PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) - 21 October 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

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

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

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

I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 364, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17 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.

I am a little confused, Dame Siobhan, because amendments 352 and 353 are in the same grouping. I am assuming that you will return to 353.

I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion who has also signed amendment 364, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Amendments 364 and 365 are a simple pair of amendments; they are identical in wording, but one applies to a county combined authority and one to a combined authority. It really is quite straightforward: economic growth should not be off the back of public health and environmental damage. If a local authority is going to drive economic growth by, for example, creating a large industrial estate that will damage air quality or create incredible congestion, it is not paying attention to the environmental factors.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that all those things form part of a decision on a planning application. However, if this Government are genuinely committed to their international and national obligations on climate change, and if they are committed to reducing health inequalities, in which we know air quality is a major factor, it seems a small thing to make these amendments, which would assure that mayors—who may not have the same commitment as the Government to protecting air quality and our environment—must identify the contributions.

Interestingly, schedule 19 provides that the local plan must include all the economic factors and list their impact. Adding environmental factors would be a minor change. We will press the two amendments to a vote.

I share the hon. Lady’s concern and her view of the importance of environmental and climate change targets. The economic plans of any strategic authority must be compatible with our legal targets for those core considerations.

National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us. I refer the hon. Lady to the local growth plans that are already in place and the actions of mayors who are already in place, which show that a regard for climate change and air quality obligations is a driving force.

There is a big difference between what has been done by mayors who have gone before and creating mayors across the whole country. The new mayors will have very different backgrounds and landscapes, both geographical and political, to deal with. The word “hope” has done a lot of heavy lifting today, and although I also hope that all these mayors are as great as some of the mayors who have gone before, the Minister has more confidence in them than I do. Legislation is there to ensure that we are not reliant on the good will of hard-working people in political posts, and to protect us from people who may achieve political office and then seek to create something that we will have to undo, at great cost to our economy and health.

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point. Mayoral strategic authorities are already subject to the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets. We have seen that mayors have complied with the duties on local authorities around air quality and producing air quality action plans. Those have shown to be effective in London. The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy. We will reflect on the guidance that comes alongside local growth plans to ensure that, across the piece, those national obligations are reflected in every tier of Government. The hon. Member has my assurance that we will reflect on it, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, so that our commitment to this is on record. I hope that the Minister will take onboard that this is done in good faith.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, 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.

These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy.

Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area. Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs.

The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.

Is there evidence that existing mayors—such as the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough or the Mayor of North Tyneside—are not considering rural communities in their work, which would suggest that we need the amendments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.

I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities.

There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that.

Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.

I would like to press amendment 359 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 19, page 201, line 6, 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.

Amendments 52 and 53 are about funding strategic authorities for the local growth plans. I apologise to Committee members—they are going to get bored of hearing me say the same thing—but the point I am trying to make with these amendments is that we are pushing huge amounts of responsibility, cost and activity into a space that does not yet have clarity about how that will be paid for.

As we all know, our local authorities are at breaking point, with many of them expecting to make section 114 declarations within the next 12 months. I am deeply concerned that additional responsibilities to help to fund a strategic authority above them—they will have to pay in through a levy but they will have only minimal involvement in the decision making coming back down—will put them under more pressure.

These amendments are designed to make that point, to probe the Minister and to ask for further consideration about how the Secretary of State can assure local communities, who will be paying for these authorities, that there will be sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge the functions involved in the preparation, publication and delivery of the local growth plans. There is no point in having a fantastic plan if it cannot be delivered, or if the organisations beneath the strategic authority have just gone bust.

I have said it before: the money is coming either from levies, from precepts, or potentially from grant funding through central Government. These amendments are really about probing to ask whether these growth plans will be coming with the money attached to them so that local areas, wherever they are in the country, have a fighting chance of producing a really good growth plan that benefits every resident within their area. That is why I have tabled these amendments: to try to draw a bit more out of the Minister.

I thank the hon. Lady for these probing amendments. Again, we had a debate about this earlier in Committee. Let me put on record that we are clear that, if we are asking strategic and mayoral strategic authorities to drive this critical function, they must have the capacity to do that job well. It does not serve them, the Government or their constituents if they do not have the capacity and capability to do that well. That is why we are, for example, providing capacity-building funding for mayoral strategic authorities, so that they can not only set up but do some of the core enabling functions, such as producing plans, well and effectively.

As I said, the principle holds that capacity-building support must be there to ensure that strategic authorities can do their functions incredibly well, but I do not think it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill, not least because we already have the spending review process where strategic authorities set out their demands, ambitions and resources, and have a conversation with Government about ensuring that they are adequately resourced.

The principle of capacity building is therefore absolutely clear and firm, and is designed into the way we are trying to drive the legislation forward. Putting it on the face of the Bill would be too prescriptive when there are already processes in place to enable it to happen.

For clarity, at the point of the spending review when Departments are given their spending powers, are we to expect the strategic authorities to be separately and directly given a settlement each year, or will that be over a three-year period in the way that local authorities are given that settlement? I just want clarity that it is a separate pot of money from local authority funding, because I would not want to see them have to fight like rats in a sack with the mayoral authorities above them.

The process in practice is distinct from the local government funding settlement. Established mayoral combined authorities are all going through the integrated settlement process, which is a negotiated process where the demands and ambitions of the mayor are weighted against the funding in Government Departments that we have provided with an integrated settlement. That is being rolled out among established combined authorities.

For other mayoral combined authorities that are not established, the process in practice has been, “This is what we have tried to do in our area. These are the resources, and this is where we can use, for example, the mayoral precepting power,” and then there is a conversation with Government to enable them to do what they want. We are moving towards multi-year settlements, because we think that is a better way to run the public finances. The principle of multi-year settlements applies to local government and across Departments, and will apply in the context of mayoral combined authorities.

On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Government amendment 171.

There are quite a few amendments in this grouping, and all are broadly technical, clarifying and consequential amendments. Government amendments 172, 181 and 190 are consequential amendments that expand the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities agreed with mayoral strategic authorities. The change reflects the original intention set out in the White Paper to apply the duty to arms-length bodies.

Government amendments 174, 182, and 191 simply clarify that public authorities that operate GB-wide or UK-wide may be specified in regulations as subject to the duty to have regard, and that the duty will apply only to their activities in England.

Amendment 171 agreed to.

Amendments made: 172, in schedule 19, page 201, line 8, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.

Amendment 173, in schedule 19, page 201, line 11, after “of the” insert “mayoral combined”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 201, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”

This ensures that where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the local growth priorities of mayoral combined authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.

Amendment 175, in schedule 19, page 201, line 18, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 201, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 177, in schedule 19, page 201, line 26, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

I beg to move amendment 178, in schedule 19, page 201, leave out line 28.

This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.

The Government amendments we just discussed enable the Government to specify a broader range of public bodies in secondary legislation, to reflect the original intention of clause 38 and schedule 19. To avoid inadvertently curtailing the effect of those amendments, it is necessary to remove the restrictions on specifying a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department in regulations. Government amendments 178, 186 and 195 will have the effect of allowing the Government to specify in regulations Executive agencies and non-ministerial Departments. This reflects the duty as proposed in the White Paper.

Amendment 178 agreed to.

Amendments made: 179, in schedule 19, page 201, line 37, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.

Amendment 180, in schedule 19, page 203, line 2, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 181, in schedule 19, page 203, line 3, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.

Amendment 182, in schedule 19, page 203, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”

This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities of mayoral combined county authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.

Amendment 183, in schedule 19, page 203, line 11, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 184, in schedule 19, page 203, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 185, in schedule 19, page 203, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

Amendment 186, in schedule 19, page 203, leave out line 21.

This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.

Amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 203, line 30, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181.

I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 19, page 203, line 35, at end insert—

“(4A) In section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations)—

(a) in subsection (5)(a), after ‘subsection’ insert ‘(8)(ab) or’;

(b) in subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—

‘(ab) under section 32C(2);’.”

This provides that regulations made under new section 32C of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill, are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The amendment provides that regulations that specify the relevant public authorities that must have regard to shared local growth priorities agreed between the Government and mayoral combined county authorities are subject to the negative procedure. Use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for these regulations. The amendment will enable us to introduce the duty on relevant public authorities in the most efficient way.

Amendment 188 agreed to.

Amendments made: 189, in schedule 19, page 203, line 37, leave out “bodies” and insert “authorities”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.

Amendment 190, in schedule 19, page 203, line 39, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority.

Amendment 191, in schedule 19, page 204, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.”

This ensures that where a public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the shared local growth priorities for Greater London will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England.

Amendment 192, in schedule 19, page 204, line 12, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.

Amendment 193, in schedule 19, page 204, line 13, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.

Amendment 194, in schedule 19, page 204, line 20, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.

Amendment 195, in schedule 19, page 204, leave out line 22.

This means that a Minister of the Crown or government department can be specified in regulations as bound by the duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities.

Amendment 196, in schedule 19, page 204, line 29, leave out “person” and insert “public authority”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 190.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.

I know that the Committee agrees on the need to boost economic prosperity—there is broad consensus on that—and to do it in a way that reflects national and, critically, local priorities. Although many places have a plan for growth, there is no consistent requirement for places with a mayor to do so. Currently, only London is required to set out a strategy for its economic development, and we can see how London’s economy has benefited over the decades. Where places have taken the initiative, their plans do not have consistent central Government backing.

Schedule 19 will change that by creating a process for all mayors to agree local growth priorities with the Government. It will provide a common approach for mayors outside London to set out their priorities and investment opportunities in their local growth plan. Mayors up and down the country have given their backing to local growth plans, and we are already seeing this in practice. We have already agreed shared local growth priorities with the 12 longest established mayoral authorities, but agreeing and publishing shared local growth priorities is not enough. Mayors need to know that these priorities will be acted upon, which is why we will require public bodies to have regard to them at key points.

The approach will ensure that everywhere with a mayor has a clear plan for growth and economic prosperity in their area, whether that is a local growth plan or the economic development strategy for London. Crucially, it will ensure that the priorities we agree with mayors have Government backing, with relevant public bodies alert to them, so that all levels of government can pull in the same direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 19, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 39

Local Government Act 2003: expenditure grant

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

Often, funding held by combined and combined county authorities is best used by local councils to deliver their responsibilities. Consistently throughout our proceedings, I have said that the mayor is only as strong as its partnership and relationship with the constituent authorities that have to drive the delivery. That is why the clause will standardise the power already held by most existing combined and combined county authorities to pay grants to their constituent councils.

The ability of combined and combined county authorities to pay their constituent councils is vital to the smooth running of transport, for example. Constituent councils are the highways authority in their area, with the duty to manage their road network and deliver highways maintenance; the authority therefore needs a power to fund them for delivering those key functions. We understand highways authorities’ need for sufficient funding to deliver against their duties, which is why clause 39 requires combined or combined county authorities to have in mind the necessity of ensuring a council has enough to deliver its highways functions when paying grants.

I welcome this provision. It is hugely important that money can flow in both directions, but there is one glaring omission, and the Committee will know what it is. The clause gives the strategic authority the power to pay a grant to a constituent council, but not to a town or parish council.

It may be that a town or parish council is fulfilling one of the areas of competence for the strategic authority. For example, under clause 2(g), public safety, a town council might be running CCTV or paying for community safety accreditation team officers. Under clause 2(e), environment and climate change, that parish or town council might be delivering solar insulation or be rewilding. I did not table an amendment on this, but might there be a drafting error in not allowing the strategic authority to pay a grant to an organisation associated with a constituent council? There is an opportunity there to use our town and parish councils in this way.

I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular.

The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.

I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors

I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, 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 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. If she likes

“piña coladas, and gettin’ caught in the rain”,

may I suggest that she looks no further than the Piña Colada festival in Northwich, which is delivered by Northwich town council and adds £500,000 to the local economy? I completely agree with her about the contribution that town and parish councils can make with stuff like this, but she would place a duty on the mayor that they “must” consult, and not all parishes are the same. Will she comment on that?

I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.

In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.

The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?

As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.

My problem with the hon. Lady’s argument is that her amendment states:

“Engagement…must include…consulting town and parish councils”—

not “can include”, but “must include”. Of 300 parish councils, some might be home to only 150 people and some to 20,000 people, so they are completely different. I do not think that “must include” is appropriate.

The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing

“tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”.

The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished.

Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning. That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority.

The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided. That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive.

New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities. Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies.

Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.

On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—

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

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

One coalition.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

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

“with town and parish councils”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would. One thing that the Bill does create is a statutory duty for Government to respond to formal requests from mayors for new powers—the right to request. Calls for any new fiscal powers should be made through that process. The Government propose to take account of the impact of visitors on local authority areas through the fair funding review. That point has been made by local authorities and by Committee members, and we are doing so to account for the fact that visitors—

I fear I am about to be told off by the Chair, but—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister has just taken an interest. I welcome the Minister’s comment that the impact of visitors will be taken into account in the fair funding review. It is really important to add that that affects the fair funding review for our police authorities, as well as our local authorities.

There are already mechanisms to enable places to introduce overnight stay levies through the accommodation business improvement district model, as the hon. Lady mentioned. With that, and allowing that this good Committee is not the Chancellor, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the amendment.

I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. On a point of clarification, it was suggested earlier by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that I am now in favour of a mayoral combined authority for Cornwall. For the record, I would like it to be known that I am not.

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

Clause 41 requires that strategic authorities work with the local government pension scheme to identify and develop suitable investment opportunities. The local government pension scheme already plays a vital role in supporting local growth, with a portion of its £400 billion in assets invested in local projects. Such investments must of course provide a suitable return to pay pensions while also contributing to local prosperity, including through affordable housing, clean energy and local regeneration.

Although some combined authorities already maintain productive relationships with their local government pension scheme funds, clause 41 ensures that that collaborative approach becomes standard practice, embedding local government pension scheme engagement into local investment planning. That will not be a one-way responsibility. The Pension Schemes Bill introduces a corresponding duty on local government pension scheme funds to work collaboratively with their strategic authorities. Those reciprocal requirements are designed to foster key partnerships between the two parties to unlock investment in local growth and deliver benefits to communities across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Miscellaneous local authority functions

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20

Miscellaneous local authority functions

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

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

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

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

Amendment 197 agreed to.

Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43

Health improvement and health inequalities duty

I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 43, page 44, line 14, 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.

Amendments 247 and 248 are similar to those that we tabled on other issues. They seek the assurance that combined authorities will have “sufficient financial resources” and “adequate administrative support” to fulfil their duties on health and health inequalities. I will not repeat myself, because we have a lot to get through this afternoon, but I will add that there is a real risk that more and more responsibility is going to the strategic authorities from other Departments. The Department of Health and Social Care is under huge financial pressure, but it would be remiss if this responsibility were moved across to a strategic authority without sufficient funding. I am assured by the Minister of sufficient capacity-building funding and an integrated settlement for these organisations in future. I trust—I need some assurance—that that will include sufficient funds to take account of the health inequalities in our regions. If that happens, I will be happy not to press the amendments.

I reiterate the assurances that I have given. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, where strategic authorities take on new functions and duties, they have the resource and capacity to do so. That could mean: providing capacity funding to the strategic authorities; ensuring that the budgets necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are committed to are in place through the process of devolution, or, ultimately, when they become established combined authorities, through the integrated settlements. I again put that reassurance on the record.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 43, page 44, line 24, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 263 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”.

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the hon. Lady for the intention behind the amendments. I completely understand her key points. I think there is consensus that tackling health inequalities and their determinants is a key priority, which is why we included this clause in the Bill. We have deliberately drawn from the well-established approach in the Greater London Authority, which names “prosperity” among the general health determinants. It is deliberately broad so as to encompass a wide range of things. Our intention is not to establish an exhaustive list here, but to ensure that we cast the definition broadly enough to cover the issues of poverty and inequality that the hon. Lady raises.

There is a gradient across society for the determinants of health inequality, and my concern is that if we were to replace “prosperity” with poverty and inequality, we would cast the definition too narrowly. The broader “prosperity” definition captures poverty and social inequality, but it also captures other critical factors. Although we absolutely agree with the intent, we have tried to craft the legislation in a way that is broad and permissive, but that critically draws on the experience and track record of the Greater London Authority. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I hope we see some measures coming through from the Minister, particularly in regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, 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.

I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech.

My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants.

My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments.

The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough.

I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report:

“Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.”

According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas.

It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today.

Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality.

Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments.

The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery.

In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.

I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought.

We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable. As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone.

By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones. They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.

I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.

Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.

Will the Minister clarify how the list in clause 43 as it stands was put together? It is bizarre that the use of tobacco and those kind of lifestyle choices are somehow explicitly listed, when environmental factors as a whole are left out.

Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas.

We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government.

However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.

I thank the Minister for her comments. I cannot accept that a detail such as tobacco use was put in, and standards of housing as a result of Awaab’s law and the things have gone on there, and yet environmental factors have not yet been included. I am determined that they should be, and I still intend to push this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert—

“107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy

(1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB.

(2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—

(a) directors of public health within the authority area;

(b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area;

(c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area;

(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and

(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

(3) The strategy must—

(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;

(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—

(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,

(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);

(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and

(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.

(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—

(a) life expectancy,

(b) healthy life expectancy,

(c) infant mortality rate,

(d) rates of obesity and overweight,

(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and

(f) suicide rates

within the authority area.

(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—

(a) household relative poverty rates,

(b) employment rates,

(c) relative child poverty rates,

(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,

(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and

(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.

(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).

(7) A report under subsection (6) must—

(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,

(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and

(c) be made publicly available.”

This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.

Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”.

The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

I go back to the core principle underlying the duty. We believe that a driving purpose of the strategic authority should be to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities, so we are absolutely aligned with the intent behind the amendment, and nothing in the Bill prevents local partners from agreeing to align on an area-wide approach or strategy. We are very clear that we must allow combined authorities and county authorities local discretion to decide the best way to fulfil the duty and deliver for their communities. We do not want to overprescribe or constrain local thinking and innovation—indeed, many local areas throughout the country are well ahead of the national Government in some of their thinking in this area.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, 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,”.—(Siân Berry.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 44, page 46, line 2, at beginning insert—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations require that”.

This amendment would ensure the powers for mayors to exercise Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) functions across 2 or more areas must be approved by Parliament.

Amendments 21 to 23 relate to the integration of police and crime commissioners into the strategic mayoral system. They are quite straightforward, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations and thereby ensure more parliamentary oversight of the inclusion of the police and crime commissioners, given that this is such a fundamental change in so many areas.

I am upset that established authorities in several areas have already taken on those roles, but many of the strategic mayoral authorities are brand-new organisations that will potentially be taking on functions way beyond their scope. They will also potentially be taking on police and crime functions that run across completely different policing and crime areas with different strategies and ways of working in terms of police and crime panels and their scrutiny. We believe that to do that through the proposed process will produce a rushed system. I commend the Minister for her decisiveness, but sometimes it is better to pause and take a slower approach to bringing together those organisations, rather than rush the process.

We are already seeing huge changes to our integrated care boards, with many being abolished. Rather than alignment, we see some coming together for financial reasons or for convenience. There is a real risk that trying to do all of that in harmony ends up not with the right outcomes but ones that suit the creation of a very simplistic jigsaw. Most of the mayors will be taking on roles that they have never performed before. We feel that it is time to pause, slow the pace and ensure that this has more parliamentary oversight.

The purpose of the provision in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State the power to make that transfer in a way and at a time that makes sense. Whether with regard to the electoral timetable or to issues of deliverability and the viability of the transfer, the Secretary of State’s ability to take a view and set a future date is why we have provided that power to mitigate the issues the hon. Lady is concerned about. The default should be that the police and crime commissioner function sits with the mayor where the geographies align. That is an important principle as we build up the mayoral strategic authorities across the country.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

I beg to move amendment 198, in clause 44, page 46, line 29, leave out “fire and rescue” and insert “police”.

This would correct the reference in the second sentence of new section 107FA(4).

This basket of amendments seeks to correct drafting errors, including inconsistencies and inaccurate references, to ensure that the Bill functions as intended. Amendments 202 and 203 are consequential to Government amendments 77 and 80, which the Committee passed when it voted on clause 11 on the mayoral precept. They ensure that mayors’ police and crime commissioner functions are ringfenced as a separate component from other functions.

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

Amendment 198 agreed to.

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

“mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA”

and insert “combined authority”.

This would correct an inconsistency.

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

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.

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

This would correct an inconsistency.

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

This would correct an inconsistency.

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

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

Clause 45

PCCs and police areas

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

The clause sets out the functions of a police and crime commissioner that a mayor will exercise where they have been transferred under the Bill. The clause also amends the Secretary of State’s existing power to alter police force boundaries by order, so that orders can be made at the same time as the transfer of the police and crime commissioner functions to a mayor. These would be used where a local case had been made to change the boundaries to facilitate a transfer of the PCC function.

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

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

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will speak to the specific amendments, then come to my hon. Friend’s important intervention about Cheshire and some of the specific challenges that we face there.

It is worth noting on amendment 26 that the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the deputy mayors for policing and crime are supportive of this measure. Deputy mayors for policing and crime are already making a difference in areas such as West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. They are driving through improvements in their local police forces, fostering collaboration and doing the role that we absolutely need them to do.

On my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire’s important point, because we are not working from a blank piece of paper, and because there are complexities around the boundaries, we are trying to be sympathetic, sensitive and mindful. Obviously, the strategic intent of Government is to ensure that, when there is a transfer of police and crime commissioner functions, that is not to the detriment of the functions on the ground, because we absolutely need those to hold out. We are therefore having specific conversations with Cheshire and Warrington, and the local leaders in that area have raised the specifics of the PCC function. We will work with them to come to the best solution and resolution—one that has no detriment to the constituent authorities involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21

Functions of police and crime commissioners

Amendments made: 205, in schedule 21, page 206, line 9, after second “the” insert “police”.

This clarifies that “the Area” means a police area. This amendment is connected with amendment 206, which deals with the case where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas.

Amendment 206, in schedule 21, page 206, line 11, after “commissioner” insert—

“; and, in a case where a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023), this Schedule applies separately in relation to each of those police areas and ‘the Area’ is to be read accordingly”.

This clarifies that where a mayor exercises PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, “the Area” here means each of the police areas (rather than the area of the combined authority or CCA).

Amendment 207, in schedule 21, page 209, line 41, at end insert—

“(j) a person who is the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.”

This would prevent a deputy mayor for policing and crime for one police area from being appointed as the deputy mayor for policing and crime for a different police area.

Amendment 208, in schedule 21, page 213, line 4, after “if” insert “—

‘(a) after subsection (1) there were inserted—

“(1ZA) If a combined authority or combined county authority meets the eligibility condition in relation to two or more police areas (see section 107FA(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or section 33A(4) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023)—

(a) subsection (1)(b) does not apply; but

(b) a person is disqualified from being elected to the office of police and crime commissioner for any of those police areas at any election unless, on each relevant day, the person is a local government elector in at least one of those police areas;

and for that purpose a person is ‘a local government elector in’ a police area if the person is registered in the register of local government electors for an electoral area in respect of an address in that police area.”;

(b)’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This provides that, where a mayor is to exercise PCC functions in relation to two or more police areas that together make up the area of the combined authority or CCA, a candidate is disqualified only if the person is not on the electoral register in any of those areas.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Twenty First schedule to the Bill.

The schedule sets out the content of the new schedule 10A that will be inserted into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. It provides that once the functions of a police and crime commissioner have been transferred so that they are exercised by a mayor, there will no longer be a PCC for that police force area, which I know the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will be delighted about. It also explains how mayors are to exercise PCC functions where functions have been transferred.

I beg to move that this schedule stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 21, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 46

Functions of fire and rescue authorities

I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 46, page 51, line 10, leave out from “for” to end of line 14 and insert—

“the whole of its area if the Secretary of State designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that area in accordance with section 1A(1);

(g) a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA is the fire and rescue authority for a part of its area if the Secretary of State—

(i) specifies that part of its area, and

(ii) designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that part of its area,

in accordance with section 1A(2) and (3).”

This would enable the Secretary of State to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority for its area or part of its area. Amendment 212 makes further provision about these powers.

This cluster of amendments to clause 46 allow a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral county combined authority to take on the role of a fire and rescue authority, where appropriate.

These amendments strengthen the fire and rescue provision in clause 46. They give the Secretary of State the power to designate strategic authorities as fire and rescue authorities. They also ensure that where strategic authorities cover more than one fire and rescue area, they take on responsibility for all fire and rescue authorities in their area.

Collectively, these amendments provide consistency and prevent fragmentation of governance, by requiring mayors to cover all fire and rescue authority areas within their boundaries, creating stronger accountability across local areas.

Amendment 209 agreed to.

Amendments made: 210, in clause 46, page 51, line 17, leave out from “for” to second “a” and insert—

“an area by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or (g),”.

This is consequential on Amendment 209.

Amendment 211, in clause 46, page 51, line 23, after “the” insert “combined authority or”.

This corrects an omission.

Amendment 212, in clause 46, page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 52 and insert—

““1A Designation of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs

(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the whole of its area.

(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) by order specify a part of the area of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, and

(b) by order designate the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the specified part of its area.

(3) But, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred by subsection (2) in relation to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA (the “relevant mayoral authority”), the Secretary of State must ensure that those powers are exercised so as to secure that—

(a) two or more parts are specified under subsection (2)(a) which, when taken together, consist of the whole of the area of the relevant mayoral authority;

(b) the relevant mayoral authority is designated as the fire and rescue authority for each specified part;

(c) all of those designations come into effect at the same time.

(4) Accordingly, where the powers conferred by subsection (2) are exercised in relation to the relevant mayoral authority—

(a) there are separate fire and rescue authorities for each area specified under subsection (2)(a);

(b) the fire and rescue authority for each of those areas is the relevant mayoral authority.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the name by which an area specified under subsection (2)(a) is to be known.

(6) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make consequential alterations to any other—

(a) section 1A(2) area,

(b) section 2 combined area, or

(c) section 4 combined area.

(7) The alterations that may be made by virtue of subsection (6) include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of such areas.

(8) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make provision for the abolition of—

(a) a metropolitan county fire and rescue authority,

(b) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2, or

(c) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies.

(9) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 52 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (incidental etc provision) for the purposes of, or in consequence of, an order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) relating to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA and particular area includes—

(a) provision for functions of a fire rescue authority to be exercisable in relation to the area by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA during a shadow period (and not by any fire and rescue authority by which those functions would otherwise be exercisable),

(b) provision for those functions to be exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA;

(c) provision about who is to scrutinise the exercise of those functions;

(d) any other incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision.

(10) In this section—

“section 1A(2) area” means an area specified in an order under subsection (2)(a) (including such an area as varied from time to time);

“section 2 combined area” means an area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, or used to be, constituted by a scheme under section 2 (including such an area as varied from time to time);

“section 4 combined area” means the area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, used to be, constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies (including such an area as varied from time to time);

“shadow period” , in relation to provision made in accordance with subsection (9)(a) in relation to a particular area, means a period which—

(a) ends when the designation of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the area takes effect, and

(b) is no longer than one year.””

This would make further provision about the Secretary of State’s power to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority (see Amendment 209). In particular, subsection (3) would ensure that, where the area of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is to consist of several fire and rescue areas, it must be the fire and rescue authority for all of those areas.

Amendment 213, in clause 46, page 52, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 53.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would be consequential on Amendment 209.

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 46, page 53, line 15, 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.

I should probably declare a personal interest—my father spent his life as a London firefighter throughout his career; I was a member of the local fire authority, and I have spent a lot of time talking to and engaging with the fire and rescue services. That was not because I managed to set my bedroom on fire as a child—although I did—but because fire safety has always been a lifelong passion of mine.

I am troubled that the Bill rolls fire and rescue services into the role of a mayor. That may be a great idea; in some cases, I know that fire and rescue services have come together with police and crime. However, the amount of attention that this Bill gives to fire and rescue, and indeed the comment made last week when I asked questions about the precepting and the funding of fire, which suggested that it was outwith the scope of this Bill, makes it feel as though fire and rescue are an afterthought. It feels as though the work of the fire and rescue services is not being given enough attention and that there has not been real thought about how they can best be delivered.

Fire and rescue authorities around the country are doing a really good job in supporting our services, often on tiny precepts, and in dealing with big, and changing issues. Wildfires around my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency have been horrific this year, and we have just put in for Bellwin funding. The proportion of energy that is used in dealing with fires that are usually human-caused and flooding, which is also related to climate resilience, has gone through the roof.

To add fire and rescue services in as a couple of pages in a large Bill feels inadequate, which is why we are looking to ensure that regulations made under clause 46 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and why we are seeking more parliamentary scrutiny and energy around bringing in the fire and rescue services, particularly where they do not align.

My area is likely to be Wessex, if we get into the next round, and it will probably cover three different fire authorities. As well as having to get two or three different police authorities together, we will now have to get two or three different fire authorities from the police authorities. Adding the clause in at this stage is complicated, and sticking it in as two and a half pages of a Bill feels inadequate. Therefore, we ask that regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure and receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to put on record that the Government absolutely recognise the vital role the fire and rescue authorities are playing across the piece; there is a huge amount of work going on in my Department to ensure that they are fit for purpose, that they are resourced and that they can continue to evolve. The Government believe that the negative procedure is the right and proportionate route for these regulations. The powers here in the Bill are simply technical powers, enabling powers that are already conferred in legislation for the fire and rescue authority functions to be transferred. That is why they take up such a small proportion of the Bill—it is a technical change rather than a substantive one, which exists already in legislation.

It is important that there is a timely transfer of these functions so that mayors can deliver joined-up services without lengthy procedural hurdles. Subject to clause 46 standing part of the Bill, Parliament would have already approved the principle of mayors exercising fire and rescue functions. This part of the Bill makes that transfer live and real. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole appreciates the care that we certainly have around the fire and rescue service and that there is much wider work going on outside the scope of the Bill about how we ensure those services are fit for purpose, and will therefore withdraw her amendment.

I would have loved to do that, but I feel that this transfer needs to be a deliberate and active thing. I spoke to my chief fire officer, who seemed completely oblivious to what is going on. If our chief fire officers are not really aware of what is going on, then more needs to be done, and therefore I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 220, in schedule 22, page 234, line 12, at end insert—

“LDEDCA 2009

1 (1) LDEDCA 2009 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 107D (delegation of functions by the mayor), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 107DZA.’

(3) After section 107D insert—

‘107DZA Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions

(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the combined authority.

(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 107D(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 5BA.

(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the combined authority” means—

(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the combined authority has by virtue of an order under section 105A (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or

(b) functions which the combined authority has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’

LURA 2023

2 (1) LURA 2023 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

(2) In section 30 (functions of mayors: general), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section 30A.’

(3) After section 30 insert—

‘30A Limitation on delegation of mayoral functions

(1) The mayor may not make an arrangement under section 30(3)(a) or (b) for the exercise of any fire and rescue functions of the CCA.

(2) The power to make an arrangement under section 30(3)(ba) is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.

(3) In this section “fire and rescue functions of the CCA” means—

(a) functions of a fire and rescue authority which the CCA has by virtue of regulations under section 19 (and here “fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), or

(b) functions which the CCA has as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.’”

In new sections 107DZA and 30A, subsection (1) would prevent the mayor from delegating fire and rescue functions to a deputy mayor or another member or officer of mayoral authority; and subsection (2) would replace wording in clause 9(2) and (5) (see Amendment 68 and Amendment 69).

As the Committee has previously discussed in the context of consequential amendments 68 and 69 to clause 9 of the Bill, Government amendment 220 ensures that responsibility for fire and rescue functions sits directly with the elected mayor. The mayor can delegate those powers only to the public safety commissioner and not to deputies or officers, which strengthens accountability. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 220 agreed to.

Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47

Mayor with PCC and fire and rescue functions

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

The clause introduces alternative ways by which a mayor or strategic authority may exercise fire and rescue and police and crime commissioner functions introduced by the Bill. The Government aim to establish mayoralties with the full range of powers and responsibilities wherever possible. The clause enables the Secretary of State to authorise a mayor of a strategic authority to delegate fire and rescue authority functions to a chief constable and to authorise that chief constable to further delegate fire and rescue authority functions to police and fire rescue personnel. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Sharing of information

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

Strategic authorities have a number of responsibilities in relation to public safety, something that I know Members across the House care very much about. The Bill deepens those responsibilities. The clause brings combined and combined county authorities into a group of public sector organisations that can receive information in relation to crime and disorder. It also places a duty on the combined or combined county authority to share information about crime and disorder with other public sector organisations as required, and vice versa. That will empower the combined and combined county authorities and partner organisations to develop intelligence, make informed decisions and implement appropriate responses to crime and disorder issues such as crime prevention. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 49, page 54, line 30, 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.

Amendments 3 and 9 would require that, when a mayor or a mayoral strategic authority wishes to obtain more powers, those powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is fairly common practice for Members to be called into a Statutory Instrument Committee to make changes to such things. If we are going to ensure full transparency and ensure that mayors do not exercise powers beyond what seems appropriate, there should be some level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 3 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek Parliament’s approval through secondary legislation before implementing those requests. We do not believe that decisions around funding and changes of law should be made without that oversight and approval. It is hugely important to maintain the highest level of democracy; to remove that would be a missed opportunity. We therefore ask that the legislation should be protected from abuse whereby future Secretaries of State could implement requests without laying them before Parliament.

I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts.

I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues.

If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve.

If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence.

The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups.

That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue.

The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill.

New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge.

The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally.

I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.

I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those.

We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important.

In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process.

I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities.

We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority.

Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level.

Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge those mayors who are seeking greater powers to continue to do so, and to talk about it in the public sphere, as they have done?

I must tell the hon. Lady that I can barely hold them back. Our mayors are pretty independent-minded and robust, and they are very clear when they want a particular power. They run effective campaigns and they are very good at advocacy, so I do not think the Government need to—or indeed can—tell them what to do. They are very clear about the powers they want; they build consensus among all their partners to ensure that they apply maximum pressure on Government to respond effectively to the right to request, and rightly so. That is the case now and I suspect that, once we give them legal powers in this Bill, it will continue to be so.

I am content that the scope of the amendment may have been broader than intended in terms of some of the minor things that a local authority may wish to do, but I ask the Minister to keep in mind the larger-scale changes that may be required, which really should come with some form of Government statutory intervention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

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

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

I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and all hon. Members for the swift and substantial progress we have made on the Bill today. I am grateful for everyone’s patience and the constructive way they have engaged in debate.

The devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition for devolving real powers to local communities. That is why we are taking the power to add new functions to the framework, which will ensure that strategic authority mayors have the powers they need to deliver for local people. The Government will not be taking those decisions in isolation; any new functions added to the framework will be subject to votes in both Houses of Parliament and to consultations with the mayor, the constituent councils and the body currently holding those functions.

It is important that the governance arrangements within strategic authorities enable local leaders to make effective decisions to deliver for their people, so the Government are taking the power to modify governance arrangements where necessary. In some cases, the best way to bring about real, substantive devolution across the country will be to test it in one or two places first. The Bill therefore allows the Government to confer or modify functions on a pilot basis, which will enable local leaders to innovate in order to deliver the best outcomes for their citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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