PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) - 23 October 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

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

“()ba a single foundation strategic authority.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

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

(a) the deputy mayor,

(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,

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

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

(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Incidental etc provision

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

This is a simple provision. When functions are conferred on, or modified for, strategic authorities in the future, the Government will sometimes need to make technical changes to other pieces of legislation to ensure that the functions conferred on strategic authorities work as intended. That is why the Bill includes this technical clause—it is just a technical clause—to allow the Government to have the power to make technical changes to existing legislation when necessary. The clause will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors are able to effectively exercise the functions, as intended by policy. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Transfer of property, rights and liabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

Clause 54

Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions

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

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

I commend clause 54 to the Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I commend clause 55 to the Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

In my constituency, Stratford-on-Avon district council will be abolished. I worked as a district councillor there, and I know how close district councillors are to their communities. They know their area best, and all that expertise and knowledge will be wiped out. Residents are really worried. For example, they do not want councillors in the north of Warwickshire to take decisions that will affect them in the south. There is a worry among our communities about—

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

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

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

There was a unique circumstance there—

They were going bankrupt.

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

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

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

We are doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is great to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I also wish to speak against this clause and against the Government suddenly pushing through local government reorganisation in this form. Of course, local government reorganisation does happen. Councils can, by consent, currently make such changes. The Government’s imposition of these changes, in a process that seems rushed and top-down to many people across the country, is against the spirit of devolution and against the spirit of the title of the Bill.

I do not believe that the introduction of new strategic authorities demands a quid pro quo of abolishing all remaining two-tier authorities in such a dismaying hurry, and I do not believe that one size fits all. I have served in unitary authorities, and I understand that they can work well. I am not a huge fan of county councils, but nevertheless, it should be up to local areas to do this by consent.

One point that is important to make is that there is no strong case for this change on cost or service delivery grounds. There is no consistent or conclusive evidence to justify a belief that the much larger councils that the Government want will result in services that are cheaper to run. Why even force attempts at savings of this sort now, when local government is still struggling so badly? Research from Unison has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of £4 billion by the financial year of 2026-27, and a cumulative funding gap of £7.4 billion by 2027-28. Let us please fix austerity first.

There are other problems, and I draw on the experience and expertise of the Association of Green Councillors in making these points. With this process, we are likely to see the destructive marginalisation of community identity in many places. There is no serious evidence to back up the choice of target for councils to serve 500,000 people, which Ministers have been asking for in their correspondence to councils. Many people in localities already affected are struggling to see how this will not result in arbitrarily drawn, essentially meaningless sub-county unitary councils with no identifiable sense of place.

Many very substantial towns, with history and a strong identity, often associated with strong values of independence of thought as well as governance, community spirit, welcome, inclusion and mutual support—places that people love—are currently or imminently in danger of being wiped off the local government map. They too are saying we should fix austerity first. The Committee has heard strong evidence of a clear and dramatic reduction in community representation from these changes, and we are already an under-represented population. Look anywhere in Europe or North America and people have far more peers, elected from their community, to represent them in decision making.

Unlike in so many other countries—unlike so many city council members or state representatives—our councillors, although they work hard, do not work as full-time representatives. I see no plans to make these new councillors with extra duties full time. Many existing councillors put in time way over what their allowances might cover, given the poor support and resources they often receive. They are overworked, and the job of councillors in these new super-unitaries is set to become harder if they are to maintain the strong community connections they currently have.

Hard-working local representatives also take on so much casework, helping people directly when public and private services drop the ball and helping them to navigate complex systems. We must not forget the value of a friendly face from the community who just listens and takes someone’s case up in a crisis. Have Ministers considered that the loss of thousands of people doing casework, advice and support work of this kind could have an impact on the caseloads of the hard working and hard-pressed staff and MPs taking up casework in local areas already? Have Ministers considered the impact on local advice services?

Like the hon. Lady and councillors in my area, I too get casework, and one of the frustrations that people have in areas where there are two levels of local government—district and town councils—is that they sometimes go to one council and are told, “Sorry, we can’t do it. You need to go to the other one.” The priority for residents is surely getting things fixed and sorted. Does she not see benefit in having all services under one roof, so that the councillor knows that he can go straight to his officers and get it fixed, without having to say, “Sorry, it’s not my department”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has been a lot of conjecture about what could happen. I am from an area that has a unitary, because the Conservatives bankrupted the county council. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to people who have unitaries in order to fix some of his ideas in some sort of foundation? It is great to hear people’s ideas, but let us ground them in reality.

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

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

I have some evidence on this point: under reorganisation, we actually lost Labour councillors. As the council came together, there were more Conservatives post reorganisation than before, so I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s evidence base for his suggestion that this is gerrymandering by the Labour party.

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In many ways, it is the ultimate Conservative argument that the status quo is exactly right and exactly what we need. Has the hon. Gentleman done any research on public opinion of local government reorganisation in London in the 1960s, or the 1974 local government reorganisation in. I read a leading article in The Times from April 1974 in which there was a criticism of planning being at the district council level and highways being at the county council level, as that created problems between the two. Things change, do they not?

To suggest that the state of local government is optimal as we have it right now seems ridiculous to me. It is divorced from our experience, and many of us Government Members served as councillors. Surely we need to reorganise things so that they can run more efficiently.

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

I thank hon. Members for their robust contributions. I will say a few things. First, we acknowledge that any process of change or reform is difficult. The Government do not underestimate the challenge of the process, but I come to why we are doing this. I made an intervention earlier to point out the state of local government that we inherited. Any one of us will know the huge pressures that local government are under. Fifteen years of austerity and rising demand has made local government increasingly unstable. The status quo is not tenable or sustainable. We have to do something systemic, because we have a systemic issue in local government.

Reforming and reorganising local government will deliver better services, because we can locate services at a level that works for residents. This is not reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake. It will be tough for our areas, but we are doing it because we are trying to ensure that local government services can work for their residents. It is about sustainability. We need to ensure that we have a model of local government that is fit for purpose and can be sustained in the future, because they provide absolutely vital services for residents. It would be completely reckless of this Government to see the state of play that we inherited and say, “We’re going to sit on our hands and not do anything.” That may be the Conservative way, but it is not the Labour way. We are clear that we have to help drive through a process of reform, and we are doing that because we want to ensure that local governments are fit for purpose to deliver those services for their residents.

There is a fundamental point about accountability and accessibility to residents. If we talk to any of our residents, they will say that they barely understand how local government works—who is responsible for what. Creating structures and systems that work, and that our communities can interact with and cohere with, is absolutely right.

We are very clear: this is not a one bullet solution. It absolutely is not. We know that local government reform needs to sit alongside other things that we are doing. We recognise the funding pressure that local government are under. That is why we boosted local government funding last year, and why we are delivering a real-terms increase to local government funding, despite the tough fiscal inheritance from the last Government. We are moving to multi-year budgets because we think that the system of year-by-year funding for local government is madness. We are making that reform. We are also moving towards consolidated budgets. Having lots of silos and funding streams has made it hard for local government to be strategic and to drive integrated services; we are reforming all of that. We are clear that this measure sits alongside all of that.

The final bit is our funding review. We understand that there are huge pockets of deprivation across the country—I come back to the Conservative party, which had a Prime Minister who boasted about the fact that he took money away from deprived areas to give it to affluent Tunbridge Wells. We will not do that. We are trying to recalibrate funding so that we can reduce deprivation and drive improvements across the country.

On the process—just to be clear and put it on record—we have not put a gun to any heads in councils; the Secretary of State has invited councils to put forward their proposals. Areas are now going through a process. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley talked about three proposals in his area; that is because we are making it bottom-up and saying, “Have a conversation about what model works best. We have a set of criteria to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Consult your residents and your stakeholders, and put that proposal to Government.” That is the process that we are undergoing at the moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is related to Amendment 50.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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