I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The draft regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter, unless there is a reason to be specific.

This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England, and the English devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, as mayors and local leaders are best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. Much of the White Paper has now been taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. In February 2025, following an expressions-of-interest process, we announced six places on that programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. The regulations will establish the strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In so doing, they represent substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.

The Government have worked closely on the regulations with the constituent councils in Hampshire and the Solent. The constituent councils are: Hampshire county council, Isle of Wight council, Portsmouth city council and Southampton city council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of the regulations, and I personally thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

If Parliament approves, the regulations will be made under the enabling provisions of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the 2026 Act do not apply for the purposes of these regulations because of transitional and saving provisions made in a separate statutory instrument: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the regulations are made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.

The regulations provide for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council appoints one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire county council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, there will, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the regulations. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. That majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.

The regulations provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the 2026 Act. On its establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why the regulations confer fewer functions than previous statutory instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that they do confer, which are focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before all provisions of the 2026 Act are in force, and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February 2025 and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted through social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.

A summary of responses, which were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies, has been published on gov.uk. The Government carefully considered the responses, and on 17 July we confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of the regulations, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support local priorities.

The regulations represent clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England, and will make it a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. That will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives of, and opportunities for, their residents. I look forward to the debate, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. The explanatory note was written in the name of the former Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). I am sure that the Minister would give the Committee the same assurances as the former Under-Secretary of State about the provisions meeting the relevant standard.

The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this delegated legislation. We recognise that this is one of a number of such decisions brought forward, at the invitation of the Government, as local authorities have sought to take advantage of what is the only game in town for them to secure the additional powers and scope that a combined county authority will bring. For the record, we remain sceptical about whether a directly elected mayor is the optimal type of political leadership for all parts of England that currently do not have that arrangement—we acknowledge in particular the diverse geography of the area that we are debating—and whether a single elected individual will be in a position to make effective decisions that enjoy democratic support, which is a significant challenge. Although we do not oppose the regulations, we remain concerned about that.

Members will be conscious that a series of local elections took place that will change the political dynamics of the authorities that are set out as party to this agreement, and that those authorities will be subject to boundary changes in future. The Minister will have heard the impassioned pleas, particularly from Members for the New Forest constituencies, to reconsider the impact that those proposed local government boundary changes will have on their local areas and communities. It would be helpful for her to set out for the Committee whether the impact of those changes on subsequent authorities has been considered by the Ministry in its decision-making process.

In the regulations, the proposed date for the new mayoral elections is 2028. Only a short time ago, those mayoral elections were due to take place this year. Across the country, political parties selected mayoral candidates and campaigned, but then we saw the frankly incredible shambles of elections being cancelled and then uncancelled as a result of judicial reviews, with mayoral campaigns being stood up and then stood down, all of which has undermined the confidence of those involved in the process about whether the end point is realistic and deliverable.

The new unitary authorities within the geographical area to which the regulations relate are due to have elections in 2027. Although I am sure that the Minister is not minded to amend the regulations, I would be grateful if she told the Committee whether she will consider amending the legislation so that, instead of having two separate, dissonant sets of elections, the elections that take place under the new arrangements all take place at the same time in 2027. That would ensure a smooth transition from the powers that are about to be removed—such as those of the office of the police and crime commissioner—to the new arrangements that the mayor will bring in, rather than having a 12-month hiatus in the process. It would also give residents the opportunity, within those democratic processes, to give their judgment on the mayoral proposals and the new unitary authorities, which would come into being at the same time. That would save taxpayer money and result in a smoother and more efficient transition.

Finally, the provisions of the 2026 Act include specific prohibitions for those who hold mayoral office from becoming Members of Parliament and vice versa. Will the Minister set out how those provisions will apply to the regulations?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

I recognise that the aim of the combined mayoral authority is to devolve more powers from central Government to a more local level. The Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be devolved to local bodies as far as possible, and the statutory instrument is a step in the right direction. We would like to see more powers devolved in this arrangement, such as the regulation of ferries, which are vital for thousands of residents across the Solent region, especially those on the Isle of Wight. It is equally important to ensure that councils have the resources they need to deliver on their statutory duties and on the additional services that they offer to make residents’ lives easier, better and more fulfilling.

This is a missed opportunity to address the funding deficit faced by local councils, and to deliver greater value for money by encouraging more joined-up working across the local authorities that constitute the combined mayoral authority. In the context of local government reorganisation—a measure imposed on Hampshire councils by this Government as a condition of greater devolution—the mechanisms described in the regulations are unclear. The regulations refer only to the higher-tier authorities: Hampshire county council, Southampton and Portsmouth city councils, and Isle of Wight council. No role is defined for district councils, which are closest to residents.

The regulations therefore disenfranchise district councils and the local voices they represent. Without clarity on future structures, there is a risk that the balance of representation, both politically and by population area, could be skewed, undermining fair and effective governance. The uncertainty around the implementation of LGR is compounded by the illogical introduction from April 2027 of a combined mayoral authority that will not have a mayor until 2028. Surely a combined mayoral authority should have an elected mayor in place from its inception, so that the new mayoralty and the new unitary structures begin together, and residents see a clearer and more coherent transition. Moreover, with the welcome announcement that police and crime commissioners will be abolished, who will oversee police in the local area before the mayor is elected?

We are also concerned about how the combined mayoral authority will interact with local authorities from April 2027, while there are transitionary arrangements in place between the current councils and the future unitary councils. In particular, what formal role will those councils have in governance and decision making for the mayoral authority? That is especially important in the light of the section 24 notice expected later this year, which would require the successor councils to agree certain financial decisions involving land disposals and major contracts.

The Minister may need to consider whether the regulations should provide a formal role for shadow authorities, or whether the section 24 arrangements themselves need to be adjusted. Of course, we must guard against placing too much power in the hands of one individual. Can the Minister assure me that the new unitary councils will be empowered to hold elected mayors to account and will have genuine decision-making powers to pursue the goals of their communities? We also need a commitment to return to a proportional voting system, so that regional mayors—and perhaps even the new unitary councils—are elected with a broader base of support.

Finally, I commend the work of borough, town and parish councils in Eastleigh and across Hampshire. Despite the Government’s continued failure to recognise the important role played by parish and town councils, they do fantastic work on behalf of local residents, and, for many communities, they are the most visible and accessible part of local government. I urge the Minister and the Department to work closely with colleagues and offices across all tiers of local government in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to ensure that local voices are heard and that this transition delivers an accountable, transparent system that works in the best interests of all our residents.

I thank the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh, for their contributions, which were, as ever, helpful and thoughtful. Before we conclude, I will address a couple of their points.

Both Members mentioned local government reorganisation. It is important to say that it does have a purpose. Unitary councils are more effective and able—

Will the Minister give way?

I will finish my point. Unitary councils are able join up services and improve how they respond to the needs of residents. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is free to disagree if he so wishes.

Will the Minister set out the evidence for her statement that unitary councils perform better?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard me say this before, but I grew up in the Wirral. Previously, it was one small council operating under Cheshire county council—nobody has ever campaigned to divide our council again. The same is true just down the road, where Cheshire West and Chester council went through the process back in the late 2000s. Once unitarisation happens, it tends to be supported, with limited calls for its reversal. Sadly, we can see the impacts of the two-tier system today, but we have rehearsed that argument many times, so I will not detain the Committee with it.

Let me pick on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made about the evidence on performance. People might feel a certain way about such local authorities, but following reorganisation, Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council, which the Minister just mentioned, both suffered significant problems with Ofsted inspections and Care Quality Commission inspections of children’s and adults’ social care, requiring significant intervention. It was clear that the disruption inherent in reorganisation had been a major factor in the emergence of those problems. The same was true in Somerset, in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and in a number of other authorities. It would be helpful if the Minister set out the evidence for the performance improvement that she cited.

I respect the hon. Gentleman and his point, but I will not detain the Committee by debating that topic, which does not relate directly to the regulations. I gently say to him that under the previous Government, a lot of the accountability measures for local authorities were taken away. We will reintroduce an outcomes framework and much more transparency about performance, precisely so that we can guard against the issues that he mentions. Reasonable people can disagree, but I will not detain the Committee any further on that matter.

The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Eastleigh both mentioned changing the date of elections. The shadow Minister also mentioned confidence and trust, which we will have to bear in mind when making any further changes.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked a couple of specific questions about powers and other things. I will write to her about those matters, if that is okay. She may not be aware, but strictly speaking, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), would ordinarily have taken this debate, but unfortunately she is elsewhere in the country today. I will ensure that she responds to the hon. Member’s points. In the meantime, I assure the hon. Member that district councils have been fully involved in the local government reorganisation process, and that we have listened and will continue to listen carefully to their representations.

I will not detain the Committee any longer. We have discussed the issues relating to this topic, as we have done before and will do again. I thank all Committee members for participating in the discussion on this incredibly important matter, and I hope they will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.