PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025 - 9 July 2025 (Commons/General Committees)

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 June 2025. This Government have emphasised our commitment to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, and this instrument provides for the implementation of the devolution agreement that was confirmed on 6 March 2024 between the previous Government and the three councils concerned. I am pleased to say that in May 2025 all three councils consented to the making of this instrument.

The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The regulations will come into force the day after they are made and confer housing and regeneration functions on the respective local authorities, as agreed in the devolution agreements. Accompanying the regulations, we have laid a report, under section 17(6) of the 2016 Act, providing details about the public authority functions, including regeneration functions held concurrently with Homes England being devolved to the authorities.

Additional funding will be available for the areas through the adult skills fund, devolved to the councils from the 2026-27 academic year, as well as the education skills functions. The Department for Education will work with the councils to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria. We will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that they are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each of these areas.

In December 2024, the three councils submitted supporting information on their potential use of proposed functions, including feedback gathered through their engagement with local stakeholders. The outcome of that engagement demonstrated local support for the conferral of the new functions upon each of the councils, and in laying this instrument before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2016 Act are met, namely that making the regulations is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant local authority areas.

In a sense, these are legacy agreements made under the previous Government that we are keen to honour. We know that councils worked in good faith when preparing their devolution agreements with the previous Government, and we want to ensure that—notwithstanding the transition period following the English devolution and community empowerment Bill—we can honour those arrangements as much as possible. It is accepted that we are in a period of significant transition for local government in England, both in reorganisation and the creation of new combined authorities in these areas, but we do not think that is a reason in itself to hold back powers.

If the point comes when these areas receive a mayoral strategic authority, as it will be known under the new Bill—the Houses of Parliament need to go through the process of confirming that position—the powers will be conferred, alongside a range of other powers, which would be quite normal. I should say that nothing will be presented to Parliament in the English devolution Bill that cuts across what we now consider to be the foundational agreements that are in place. We would encourage willing local authorities to collaborate and come together, even if that is without a mayor being in place, so that further powers can be devolved to current local authorities.

I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?

I can check that particular point about the role of district councils in authorising. It may be that we follow up with officials on that point. I would also add that areas in Surrey are part of the accelerated timetable for local reorganisation, and we are now out to consult on the final proposals that have met the statutory test that we set out. We are in that statutory process and that will move to shadow elections for the new unitary authorities as early as May next year. At that point, there will be a transfer of power and responsibilities across to the new unitary councils, and at that point we will consider new SIs that transfer the powers from the existing council structures to the new unitary councils as they come into force. It may well be that, later, there is a devolution agreement set across that bigger geography that we then return to as part of a second SI. We are in a period of transition, and it will take time. We did not believe that it would be right not to fulfil the agreement of the previous Government with the councils that have acted in good faith, notwithstanding those transitional arrangements.

That brings me back to the statutory tests. It is our belief that the economic, the social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant areas will be met. I thank local leaders and their councils for their hard work in the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution in their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister set out, each of these agreements was negotiated between the then Conservative leaders of each of these councils and the previous Conservative Government. Having engaged with those individuals, I know that they are positive about the fact that this statutory instrument has been introduced for agreement.

I have a couple of questions, some of which stemmed from the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne and for Spelthorne. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there have been elections in some of the areas since the initial agreements were negotiated. We know that is not the case for Surrey, but there have been changes in Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire, although Buckinghamshire continue to have a Conservative leader.

The Minister set out that consent from the authorities was granted in May 2025, which is also when those elections took place, and it would be helpful, particularly in respect of Warwickshire, where there has been a change of leadership, if he provided an assurance that the revised leadership of the council is still supportive of the devolution deal that we are due to agree.

Some other questions have emerged. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to how things would pan out in relation to the powers of mayoral strategic authorities. In the context of devolution, authorities are seeking an assurance that the exercise of those powers will remain subject to an appropriate level of local democratic oversight after reorganisation. I am conscious that ministerial directions could be used to instruct the local authority to conduct itself in a certain way, when that may not be what was envisaged when the original agreement was drawn up.

Finally, to the point about the consent of districts and boroughs, regulation 4 says that the consent of those districts and boroughs will be required for the exercise of any of these functions. The Minister can be very clear about that, and it would be helpful if he could set out in what circumstances the Minister may provide a direction to a district or borough to agree to, or to provide consent to, one of those functions. That potentially would circumvent the local democratic control that was envisaged. I am grateful to the Minister for honouring the commitments that have been made. For the most part, these provisions are politically non-controversial and are seen very much as beneficial regardless of who is in control of the local authorities, but I know that colleagues would appreciate it if he provided clarification on those points.

I thank the shadow Minister for his usual approach, which is to be supportive of devolution, and for his recognition that when we make a commitment to a local area, it is important that we act in good faith, notwithstanding the changes we have seen. In a sense, that is how we have tried to approach the most recent elections, with some quite significant change in some parts of England, in the make-up of councils and in the priorities of the leadership of those councils. I can confirm, however, that in the cases we are discussing, consent was sought from the councils before the elections, but we received notification afterwards that they were content to proceed. On that basis, we confirmed the position.

On the district councils, it is important to say that the district councils in the areas under consideration are the planning authority. Their role as the planning authority does not change, notwithstanding the powers being granted for things like compulsory purchase. I confirm for the record, however, that those powers can only be used with the consent of the district council; they cannot be used if the district council does not agree. We expect—it is not an unreasonable expectation—that local authorities will work together with the new powers to ensure that local people feel the benefits. I hope that is helpful.

On the point about the transfer of existing powers, it is easiest for us to refer to them as a foundation agreement—the start of an agreement of devolution and the first rung of the ladder. We of course encourage all areas to come forward that expressed an interest in further devolution. We are in a period of transition and are about to table the English devolution and community empowerment Bill in Parliament. We will need to allow Parliament to run its course and to consider the Bill in the usual way, but notwithstanding that, we want to see a standardisation of devolution across England.

I will be careful not to be too critical about what we have had before, because I do not think that devolution would have grown the way it has were it not for the flexibility in reaching agreements. That was part of a necessary process to develop, to get people to support it, but it is also fair to say that as we build out devolution, there needs to be consistency in the type of powers, the duties and responsibilities, and the funding arrangements, and there needs to be transparency about how much is given to each area.

That will give clarity to areas that are trying to assess whether they believe that mayoral devolution is the right move for them. Some might well decide that it is not the right time and that they want to stay longer with a foundation agreement. From a Government point of view, we will support that, if it is the right thing for that area. Likewise, however, they might well see the powers in the new Bill and say that those are worth accepting a mayor for, even if at the moment there is not yet such agreement.

This is very much a Government who are open to listening and working with local areas. If there are any places that want to have conversations about further and deeper devolution, our door, here and everywhere, remains open for that. We will say more about the expansion of devolution in England over the coming days on that basis.

With your permission, Sir Edward, I think I have covered the points that have been made. I can confirm to hon. Members that this instrument delivers a commitment made in the devolution agreements with Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire to confer housing and regeneration functions on each local authority.

Question put and agreed to.