of Dawlish town council, Newton Abbot town council or Teignmouth town council, or of the various parish councils. They have done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do that when they are part of the process and are able to talk and act with the higher councils as well. What is missing from this Bill is anything like a duty to co-operate between the unitary, the town and the parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a much better conversation.

We have no set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. There are six, or possibly 10, options coming up to the Government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single large unitary replacing the footprint of Devon county council. Something like that would take a localised idea of what was going on in the district councils, for example with five district councillors in Dawlish representing the people in that area, to a far distant control, where there could be two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be difficult to persuade residents that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart. That duty to co-operate is important.

We went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, or Under-Secretary—I am unsure of the best form of address.

The previous Minister.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a long day. The previous Minister was talking about neighbourhood area committees, and yet I was surprised when I looked at the Bill that there is nothing in there about neighbourhood area committees. They are not mentioned in any way, shape or form. Devon is very big at saying, “We’re going to make these neighbourhood area committees, and it is going to really work for you,” but it is not. This is why I have tabled new clause 71, which sets forth the need and requirement for neighbourhood area committees and to make them a statutory consultee within unitary councils because they currently are not.

I used to be a councillor in an authority that had area committees, and we ended up scrapping them because they were not really doing a good job. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that mandating particular governance arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation undermines the principle of devolution and that actually we need to let councils do what is best for their areas?

I agree that we should not be mandating those details. However, we were promised that these committees would perform that function. I say again that a simple duty to co-operate with towns and councils would actually take the place far better.

The other issue in the Bill, again, relates to the larger unitaries not having that localism built in. Should we end up with, say, a single large unitary within Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor national park entirely surrounded by a single unitary council. People might say, “So what?” At the moment, the local authorities surrounding Dartmoor national park appoint 10 people to the authority board, and central Government appoints nine. Consequently, if it is surrounded by a single unitary council, that council will appoint a majority to that board, losing the distinct identity of that agency for managing the national park, with the danger of the unitary’s desires overturning those of the national park with nothing to stop them. Amendments 164 to 167 would address that issue and require attention to the national park governance in the process of creating the new unitaries.

I am glad that those governance arrangements work, but they sound like a nightmare based on hearing that information. Would the hon. Member not agree again that under one unitary council, there can be much more strategic oversight of such a situation? If local residents are not happy with the way that is being managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a simplification, not causing problems like that.

No, the park authority looks after the park with the park’s interests at its heart, and it is not tied to any other overriding interest. For example, if the new unitary needs another road, it might think, “The easiest thing is just to go through the edge of the park,” or “We need some new housing. We’ll just put it in the park.” At the moment, the park is responsible for its own planning; it is responsible for its own destiny. That identity is so important, and that was supposed to be maintained in this local devolution Bill.

I would have loved to have seen the new unitaries have a statutory duty to provide adequate public toilets, but that one was just too far out the way to even try to get it in. At this point, having taken up enough of your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and having sat through a lot of interesting conversations—I will leave it at that—I will call it a day.

I rise to speak to new clause 28. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues who tabled a similar amendment in Committee.

New clause 28 would effectively allow a new form of regional governance. One thing that frustrates me at the moment—it is quite bonkers from a fairness perspective—is that Yorkshire has almost the population of Scotland, the economy of Wales, and a strong sense of identity, but unlike those countries, we do not have anywhere near the level of power. For too long, Westminster has handed Yorkshire crumbs and called it a settlement. There has been lots of talk this evening about regional mayors and powers, but Yorkshire was technically chopped into four different constituent components. Westminster has taken our ability to build across the region and be the real powerhouse that we could be.

My new clause would allow the creation of a Yorkshire regional body, on a par with Scotland and Wales, and empower it with provision of health, education and transport. That would stop holding Yorkshire back and give us Yorkshire folk the tools to do what we know we need to do for our areas. Put simply, it would give Yorkshire solutions to Yorkshire problems.

Currently, the mayoral arrangements across the area are disparate and vary wildly. The Labour Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, has been elected twice on the promise of delivering a franchising of buses, which is yet to happen. We recently got a new mayor for York and North Yorkshire, but we are yet to see any meaningful investment on the ground for local people. I do not want mayors who are empowered to be glorified lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall; I want to see real regional forms of government that empower people on the ground. Compared with other European countries that have meaningful forms of devolution and regional governance, we have a democratic deficit, so why not think big?

On transport, we need to integrate across the entirety of Yorkshire—a transport for Yorkshire that does not simply stop at the borders of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. Investment in mass transit for Leeds, for example, involves the West Yorkshire area. People who live in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency commute, work and learn there, so giving a new regional body that power over transport would make sense. If Yorkshire had those powers and funding already, and people on the ground were in the driving seat and had a stake in the project, a Leeds mass transit system might have actually happened, rather than being endlessly promised, kiboshed, re-promised and then knocked on the head again.

Devolving health powers to a local region such as Yorkshire makes massive sense. Yorkshire Cancer Research, which is based in my constituency, talks endlessly about the poor life outcomes of our region compared with places in the south of England. Why not have people who know best make the key decisions about what health interventions would make sense for our area?

All those points about transport and health seek to fix something that has gone wrong in our system: Whitehall brings us to this place when we would be better off empowering people in our communities to take them forward. The naysayers will say, “It’s just a new form. There’d be more elections and more people involved.” We have seen that in the creation of combined authorities and mayoral authorities. What worries me is the fact that we have ended up with endless strategic directives and chief executives of new organisations. They often kowtow to diktats from Whitehall anyway, so where is the devolution?

I want Yorkshire answers to Yorkshire problems. I hope that other people support that too.

I will focus my attention on my amendment 174, which would ensure that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered when preparing a local growth plan. As it stands, rurality is not mentioned once in the Bill, and the concerns that I raised on Second Reading remain.

The Bill’s overly centralised approach to devolution will once again neglect rural communities. It remains unclear how the specific needs of rural communities will be highlighted and addressed. Eighty-five per cent of England’s land area is classified as rural, but only 17% of the country’s population lives in those areas, and unfortunately that often means that rural areas can sometimes be ignored and left behind. But these areas have specific needs and challenges, and they require strategic support and investment to ensure that they thrive. Rural areas are the grassroots drivers of economic growth, the home of farming, food and drink production and tourism. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton is home to over 800 family farms, and much of the wider local industry is intertwined with food production. Therefore, there needs to be a strategic focus on rural growth to identify what enabling infrastructure is needed to support rural communities with the recent and incoming planning reforms. But this Bill will fail to capture the huge growth opportunity these areas offer unless the Government change track and pay them due regard.

In Somerset, we were set back enormously by six years of council tax freeze during the early 2010s, under the Conservative-led council—[Interruption.] Council tax was frozen for six years, way in excess of what the Government had anticipated, leaving council finances in Somerset in dire straits.

My hon. Friend will know that Somerset county council was near bankrupt in 2018. Indeed, we suffered a lot under the previous Conservative-led county council’s tenure because of its financial neglect. The rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite the significant transformation and savings now being delivered by the Liberal Democrat-led unitary council.

The lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. That has not been achieved in this Bill, but amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, would ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support such amendments to the Bill.

I call the Minister to wind up.

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

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

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will make a little more progress.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

I will make progress.

The hon. Member for Guildford pushed back on commissioners, and I disagree with her amendments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very hard job that we and their voters ask them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by and accountable to mayors, and they will be subject to scrutiny. They are there to bolster the capacity and expertise of the mayor. All we are doing through the Bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team with the right skills and expertise in order to deliver the priorities for local people.

Let me turn to the strong advocacy by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for the tourism levy. Our mayors are advocating strongly for this measure. They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.

Let me pick up on the issue of CIL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and other Members spoke very powerfully about. We recognise that there is an issue here, one that needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution; we will move quickly to do so, and we will set it out in due course. A number of Members also raised the question of the GLA powers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place, and the Bill does not change the current framework.

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?

I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.

Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.

Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.

Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.

I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.

Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.

I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and other hon. Friends for championing the issue. We are clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. That is why climate and environment are included in the competences that will sit with strategic authorities under the Bill. We already have mayoral strategic authorities that are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. We are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are in the vanguard and are pushing, and I imagine they will continue to build on this area as they accumulate powers and more levers over this area.

We support the intention behind the poverty and equality duty, as I said in Committee. We think it is a thread that runs through the Bill. Any mayor and any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and reducing inequality, and the functions within the Bill are the enablers of that.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way, because I think Members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home. I will finish with Cornwall and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). He has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. We recognise Cornwall’s minority status and we will continue to safeguard that. We cannot accept the amendment, because it cuts across the powers that we want to put with mayors. I reassure him and other Members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity in the area.

Will the Minister give way?

I will conclude. We are clear, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, that this Bill is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, our local authorities and our communities. The driver behind the Bill is the principle that if we push power out and locate it in local people, we can drive the change that people want.

I end by saying this: the Bill is a floor, not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started, putting power, agency and resources in the hands of local leaders and communities, because that is how we drive local change that can drive national change. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments to this Bill to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 43 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Licensing functions of the Mayor of London

“Schedule (licensing functions of the Mayor of London) amends the Licensing Act 2003 to confer licensing functions on the Mayor of London.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This inserts new Schedule NS2 into the Bill conferring licensing functions on the Mayor of London.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

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).’”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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