Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 307, in schedule 23, page 237, line 9, at end insert— “()ba a single foundation strategic authority.” This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authority to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There was a unique circumstance there—

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward. Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill. Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle. I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert— “(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.” —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 54 Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert— “Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members 5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by— (a) the deputy mayor, (b) a member of the relevant strategic authority, (c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor. (2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including— (a) requirements about the membership of the committee, (b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee, (c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee, (d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures, (e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.” This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority. This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level. I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network. I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for your indulgence on this, Dame Siobhain, because I know that we have had a very long debate on the substantive clause to which it relates. I want briefly to speak to amendments 48 to 51. Most of the amendments are consequential on or directly related to amendment 50, and they are all in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend thinks that this is a simple amendment that goes to the heart of what we were just discussing: the driving force behind devolution should be local situations and the local wants and needs of local people, rather than the standardised, central, top-down approach to local government reorganisation that this Government are advocating and forcing on local authority leaders across the country. Amendment 50 would allow the Secretary of State to invite or direct—the emphasis is on “invite”—an authority to split into more than one single-tier authority. This applies to many of the situations across the UK where there are a number of district councils or county councils that do not want to engage with the Minister’s local government reform, but are being forced to do so, as we discussed in the last segment of this Bill Committee. Local people or a local authority leader could decide to enter into a form of local government reorganisation, but do so in the way that suits them best. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in tabling this amendment, would have been referring to the situation around Bradford. Many people in the surrounding areas and in his constituency have indicated to him that they do not wish to be part of a local authority including Bradford. There is nothing wrong with Bradford—I have been there and it is a wonderful city—but there are two different and distinct types of geographical area within the single area proposed by the Government. The same could be said of my local government situation. Many Members across the House know the distinct nature of Hampshire and the differences in approach to life between the people of Portsmouth and the people of Southampton. They would not necessarily want to be in the same local authority as each other—that is not the circumstance at the moment—but district councils in the proposed reorganisation simply do not want to engage because they want to stand alone to form a single-tier authority, perhaps with some of their partners. One proposal, which would not have met the Government standard test, was for a single-tier authority between Fareham, Gosport and Havant. They should be allowed to do that, but they are not, because of the top-down nature of the reorganisation.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives. We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause. The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals. I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed. For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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