English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2025-11-25

Moves the clause for its second reading, highlighting that it aims to protect individuals' privacy by preventing the automatic disclosure of home addresses in public registers. This proposal is part of a broader set of amendments aimed at enhancing community empowerment and local governance.

Mr. Smith argued that the proposed new clauses would strengthen local democracy by ensuring better access to land, green space, and decision-making mechanisms for communities, citing examples from his constituency where these measures have been insufficient.

Mrs. Jones supported the funding requirements in new clause 16, emphasising the need for clear guidelines to ensure local authorities can reorganize their governance structures effectively without delay, referencing similar successful implementations in neighbouring boroughs.

Mr. Green expressed concerns about potential delays in local elections due to insufficient resources and suggested alternative funding models that could better support the implementation of new governance measures without compromising electoral schedules.

Called upon the House to consider new clauses related to local government reform, focusing on issues such as privacy of council members, parishing in England, private hire vehicle licensing standards, and co-operation between public service partners.

Emphasised the importance of protecting councillors' personal information while supporting transparency for public accountability. Cited examples from local authorities where councillors faced harassment due to their addresses being publicly available, and proposed that councillors should have the option to request their address not be published.

Argued for the necessity of establishing parishes across England within a five-year timeframe as per New Clause 63. Provided statistics indicating that over 80% of the population in certain rural areas lacks access to parish services, thereby underscoring the need for broader coverage.

Supported new clauses 67 and 68 on setting national standards for private hire vehicle licensing. Provided evidence showing that inconsistent regulations across different areas lead to a lack of safety oversight, emphasising the need for uniform minimum standards.

Supported new clause 75 on providing professional planning support to town and parish councils. Cited examples where communities have been excluded from neighbourhood plan development due to lack of guidance, leading to ineffective local plans.

Asks if council areas without mayors, or those that may not have a mayor for some time, will still be able to impose an overnight visitor levy.

Advocates for stronger collaboration between local park authorities and unitary authorities. He suggests that the new unitary authorities should not dominate the board composition, ensuring a balanced partnership.

Questions the necessity of additional hurdles for councils operating under a committee system post-moratorium period. She highlights that her local authorities have operated effectively with this model and seeks clarity on why changes are proposed.

Asked the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about tax decisions.

Asked the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about tax decisions.

Replied that tax decisions are for the Chancellor and not to pre-empt them before a Budget announcement.

Expressed concerns about the Bill, stating it centralises power rather than empowering local communities. Highlighted financial strain on councils due to insufficient funding and devolution plans that exacerbate existing issues. Proposed amendments such as new clause 17 to ensure proper funding for councils, new clause 35 to safeguard democratic legitimacy through elections, and other clauses ensuring fair voting systems, councillor training, and protection of parish and town councils.

Supported the importance of maintaining local representation in areas like Exeter and Torbay under new governance structures.

Supports national minimum standards proposed by the Government but calls for restrictions on out-of-area operations to ensure local enforcement. She raises concerns about vehicles licensed hundreds of miles away from their operating area, citing examples like City of Wolverhampton Council and Rochdale borough council. Mrs Blundell proposes new clause 83 that would empower strategic authorities to require locally licensed operators for journeys starting and ending within their areas.

Supports the proposed national minimum standards by the Government but agrees with Mrs Blundell's new clause 83 as it complements these standards, ensuring effective enforcement. He emphasises the importance of local accountability and enforcement measures.

Proposes new clauses to align ceremonial county boundaries in Essex with its historic boundaries, addressing confusion caused by administrative changes since 1965. Also proposes a clause regarding local government administrative issues, highlighting the dissatisfaction of Havering borough's identity being under Greater London instead of Essex.

Supports the idea of withdrawing from Greater London Authority but notes that negative decisions by Mayor of London would still affect his constituency. Emphasises need for fundamental reform of GLA.

Asks if Andrew Rosindell advocates for abolition of the Mayor of London's role, to which he affirms and criticises the re-establishment of GLA under Tony Blair as opposed to its abolition by Margaret Thatcher.

Moves from initial support for new clauses 67 and 68, focusing instead on the national licensing issue proposed in other amendments. Advocates for urgent implementation of these provisions due to safety concerns for passengers.

Intervenes to support John McDonnell's position on national licensing, emphasising the need for councils to regain control over out-of-borough operators and enforce standards effectively.

Al-Hassan spoke about councillor standards, supporting new clause 34 which calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. He proposed going further with a dedicated local council standards Bill that would address accountability challenges faced by town and parish councils, ensuring high standards are maintained as these councils take on more responsibilities in service provision.

Spencer discussed new clause 1 and amendment 2 regarding consent for change, highlighting his constituency neighbour's question about whether Surrey will get a mayor. He emphasised the need to address issues related to local government structure and decision-making processes.

Supports the idea of a mayor for Surrey to unlock devolution, citing benefits such as leading on strategic projects like the River Thames scheme and improving health, transport, housing, and policing. Calls for confirmation of a mayor's appointment and elections next year.

Strongly supports the Bill and its new clauses 49 to 57, which introduce national minimum standards for taxi licensing. Argues that inconsistent local standards lead to cross-border issues affecting driver fairness and passenger safety, with examples from Wolverhampton and Peterborough. Welcomes the measures for national minimum standards but seeks clarification on raising the licensing authority level.

Proposes amendment 34 to strengthen communities' ability to bid for assets of community value by ensuring they have a guaranteed right to view these assets, using an example from her constituency where a parish council was denied access and missed out on purchasing a valued building.

Welcomes the devolution Bill and supports Government new clause 45 and amendments proposed by another MP. No further details are provided in the given text.

The proposal aims to protect councillors from abuse by removing their home addresses from published registers. I support amendment 153, which allows reviews of council structures to ensure better governance for communities.

Devolution may be in the title but not everything lives up to it; many powers are centralised. Concerns about key community assets like theatres, parks and sports fields, which have historically been protected by a two-tier system, need addressing. New clause 10 would ensure that town and parish councils can secure funds for critical local services.

Government amendments 152 and 153 protect the committee system chosen democratically by Sheffield residents, ensuring legal clarity for effective governance. Amendments also support cross-border taxi licensing issues raised by constituents.

Amendments relate to community assets, planning and democratic engagement, designed to strengthen provisions in the Bill for practical community empowerment.

The Bill removes the duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In Stratford-on-Avon, this is a serious concern because not everyone has digital access and older residents rely on print newspapers. Amendment 28 seeks to keep the requirement for printed notices. Amendments 30 and 32 aim to remove automatic expiry of assets of community value after five years. Amendment 33 would give planning authorities special weight when considering assets listed as community values. New clause 6 creates real accountability for absentee owners by giving local councils tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase if necessary.

The Bill strengthens community voice and empowers local leaders in Sheffield. Amendments 152 and 153 allow Sheffield to retain its committee system beyond the protected period, reflecting a core principle of effective devolution: enabling local areas to shape governance structures that suit their needs.

The Bill does not adequately facilitate public involvement and community empowerment. New clause 10 proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19 asks for the alternative vote system to be used in mayoral elections. The amendments aim to protect existing committee systems chosen by people through petition and referendum processes.

Hear, hear! In support of protecting existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process. The Government amendments 152 to 155 do the same.

The Bill is empowering legislation that allows communities to buy and own valued assets. Amendment 107 proposes adding environmental interests when defining assets of community value, ensuring wildlife-rich spaces can be protected alongside economic and social benefits.

Proposes new clause 10 requiring the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, highlighting its benefits for local economy and social value. Cites Plunkett UK statistics on business survival rates and volunteering opportunities. Urges the government to support her proposal.

Supports devolving power to local areas, particularly focusing on new clauses 63, amendments 42, and 150 regarding neighbourhood governance. Discusses the importance of community engagement in consultation processes and suggests that guidance or secondary legislation could enhance accountability in local changes.

Speaks in favour of new clause 38 to prevent developers from downgrading agricultural land to secure planning permission, citing a specific case involving a farmer named Mr Dibble. Emphasises the importance of fair assessment of farmland quality by independent surveyors.

Proposed new clause 38 to give local authorities power to order independent assessments of land quality, enshrine employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions.

Called on Members to support new clause 38 and 17. Proposed new clause 13 to address the lack of substantially new powers for communities, intended to set out plans for a charter of community rights including right to clean environment, healthy home, play, grow food on public land, roam and swim, participate in decisions shaping communities, challenge local decisions.

Supported Chris Hinchliff's proposal for a charter of community rights, emphasising the right to decent housing as a key determinant of public health. He highlighted the importance of restoring power and optimism to communities.

Emphasised the need for common standards across England in taxi licensing, welcoming new clauses 49-57 enabling Secretary of State to prescribe standards. She highlighted issues such as cross-border licensing problems and licence shopping.

Called for the socioeconomic duty to be introduced urgently, emphasising that communities deserve a real say in their places of living with legally enshrined rights.

Calls the Government's poor decisions responsible for unprecedented pressure on local authorities. Points out that housing delivery has collapsed despite planning permission granted. Criticises the lack of a clear vision in government restructuring, suggesting it undermines democratic accountability.

Questions the Minister about how the tourist tax will be brought forward in legislation. Points out inconsistencies between previous statements and current actions regarding the tourist levy.

Asked the Minister to give way but was not given the opportunity.

Committed the Minister's closing remarks and reiterated points made by her colleagues regarding community engagement and governance.

Ms. Franklin supported the introduction of resources and support for local authorities, stressing the importance of ensuring that local elections are not delayed due to implementing this legislation. She highlighted the need for adequate funding and manpower to facilitate a smooth transition.

Mr. Simmonds proposed limiting delays in local government elections caused by reorganisation under this Act, arguing that such delays should not exceed 53 weeks from the original scheduled date to prevent undue disruption.

Proposed amendments related to the audit committee regulations, Mayor of London's responsibilities, and the extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

The Bill cements the Government's commitment to empowering communities, rebuilding local government, and improving public services. It aims to bring power closer to people who know their areas best.

While there is consensus on some objectives, the Opposition opposes the Bill due to its introduction of more bureaucracy, centralisation, new taxes, cancellation of elections, reduction in local democracy, and increased ministerial diktats.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.