English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2025-11-24

The new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases. This new clause would also disapply CIL from householders extending property for their own use and require mayors of combined authorities, mayoral CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.

The clause would ensure that information regarding the authority's financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner. This includes publishing a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions.

The clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases, which could potentially stifle local democracy. The clause also requires strategic authorities to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.

The new clauses would ensure financial transparency and public trust in the devolution process, requiring mayors of CAs and CCAs to take reasonable steps to make information about financial affairs accessible to local communities.

Mr Goodwill emphasised the importance of ensuring local authorities have adequate funding and administrative support to carry out their transport functions effectively. He noted that new clause 23 would ensure regular reviews of financial needs, which is crucial for areas such as his constituency where significant infrastructure projects are ongoing.

Mrs Healey supported the proposed new clauses, arguing that they provide a framework to ensure effective governance and delivery of essential services. She cited examples from her constituency where better coordination is needed between different authorities for transport projects.

Mr Clark discussed the need for forward planning in devolution, supporting new clause 24 which requires a timeline and strategy for establishing new or expanding existing strategic authorities. He highlighted the importance of local consultation to ensure that these new bodies are well-received by communities.

Mr Tinkler raised concerns about the potential for bureaucratic overreach in implementing new clauses, particularly regarding community infrastructure levy charges and regional governance. He urged caution to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on local authorities.

Mrs Gillan discussed the importance of strategic planning for environmental targets, supporting new clause 29 which requires authorities to contribute towards climate change and clean air objectives. She emphasised that these measures will help ensure long-term sustainability.

Mr Halfon spoke in favour of giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies, as proposed by new clause 30. He argued this would provide a sustainable funding source for tourism infrastructure and services.

New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum. This amendment would require a referendum before any mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority can increase the council tax.

New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors. Grants mayors powers to regulate ferry services, including fare capping.

New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality and climate targets. Requires strategic authorities to operate in line with environmental legislation.

New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor. Allows mayors greater flexibility in appointing deputies.

New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers. Establishes statutory framework for appointment of these advisers, outlining their functions and conduct.

New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority. Allows established mayoral authorities in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement without referendum approval.

New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement. Requires certain decisions of the London Assembly to be taken by a simple majority.

New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions. Gives the London Assembly power to direct and recommend reconsideration of proposed mayor's decisions.

New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform. Requires Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority within six months of this Act being passed.

Suggested new clauses for the London Assembly, consulting on proposed reforms and greater involvement of borough representatives. Mentioned new clause 70 allowing Cornwall Council to apply for ESMA powers, including regulations upon application receipt.

Introduced new clauses requiring consultation on neighbourhood area committees and visitor levies. Also discussed the power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising, emphasising public health considerations.

Introduced new clauses for the abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners in mayoral combined authorities. Stressed the importance of transferring all PCC functions to the mayor and abolishing the PCC.

Proposed amendments to ensure poverty and socio-economic inequality are areas of competence for devolved authorities, allowing local action on disadvantage. Also suggested a requirement for referendums before designating councils as strategic authorities.

Introduced amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils before designating them as single foundation strategic authorities. Also suggested ensuring adequate funding for transitioning designated councils.

Proposed an amendment requiring consultation with National Park authorities if a council within or adjacent to the park is being designated as a strategic authority.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

The amendments propose various changes to the Bill, including requirements for a referendum before establishing combined authorities (Amendments 62 and 106), ensuring adequate funding (Amendment 62), obtaining consent from affected local government areas (Amendments 50 and 171), consulting National Park authorities in certain circumstances (Amendments 164, 171), requiring consultations with councils before proposing mergers or additions to combined authority areas (Amendments 55, 56), removing provisions for the Secretary of State's unilateral powers over combined authorities without local consent (Amendment 20 and others), setting remuneration limits for commissioners (Amendment 24), allowing collaborative working by commissioners across different competences (Amendment 151), regulating micromobility vehicle docking space and obstruction (Amendment 23), enabling local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking as a civil offence (Amendment 35), ensuring elected officials direct civil enforcement powers when exercised by CAs or CCAs (Amendment 74), prioritising planning applications in urban areas with high public transport accessibility for mayoral development orders (Amendment 25), and requiring strategic spatial energy plan and land use framework compliance in planning decisions (Amendment 71).

Concerned about the lack of devolution of accountability and scrutiny alongside power transfer to mayors. Questions if the legislation adequately addresses this issue, using the West Midlands as an example where a mayor has been in place for years.

Questions the Minister's commitment to listening to consultations regarding local government reorganisation decisions. Criticises the Bill’s lack of obligations to reflect consultation responses in final decisions, expressing scepticism over the extent of devolution.

Reiterates concerns about forced local government reorganisations despite local authorities’ reluctance. Challenges Minister on whether the Government will compel reluctant local areas to undergo restructuring, questioning their sincerity in promoting a harmonious process.

Requests additional information from the Minister but no detailed position is provided due to brevity of interaction.

Expressed concerns regarding rural regions being left behind as a result of the bill's provisions for mayoral control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. Asked the minister to assure that mayors will understand how to use their powers in support of rural businesses.

Responded by emphasising the democratic mandate of mayors to respond to local priorities and needs, noting that mayors covering rural areas are working to address challenges in those regions.

Asked if the bill would strengthen the status of assets of community value, fearing such assets might be demolished for new housing development.

Clarified that the bill aims to give communities greater power to identify and protect assets of community value.

Asked if the proposals outlined by the minister would ensure local licensing authorities still play a crucial role in determining which licensing applications come forward, highlighting that such policies can have detrimental impacts on local communities.

Agreed with the hon. Member's point and clarified that while the Mayor of London will have a call-in power for licensing applications of strategic importance, such decisions must still be made in consultation with local authorities and communities.

Asked about the timeliness of decision-making in relation to planning applications and expressed interest in introducing a visitor levy for overnight stays as part of her council's efforts to support the hospitality sector.

Emphasised the government's commitment to delivering pace and strategic clarity in planning, noting that mayoral development orders aim to designate strategically important sites for infrastructure investment. On visitor levies, did not provide a definitive response but noted the potential benefits of generating revenue for the hospitality sector.

Asked about the minister's expectations regarding the new arrangement and its impact on decision-making timeliness, noting that timely decisions are essential for investors and development.

Welcomes the lane rental measure but questions why it applies only to elected mayoral authorities, suggesting that all authorities should be able to use lane rentals for roadworks improvement.

Critiques the Minister's reluctance to accept amendments from other parties and highlights the lack of responsiveness in the Bill. He argues against forced reorganisation by local authorities and emphasises the importance of genuine devolution rather than centralisation.

Compliments the Minister on her thoroughness but questions the absence of detailed regulations regarding neighbourhood panels. He supports his colleague's stance that true devolution should leave decisions to local authorities.

Supports Paul Holmes' critique, suggesting the Bill represents a form of English centralisation and community disempowerment.

Stringer asks Paul Holmes for an example of when a Conservative government gave a veto to a local authority. He questions the assertion that Labour governments never asked for consent before imposing devolution.

Lewis inquires if the Government might consider having district councils represented on strategic authorities until all changes are completed, as a compromise to ensure local representation and trust within combined authorities.

Holmes argues against excessive remuneration for commissioners and supports new clause 2 which limits the council tax precept powers of mayoral combined authorities, ensuring they are subject to the same constraints as other local councils. He criticises the Government's policy on increasing council taxes without accountability.

Eshalomi questions whether the Labour government should have addressed the issue of regressive taxation, specifically council tax. Holmes agrees that the current situation is problematic and supports his new clause as a step towards addressing it.

Holmes discusses the community infrastructure levy and argues for a new clause to exempt homeowners from CIL when extending their own homes. He criticises local authorities that charge CIL unfairly on such extensions.

The official Opposition have tabled amendments to the Community Empowerment Bill. The Bill does not deliver true devolution as it lacks clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding. It is a patchwork of ideas without proper democratic structures.

The Bill outlines some powers going down to local communities with community empowerment as its title. The Committee heard from the CIL Injustice group, which represents homeowners unfairly charged for home extensions and self-builds due to administrative errors.

New clause 25 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges, addressing technical errors that cause unfair charges. The Bill lacks fiscal devolution for local councils.

New clause 31 would give mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation in their area, allowing funds to go directly to local councils. This is a positive step towards fiscal devolution.

Government amendment 149 would grant the Greater London Authority new powers to acquire land for housing and regeneration, aligning with the Homes for London package. The Committee calls on the Government to publish an impact assessment.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled around 120 amendments to strengthen provisions and introduce safeguards in the Bill, aiming for genuine devolution. The Bill allows mayors to appoint unelected commissioners, which is centralisation masquerading as reform.

The speaker argues against unelected appointments to public services, supporting amendment 85 to prevent such appointments and proposing new clause 14 for elected representatives carrying out policy. He calls for nitrogen dioxide inclusion in air quality provisions and emphasises the need for proper resource allocation to address health inequalities. Concerns about town and parish councils' roles being overlooked are also raised.

Supports Government new clause 44, giving powers to the Mayor of London for strategic licensing policies. Discusses challenges in Hackney with pavement licences, temporary event notices, and funding issues. Emphasises the need for a cost-recovery model for enforcement and support for businesses while addressing local authority deficits.

My concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard.

Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?

I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.

Commends the Government’s intention to empower communities but argues that referendums should be allowed for local government reorganisation. He cited concerns from constituents about being absorbed into larger city councils and facing higher council tax without representation.

Expressed concern over the disjointed attitude of the Government towards referendums, questioning why they are happy to keep referendums for local authorities but not allow them for forced reorganisation. Supported the amendment by Mr Bedford.

Praised colleagues from different parties and thanked those who worked on the Bill, highlighting amendments that sought to change how mayors think about environmental responsibility. Mentioned lane rental schemes and thanked industry bodies for supporting his work.

Supports the Government's Bill as a step forward in devolution. Suggests an economic development area for the south midlands region to ensure investment is not lost. Criticises the lack of strategic leadership in the region.

Proposes new clause 5 and amendment 27 for meaningful devolution involving local councils, public service partners, and town/parish councils. Emphasises the role of these councils in decision-making processes.

Supports Perteghella's amendments and expresses concern over the sidelining of town and parish councils despite taking on more assets from district councils due to local government reorganisation.

Mr Reader agrees with Dr Gardner on the need for further improvements in the Bill to address regional disparities. He mentions a similar issue in Northamptonshire, where there is a significant difference in life expectancy between urban and rural areas.

Mr Holmes criticises Dr Gardner's stance on devolution, suggesting it imposes changes against the will of local authorities who oppose reorganisation. He questions why there is no respect for the democratic decisions made by local councillors.

Mr Cocking argues that the Bill fails to give local people a genuine say in their area's future, despite Government assurances. He emphasises that strategic authorities or new bodies should not be created without local consent and criticises the lack of flexibility in the reorganisation process.

Mr Holmes reinforces Mr Cocking's point by questioning why Government commitments to consultation are undermined with backstop provisions that force through changes regardless of local opinion. He calls for the Government to listen more closely to people who oppose reorganisation.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne argues that the Local Government Bill fails to empower local councils and instead keeps power in Whitehall, citing specific examples of constituents' concerns regarding economic growth, infrastructure deficits, and devolution issues. He supports a number of amendments aimed at giving more powers directly to councils, including provisions allowing referendums on combined authorities and greater input for neighbouring councils on large-scale developments.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip highlights the importance of practical solutions to issues such as abandoned shops, economic growth, and housing shortages, suggesting that the Bill does not adequately address these problems. He contrasts this with a pro-growth local council in his constituency which has delivered on its targets.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East voices concerns over the imposition of a new mayor and combined authority structure, arguing that this fails to respect local identity and community desires, particularly in relation to the Isle of Wight.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley criticises the Government's approach to devolution as overly focused on form rather than function, pointing out that Labour tabled amendments in Committee to strengthen devolved powers and improve local governance structures.

Dr Gardner highlights the interlinking of shared services in rural areas such as Staffordshire and argues that these collaborations contribute to development, citing specific examples like shared services between Stoke-on-Trent city council and Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Paul Holmes questions the Government about debt implications in local government reform and expresses uncertainty over how councils with significant debt will be affected by reorganisation mandates, suggesting that this lack of clarity hinders progress on the Bill.

Joe Robertson intervenes to discuss an example from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight where ferry companies are entirely privatised, unregulated, and controlled by private equity groups. He argues that this situation represents a missed opportunity for the Government to regulate fares through the mayor’s office.

Danny Beales welcomes the Bill, advocating for decentralisation of power while acknowledging the challenges faced by different communities. He supports regional mayors’ strategic oversight in planning and infrastructure decisions.

Agrees there are different ways of engaging on the issue but questions whether referendums were held for combined authorities.

Questions if mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have similar powers to the Mayor of London, expressing concern over potential central government control over local growth plans.

Agrees with Danny Beales but argues for extending the levy beyond overnight stays. Emphasises Cornwall's reliance on tourism and its economic challenges.

Raises concern over Airbnb affecting housing availability in London. Suggests short-term lets negatively impact local communities, schools, and housing needs.

Supports the differential approach to tourist levy but notes issues with Airbnbs causing unrest and antisocial behaviour in places like Stoke-on-Trent.

Concerned about Airbnbs' impact on small hoteliers. Suggests tourism levy would be fairer for residents, ensuring visitors contribute to city upkeep similar to foreign tourists.

Not specified in the text; no position given.

Supports right to request powers through this Bill, seeing it as a pathway for mayors to quickly address issues like tourist levies.

Concerned about the need for more powers over houses in multiple occupation to address antisocial behaviour and parking issues.

Questions whether there is a contradiction in views expressed by other MPs, suggesting that new homes are needed for individuals currently living in HMOs.

Supports the hon. Member's points regarding utility companies causing roadworks without due consideration and lack of coordination.

Moon argues for new clause 70, which aims to ensure respect for Cornish national minority status under the Council of Europe’s framework convention. He warns that unless this clause is accepted, the Bill would be in contravention of international agreements. Moon stresses the importance of protecting Cornwall's unique cultural and legal standing by preventing it from joining a mayoral combined authority.

Gordon inquires about Moon's thoughts on establishing a Cornish assembly. He mentions the possibility of creating new regional governance structures, including a mention for a Cornish assembly in his amendment.

Moon clarifies that he is not necessarily advocating for an assembly but rather seeking to ensure that Cornwall council retains its current functions and power. He cites effective management of economic development funding and housing initiatives as evidence of the council’s capabilities.

Holmes questions Moon about assurances given by Ministers regarding Cornwall's status and whether these have been satisfactory.

Moon expresses disappointment with the current Bill, arguing that it disregards Cornish national minority status and could lead to long-term negative consequences for Cornwall’s relationship with Westminster. He also mentions potential implications of passing an unamended bill on Cornwall's future political standing.

Robertson supports Moon, highlighting similarities between issues faced by Cornwall and his constituents on the Isle of Wight regarding forced integration into larger administrative units.

George intervenes to stress that the proposal is positive and not rooted in resentment or isolationism, advocating for a celebration of Cornwall's unique cultural heritage.

Moon reiterates his call for respect of Cornish national minority status and the necessity for devolution policies that do not undermine local identities or fiscal autonomy. He concludes by urging Ministers to be flexible and responsive to Cornwall’s unique needs.

Slade critiques the current Bill for undermining local councils while attempting to devolve power. She recalls previous efforts to secure funding through devolution programmes, noting a lack of success due to restrictive conditions.

Berry invited Vikki Slade to move new clause 29 and emphasised the importance of mayors honouring net zero commitments. She also supported amendments that address socioeconomic inequality, poverty reduction, and environmental duties for new combined authorities. Berry proposed her own new clause 29 to require mayors to support principles in the Climate Change Act 2008, Environment Act 2021, Ella’s law, and Zane's law. She intends to press this clause to a Division, advocating for clear climate, nature, and clean air duties.

Mr Philp called for amendments to ensure local growth plans help protect culture in a strategic way. He mentioned working with the Music Venue Trust and highlighted issues faced by grassroots music venues due to business pressures, unfair rates valuations, and planning/licensing issues.

Mr Robertson spoke about new clause 48 regarding ferry services connecting communities in the context of train and bus regulations. He emphasised the principle of fairness for residents relying on privatised, unregulated ferry companies due to lack of competition. He urged Government to regulate ferry services and devolve management to mayoral authorities.

Mr Holmes supported Mr Robertson's position and highlighted the local Conservative mayoral candidate's interest in similar regulatory powers.

Dr Hudson emphasised democratic accountability and the importance of strategic transport plans for constituents, supporting Mr Robertson’s argument on ferry regulation.

Perran Moon agreed with Andrew George, stressing the importance of raising awareness among MPs about Cornwall's national minority status. He highlighted the challenge in educating peers about this unique status and its relevance to Cornish identity.

Martin Wrigley discussed the need for a duty to co-operate between unitary, town, and parish councils. He argued that removing the role of town and parish councils could undermine local governance and identity, particularly in areas like Dartmoor national park.

Sam Carling raised concerns about mandating specific governance arrangements within legislation, arguing that it undermines the principle of devolution. He suggested that central oversight could be more strategic and that local residents can hold councils accountable through elections.

Tom Gordon proposed a new clause allowing for regional governance in Yorkshire, similar to Scotland and Wales. He argued for greater power and autonomy for Yorkshire to address local issues effectively without disparate mayoral arrangements.

Proposes an amendment to ensure rural areas are considered in local growth plans, highlighting that rurality is not mentioned in the Bill. Emphasises the need for strategic support and investment in rural communities to address specific needs such as broadband connectivity and public transport infrastructure.

Expresses concerns about the financial crisis councils face, citing Somerset's situation where six years of council tax freeze under a Conservative-led council led to dire straits. Advocates for amendments ensuring sufficient funding and administrative support for mayoral combined authorities.

Holmes criticised the Government for forcing local government reform on unwilling authorities. He questioned whether the Government would compel local authorities to reorganise despite their reluctance.

Fahnbulleh argued that reform is necessary due to the previous Conservative government's stripping of local authority investment. She emphasised the need for mayors and strategic authorities to have adequate resources, ensuring new burdens are offset by capacity funding.

Morton requested a point from the Minister but was not given time. Her position is not elaborated in detail within the provided text.

Fortune urged for expanded power of scrutiny bodies to match expanding mayoral powers, particularly focusing on London's governance model and its effectiveness over 25 years.

The speaker opposed new clause 2 of the bill which limits increases in mayoral precepts according to similar principles limiting council tax increases. He argued that such a restriction would limit the flexibility of local authorities to respond to specific regional challenges and might not be suitable for all areas.

The speaker supported new clause 29 which mandates strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to contribute towards climate change, clean air, and environmental targets. She emphasised the importance of aligning all functions with statutory climate and environmental acts, ensuring that decision-making is environmentally sustainable.

The speaker proposed an amendment to remove clause 9 of the bill which grants mayors power to appoint commissioners. She argued against granting such extensive powers, expressing concerns about overreach and potential misuse of authority.

Proposes amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, aiming to remove requirements for local planning authority consent and enable a single document publication for written representations. Emphasises strategic importance of applications in urban areas.

Proposes an amendment requiring mayoral development orders to prioritise applications based on urban density, public transport accessibility, and previous land development status. Seeks to ensure strategic planning aligns with sustainable city growth.