That's why in the long-term, strategic authorities should be able to create their own SPVs in the same way they can create Mayoral Development Corporations. Clearly decisions with fiscal implications, such as tax and subsidy regimes, would remain under HM Treasury oversight.

But they are often centrally designed, sit outside local democratic institutions and — most importantly — fragment economic policy.

These SPVs are intended to accelerate investment and innovation which is welcome — and they too should have more autonomy to do so, not least until but strategic authorities mature.

At the same time, however, we’ve seen the rapid expansion of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) such as Freeports, Investment Zones, AI Growth Zones and Development Corporations.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will extend these strategic authorities across England, giving them new spatial planning powers and a central role in regeneration.

I agree - would make me question it for the same reason, but I guess it'd be in the design of the process. Plus it exists for Members of Parliament. If there was no genuine and significant wrongdoing, wouldn't the electorate just vote with their feet and not take part in the recall process?

Would the tax raise issues related to Subsidy Control, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? And will it increase the amount written-off for fines given the difficulties of enforcing against non-UK vehicle owners?

2. Given one in four London authorities are in receipt of it, what will its spatial dimension be in 2026-27?

3. Will more local authorities seek it for their the Housing Revenue Account? In what marks a precedent, Lambeth received it in 2025-26 for its HRA.

Is there any polling you'd point to on this, Rob?