(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:45 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 5 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 8 agreed.
19:19 - Division on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 45 agreed.
Lord Freyberg
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment adds tourism to the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence for strategic authorities.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to be the opening speaker on the first day of Report on the English devolution Bill. I begin by acknowledging the Government’s significant new amendment, Amendment 2, which adds “culture” to the list of “areas of competence”. This is a hugely important and very welcome step forward, and I thank the Government for addressing what has been a clear gap in the Bill. In doing so, I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Minister herself, her officials and others across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Griffin and Lady Prashar, whose efforts have helped bring this change about, and without whom this omission might well have remained.
The Minister will know that we would ideally have preferred a wording in Amendment 3. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to explain the importance of the inclusion of the arts in this context, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to speak to the significance of heritage in his amendment. In supporting Amendment 2, I also support the Government’s Amendment 42, which increases the number of commissioners that a mayor may appoint from seven to 10. I also support the related Amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment. This change is sensible and proportionate. If we are recognising additional areas of competence, it follows that mayors should have sufficient flexibility in their leadership structures to reflect those responsibilities, provide subject matter focus where needed, and ensure that new competencies are not merely symbolic but can be exercised effectively.
I turn now to my own amendment. I have brought Amendment 1 back on Report as I am seeking further clarity following the Minister’s answer in Committee, and because the Government’s new Amendment 2 raises related questions about how the framework of completeness will operate in practice. I am therefore grateful to the Local Government Association for its briefing and for its support of this amendment.
My amendment is narrow and practical. It simply clarifies that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it on the ground. The Local Government Association has been clear that, within the structure of the Bill, the most coherent statutory home for tourism is economic development and regeneration where it aligns with the visitor economy, place-making and local growth.
The Bill recognises this to some extent. Clause 41 extends powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. As the Minister explained in Committee, combined authorities and combined county authorities may use these powers to support the visitor economy, host events and attract people to their areas. However, as the LGA has pointed out, that clause reflects a relatively narrow understanding of how tourism policy works in practice. In reality, the visitor economy is closely connected to transport, to regeneration and to wider economic strategy. Therefore, greater clarity in the competence framework would help authorities make full and confident use of their powers.
This is why I was somewhat surprised by the Government’s Amendment 128, which moves Clause 41 to a later part of the Bill. That change risks creating the impression that tourism is being treated as part of culture, rather than as a core element of economic development. Without explicit inclusion, tourism risks falling between stools: assumed but not fully recognised.
That matters in practice. Tourism is a major economic driver, as we know, and the Government’s decision to introduce powers for an overnight visitor levy reflects the importance of the visitor economy to local growth, regeneration and place-making. It also illustrates why tourism sits most naturally within economic development. The success of the visitor economy depends on the strength of the wider offer, including cultural and heritage assets, which attract people to the place in the first instance.
As these new levy powers develop, I hope that some of the funds raised will be used to sustain and improve that offer, since visitors are unlikely to come to theatres, museums, arts centres and historic sites if there has been no investment in them. All this underlines that tourism policy does not stand alone but must be planned alongside regeneration, transport, culture and local growth. Ensuring that tourism clearly sits within economic development would therefore help strategic authorities take that joined-up approach.
Against that background, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking. In particular, do they intend tourism to be understood primarily as part of economic development and regeneration, as local authorities currently treat it, or do they envisage it sitting alongside culture, following the restructuring in the Bill? Given the breadth of the competence framework, will the Government consider issuing non-statutory guidance after enactment, developed with local government and the sector, to clarify how these boundaries are intended to operate in practice?
My amendment does not seek to change the architecture of the Bill; it simply reflects how local government already works on the ground. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing their Amendment 2, adding culture to the list of areas of competence, and say at the outset that I have no intention of taking my own amendment to a vote. The Minister has listened to many of our arguments in Committee and I think this will make a big difference. It is what much of the arts has been asking for. The glass then is considerably more than half full.
However, although I support Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would add “heritage” to the wording, ideally, I would have preferred the wording in my Amendment 4:
“the arts, culture and heritage”.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for that amendment. The word “culture” on its own is nebulous so, as the Local Government Association recommends, to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities can engage with the breadth and diversity of culture in their area, including the arts, heritage and creative industries, non-statutory guidance should be co-produced with the sector and published post-enactment to better define this area of competence. Will the Government produce such guidance and, if so, what will the detail be and are they seeking input into that? The Minister used “arts, heritage and creative industries” as being included in “culture” in the all-Peers letter of 17 March, so what is the basis for that assertion?
It is the subsidised arts sector, alongside cultural services such as museums and libraries, which I most worry about being overlooked. New research by Equity shows that council arts funding in England fell by 61% between 2010 and 2024, so there is a huge amount of ground to be made up. There is the added concern, as the arts professional, Steve Mannix, CEO of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester, pointed out back in January, that:
“As councils merge, a new narrative could take hold: ‘We only need one theatre/museum/gallery in the new area.’ This may be efficient on paper, but it is culturally and economically short-sighted”.
I hope that the Government’s amendment will help to counter that, but ultimately, of course, we need significantly more council funding of the arts.
It also worth pointing out that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, who led the Arts Council England review, said in relation to the Bill on 17 March at a Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting:
“It is a recommendation that”
for councils
“there should be a statutory duty to produce a cultural and art strategy”.
Later in the Bill, we will again discuss local growth plans, and I have retabled my amendment for cultural ecosystem plans. I mention that now only because, if we are talking about guidance for culture as an area of competence, it would also be useful to know what might be in the guidance in relation to the requirement for a strategy or a plan—although of course the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, used the word statutory.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said about tourism. Culture is not tourism. Spending on culture should be spending on the arts, and not on access roads leading to a cultural attraction, for instance.
As in Committee, my Amendments 43 and 47 are designed to provide a commissioner for arts, culture and heritage, but the Minister has rather leapfrogged over us by increasing the number of commissioners from seven to 10. The Minister’s Amendment 46 is in a later group, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what her expectations are for a commissioner for culture for each of the authorities.
I am grateful for the discussions a number of us have had with Culture Commons and for the support of the Local Government Association. In summary, I am very pleased that the Government have made culture an area of competence and look forward to hearing more of the detail.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too am delighted that the Government have decided to bring forward this amendment to include culture as the eighth area of competence within the Bill. I hope that the term culture will encapsulate arts and heritage as well, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has argued. I regard this as a very significant and constructive step, and I too have been very pleased to work closely with colleagues across parties in developing amendments which have helped to bring the issue to the fore.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time and care she has taken to engage with us. I would also like to acknowledge the role played by Trevor MacFarlane and Culture Commons for the support they provided to us and across both Houses.
At Second Reading, I argued that devolution cannot succeed with structures which promote only growth—important though that is. Devolution will succeed only if people feel more connected to the places in which they live, and if they are able to participate and see themselves as part of shared civic and cultural life. On that, in turn, rests the strength of the place’s social and cultural fabric. In a society such as ours, the question is not whether we live together alongside difference; the real question is what holds us together. The answer is culture, which is fundamental. It is a thread which weaves difference into unity. Culture is the quiet architecture which shapes values and relationships.
As this agenda moves into implementation, there will be important questions to address about how local mayors will make this a reality, what guidance will be given, how we maintain the arm’s-length principle at the subregional level and how strategic authorities can add value rather than cut across the work local authorities are already delivering in this policy practice.
I am delighted that this has been included. I will not develop the arguments, but it is important to understand why culture is a social glue in building communities at a local level. Therefore, I commend the Government for bringing this forward.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like others, I commend the Government for their Amendment 2. We had a good debate about this in Committee, with significant support from across your Lordships’ House for the Government to expand the list of strategic competences in this way. As I hope the Minister can hear, we are very glad that she has done so. As she can see from the other amendments tabled in this group, however, there remains enthusiasm for ensuring that we do not just look at culture but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board.
In Committee, the Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competences. Indeed, when one looks down the list, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, the environment and climate change and health and well-being. She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I am very glad that there is further encouragement, because we know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or have taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring.
As I said in Committee, when I had the pleasure of being the Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities—of all parties and at every tier—that were cutting their spending on culture and therefore missing out on savings in their health and well-being budgets, for instance, and missing out on opportunities for economic development. When one sees what is going on in some of the coastal towns around the Kent and Sussex coasts, such as Margate and Eastbourne, and when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north-east coast in towns such as Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts, culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of local authorities, so I am glad that this nudge is being put in. However, I am curious to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen their minimalist description of just “culture”, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in Committee and that other noble Lords have proposed.
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Often, when people think about culture or heritage, they think of it solely as a subsidised sector. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right to talk about the importance of that: this is where the new, the experimental, the avant-garde, and the works that we will come to love in years to come can first be tried. However, most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised, and most of the live music venues that are struggling but surviving in our counties are small businesses. It is important to stress the commercial element of culture and heritage, and the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre do not know whether they are going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre; they are just glad that there is one there that is putting on things that attract people and boost tourism.
While there is enthusiasm for the opportunities presented by the visitor levy that the Government are embracing, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others, there is concern that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than fixing the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we see in some local authorities. If the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed. I commend the Minister for government Amendment 2, and I hope that, even at this late stage, she will look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.
In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.
I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.
However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.
The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.
There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly for such a positive response to the changes brought forward in this group. I hope we continue the evening as we have started; that would be wonderful. I thank noble Lords for their insightful and continued engagement on this Bill, both through Committee and since then, in the various meetings we have held.
In response to those debates, last week the Government tabled a package of amendments that address a number of the points raised during Committee. As I have said before, this Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition for devolution. It will deliver a landmark transfer of power out of Whitehall to mayors, local leaders and communities, and deliver on the Government’s commitment to fit, decent and legal local government. The amendments the Government have brought forward continue in that spirit, and I look forward to debating them with noble Lords throughout Report.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Freyberg, for their comments. Government Amendment 2 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within Clause 2. Culture—and its associated sectors, the arts, heritage and the creative industries—has been a topic of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to all those who have participated, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for their constructive engagement and valuable contributions.
This Government and I personally believe that culture in its many forms—visual arts, music, theatre, museums, libraries, combined arts, digital media, literature and heritage—enriches our quality of life, supports economic growth, and strengthens social cohesion and pride in place. As your Lordships will know, it has always been the Government’s position that mayors and strategic authorities can, and should, support cultural initiatives. By including culture as a distinct area of competence, the Government are codifying that role in legislation; this is a clear signal of this Government’s commitment to the cultural life of our nation.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very important debate. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, whose expertise in and commitment to this area continue to illuminate our discussions and have brought us to this point of having a new area of competence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; his point that not all local authorities are similar is worth repeating. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who spoke with such clarity on the importance of place-making and culture as an area of competence. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made an excellent point about how culture can help growth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that it already exists in existing local authorities and that we should not forget that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised an important point about the commissioners: their roles and what they are doing really needs to be ironed out so that we have clear oversight of what is happening. Lastly, I thank the Minister warmly for her reply, which I found genuinely helpful and which I know will be welcomed across the House and further afield.
On the broader question of what we mean by culture, I continue to believe that clear and detailed guidance will be essential if the competence is to be exercised with clarity for local leaders and the cultural sector generally. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others have so ably argued, both today and in Committee, there is a meaningful and practical distinction between the arts, cultural services, creative industries, heritage and tourism. Without greater definitional clarity, strategic authorities may struggle to know where their responsibilities begin and end. None the less, I hear what the Minister said on these and other points, and I welcome her commitment to ensuring that the framework is workable in practice. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(h) culture.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add culture to the list of “areas of competence” in the Bill.
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include rural affairs as an area of competence of strategic authorities.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 5 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Bill is extensive, covering many areas of local government, and aims for the improved delivery of services by local and strategic authorities. The areas of competence for strategic authorities covered by the Bill are listed in Clause 2; mindful of the Whip’s instructions at the beginning, I will not list them, but all are extremely important. I propose adding rural affairs to that list.
Over the years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have often promoted the need for rural affairs to take a more prominent place in government thinking. The previous Government brought forward strategies for industry, business, cities, et cetera, but nothing for rural areas. Why do those who live in rural communities get such short shrift? The funding of rural school education is inadequate compared with that received by urban schools. The buses are infrequent, GP surgeries are in larger villages, the pub has closed, the local shop exists on a knife edge, the roads are repaired irregularly, and top dressing appears to be a thing of the past.
Those who live in rural areas are not living a life of luxury in idyllic countryside. Having to travel miles to a supermarket or by bus for a GP or dentist appointment or to get their hair cut can be a real problem for the elderly, the infirm and young families. Many families may not have a car, or perhaps the one car they have is taken by the breadwinner to get to work. A trip to the GP by bus could well take half a day. In areas where there are two buses a day, one going into town in the morning and the other coming back late afternoon, it could take all day.
The relevant local, parish or town council will be aware of the problems of service delivery in isolated areas. Likewise, the district council, when there was one, had brilliant knowledge of the problems of its community. Where the village shop has been threatened, in some cases the community has come together to run it with volunteers. Some pubs have been run by community volunteers on the same basis. Communities themselves know who would welcome a lift to town to keep important appointments. Larger strategic authorities are unlikely to have this knowledge at their fingertips, so they will need a strategy to support rural areas.
Children and young people are particularly disadvantaged by living in rural areas. The school bus picks them up in the morning and drops them off in the afternoon, but there is nothing to take them to a friend’s house three miles away for a chat on a Friday evening. There is no youth club in their hamlet or village where they can relax with those of a similar age. The village bus stop, where there is one, is often the congregation point for young people in the early evenings—they know they will not be disturbed because no bus will stop there. Mum and dad, where they have a car, will often provide the essential transport for young people to meet up with their friends.
Living in a rural area does not mean that you wish to give up your independence. Moving to larger, more strategic local government delivery could be a lifesaver for some communities, but it could also mean that deep rural areas will be overlooked. Population numbers matter when allocating finance. Everyone understands that the limited resources must cover the greatest number of people, but that should not be an excuse to ignore rural deprivation and poverty. I will not go into detail on the complicated issue of rural housing, where larger four- or five-bedroom homes are often built when what is required are smaller starter homes to rent and to buy, as others who have amendments in this group will do this more eloquently than I.
The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the delivery of services via local government on a quite different level. Now is the time for rural areas to have full consideration in the context of housing and strategic planning, health, well-being and public service reform and the other services listed in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences is a must. Rural communities are not a “nice to have” requirement, they are a “must”. This group of amendments is essential for rural communities. I welcome the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to ensure that rural communities are treated on a par with their urban counterparts. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I am sure she understands the strength of support for rural affairs to be recognised on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving the first amendment in this group so eloquently. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52, 61 and 326 in my name, but all the amendments in this group look to put rural areas front and centre.
For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre. I was very proud of the fact that we had a rural-proofing unit within Defra at that time, so it was a source of great disappointment to me that it was disbanded.
The 2021 census defines the rural/urban classification in this way: urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more, and rural areas are literally everywhere else and include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside. Nearly one in five of us lives in a rural area. The challenges facing rural areas are very different from the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We are also off the energy grid and dependent on oil for delivery in most cases. In normal times, it is bad enough, but with the Middle East hostilities at the moment, it is a completely different situation.
Houses are often isolated, and there is a lack of housing, particularly small units of one or two bedrooms. All the developers seem to want to build four- or five-bedroom homes, for which there is not the same need in rural areas. Public services are sparse and cost more to deliver, whether it is accessing GP surgeries, ambulances or hospitals. School buses are a particular contention at the moment after the rural deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this Government.
I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors—they are not suited to rural areas. When we debated the orders on the combined authorities and the metro mayors for North Yorkshire, only the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I spoke against the move. I know there was a feeling of great loss in North Yorkshire when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs which had served North Yorkshire extremely well over generations.
The definition of rural-proofing, according to the Government’s own website, is
“assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable”.
I will preface the amendments in my name with remarks from some of the briefings I have received in preparation for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that at present, many combined authorities are focused on large urban areas, with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure. The Government have said repeatedly that they see cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, the CPRE is concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own SDSs. In a similar vein, the Better Planning Coalition briefing I received states:
“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure … the Government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their workplans”.
The model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, and where policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population. That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas—it simply does not stack up. The needs of the residents of the city of York and of those of North Yorkshire are in direct competition with each other in terms of economic growth, culture, tourism and other areas.
My Amendments 52 and 61 seek to ensure that mayors in rural areas appoint an extra commissioner to have responsibility for rural areas. I am not wild about commissioners in any shape or form—it would be far better if the mayor set the priorities and that those elected to the office should have that focus—but my Amendment 61 looks at appointing
“a commissioner with competence for rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority according to the Rural Urban Classification”,
to which I referred earlier.
For me, the most important of my amendments is Amendment 326, which goes to the heart of rural-proofing and making sure that not just one department—such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—should be responsible for rural-proofing. I would like to see a real pull from the Government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is rural-proofed before it becomes policy. I will explain why it should not just be Defra. I am very exercised at the moment about the powers of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because it is directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly those who live in open countryside, who do not want to have all these clean energy projects that will destroy not just their view but, quite possibly, their way of life and the value of their properties.
Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that, before any regulations are made under the future Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the future Act’s impact on rural areas, including its costs and benefits. Without that amendment, I feel that the Government will be wading into areas where they will be so focused on the issues of those living in urban areas that they will leave behind the interests of those in rural areas—including market towns, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings—who enjoy the open countryside they have at the moment.
I will end with a plea. Local elections are coming up in May, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to be honest about what their plans are for future planning policy. If the Bill really has nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment and will actually take away the rights of those who live in rural areas to object to some of the sites being proposed, particularly because of the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake-up call for those electors in rural areas and a one-off opportunity to reject what this Government are proposing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require
“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.
Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.
Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.
Historically, strategic investment has typically focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire forward investment from the private sector, and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here, as we move forward with this programme of devolution, with rural parts of the country now being covered at strategic level, to ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.
Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.
My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.
With 85% of the country’s land being classified as rural and 17% of the population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition of the value of our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include this duty and, at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in the Bill. It must be clear that the Bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this very important group, having attached my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and Amendment 310, which was just very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
All these amendments constitute a group; I chose these two because we are introducing rural affairs as an area of competence for strategic authorities, giving them a duty to “have regard”, which makes quite a nice package. Interestingly, in the last group the Government conceded the power of the argument for including culture as a key element of the Bill. I really cannot see why they have not done the same thing with rural affairs, having heard the very powerful arguments made in Committee. I live in hope that, having now heard the arguments on Report, the Government will see the sense of including rural affairs in the Bill.
We spoke extensively about this issue in Committee, and we have already heard three powerful arguments today for taking this direction, so I will just add a couple of points. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, put it very well when she talked about young people gathering at the bus stop in the early evening because they know that a bus will not come along and disturb them for 15 or 16 hours—or possibly six days, the way these things work. That really is a measure of deprivation. At the other end of the population age scale, of course, we have a fast-ageing population, many of whom live in rural areas. They may once have had enough money to have access to a car, but that does not mean they are going to be able to use one indefinitely. That is a crucial issue in relation to bus services in rural areas. If you have a metro mayor, it is going to be very hard to get attention paid to that kind of issue.
I want to major, as I did in Committee, on the issue of food growing. Many other things happen in rural areas—people live in rural areas for all sorts of reasons—but our rural areas should be regarded far more centrally as part of the way in which we feed our population. Speaking at the NFU conference in Birmingham recently, Professor Tim Lang, a well-known food expert, reflected that the UK is only 54% self-sufficient in food. Lest someone say, “It’s a crowded island”, the Netherlands is 80% self-sufficient in food. We need to treat our land, our local areas, as places that produce a lot of their own food. Professor Lang said that our model of agri-food capitalism has just relied on the idea that others can feed us, but we all know the state of the world, the state of geopolitics and the state of climate. That is not something we can continue to rely on.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 310 under the welcome leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I declare an interest as a retired participant in a mixed family farming business in Somerset.
In Committee I spoke at length on the very real need for some form of rural-proofing or rural duty, preferably even a rural commissioner, where a strategic or combined authority had any rural communities within its boundaries. I will not repeat what I said then or speak at such length, noble Lords will be glad to hear, but things are very different in rural England compared with urban England. The needs are different and the solutions to those needs are different. Without some form of rural thinking at the seat of power, rural communities will inevitably lose out if they are poor and need special attention or, at the other end of the scale, if they are enterprising and need help to fulfil their potential.
Rural communities have lost out for decades from not having any clout, rural-proofing or consideration at the various seats of power. We touched on these issues in Committee; some have been raised already in this debate. First, houses are more expensive and wages are lower. In many rural communities there are no houses to rent or buy unless you are very rich. It is a serious rural problem.
Secondly, on transport, how do you get your children to the doctor, to local football training or to the local HE college without an extra car in your family? The answer is that you cannot. Local political administrative thinking needs to take this into account.
Thirdly, on energy, most rural houses have poor insulation and very rarely is mains gas available, so you have to have more costly forms of heating—oil, electricity or bottled gas. The Government have recognised this in recent days, and we are very grateful for that.
Fourthly—this is the most convincing one—there is higher council tax. Central government support for rural local authorities, despite delivery of services being more expensive in rural areas—is 40% less per head compared with the towns, which is why rural council tax is on average 20% higher per head than in urban areas and is about to get worse. This is caused by the fact that there has never been a proper rural voice in central government, which supports the point we are making.
These are some of the shortcomings that rural dwellers have to suffer, but there are also missed opportunities. For instance, in delivering training for entrepreneurs, how do you reach out to the various different businesses that exist many miles distant from each other? How do you set about pumping new life into the various market towns in your area? It is amazing what can be done in this respect by, for example, finding a business theme that can inspire visitors and customers. For instance, there are food festivals at Padstow, which is near me in Cornwall, and at Bridport in Dorset; there are culture festivals, such as those at Hay-on-Wye, Broad Chalke or Cheltenham; or those on art, as at St Ives, again in Cornwall. But there could be garden attractions, nature tours, beer festivals or a major town attraction to attract footfall in its various forms.
I remember visiting, a few years ago now, a small town in central France that had a massive sports centre with a swimming pool, ice rink, gymnasium and climbing walls—note the plural. As a result, every day the town and shops were humming with families who had come from far and wide. The possibilities are endless, but you need a rural focus to help kick-start them and provide some pump-priming funding. In essence, this issue has at its heart both deprivation and need, as well as opportunity and possibilities. It should not be ignored.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that the Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. What we are trying to do here is to empower rural communities. I would be appalled if we missed this opportunity to empower our rural communities, when it is such an easy change to make.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 310 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, while also supporting all the other amendments in this group. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Town and Country Planning Association, and as an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Amendment 310 would create a duty for strategic authorities to consider the needs of rural communities. It specifically covers land use, development of land and regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. Several noble Lords have made the point that there are quite different considerations for these functions when addressing rural needs as opposed to those of urban communities. For example, on housing, many rural areas will see competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, from rightsizing retirees and, in many places, from second-home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet, on average, social housing accounts for just 11% of homes in rural locations, compared with 17% in the country as a whole. Younger people brought up in the locality, including those badly needed for public and private sector jobs, are forced to move away to find somewhere affordable.
On land use, there will be severe constraints on rural areas including green belts, areas of outstanding natural beauty—now known as national landscapes—and local constraints. But urban-rural differences apply to opportunities as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. For example, rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere, and there are opportunities to work with major landowners.
In many respects, there are substantial differences that require different policies and actions for rural communities, yet these communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority, and pressing priorities from the majority urban areas may drown out the rural voice. A duty to take on board the needs of rural communities would counter this imbalance.
Of course, the mayor or the combined authority could take a far-sighted approach to embracing the rural agenda for their area without any legislative prompting, but this is by no means guaranteed. The amendment provides the safety net that would make sure that rural issues are not neglected in places where towns and cities dominate. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support all these amendments, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The tiny village where I have a house, 10 miles from Exeter, is not just a rural community but a farming community. For years, Exeter City Council has wanted to take over the area; those of us living in this tiny village and the other villages round about it know perfectly well that there is not a single person in the city council who has the slightest knowledge of anything to do with rural affairs. It is very important that the Government pick up and take on the fact that rural affairs need to be separately considered.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I regret not having taken part in Committee. If you come to the arguments on Report quite fresh, they have a curiously powerful impact. This afternoon, we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments on rural needs and ambitions that have been very powerful. We do not have planning and development Bills that often, and I know my noble friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of the Bill, but I do think that a Bill that claims to speak for the whole of development, in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK, and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country.
We have had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, rural priority and rural needs as long as I have been in this House, for 25 years. The same arguments have been made by many of the same noble Lords and have grown in urgency rather than diminished. The loss of the unit for rural-proofing was very seriously misjudged.
If the Minister could give some further thought to Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend, it would be incredibly welcome. It is reasonable, proportionate and comprehensive in what it would achieve, to flag up the seriousness with which the Government take the contribution of rural areas to growth, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak about this based on my experience and the report I helped author for the Co-op commission on rural poverty some four years ago. What was clear to us then was the growing disparity between our towns and villages and our cities. The disparity manifested itself in the flight of public services: principally transport, but other services too. Unless we get the balance right with the creation of the new strategic authorities, villages and small towns will feel very much left behind, and that is not right or just. I know that that is not the Government’s intention. Amendment 310 goes a long way to trying to ensure that we get that balance in the right place.
Combined mayoral authorities are, by and large, a very good thing, but applying them to rural areas is difficult. In creating these new combined mayoral authorities, we have to ensure that a balance is sought between town and country. Otherwise, the smaller communities will feel left behind, left out and disadvantaged. We have to take measures to adjust and remedy that disconnection. Otherwise, I fear that the flight of public services and professional services in rural communities will continue apace. As I said earlier, that is not right or just, and it undermines the need in those communities for, in particular, new housing and new services related to housing.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have found this a very important discussion. I am in favour of all the amendments: they all seem to me to have merit. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who said that things are very different in rural England—for they are. He talked about empowering rural communities; that is absolutely right. I also found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, very helpful indeed. It is very important, as in Amendment 326, to rural-proof what happens in public spending. The difficulty is that, when you rural-proof after the event by reporting on it, the damage may have been done. You need to make sure that, as decisions are being made, rural areas have been proofed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I did not know that I had to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward important amendments in this group and for the debate highlighting clearly the different challenges faced by rural areas compared with neighbouring urban areas. I very well remember my social life at a bus stop in a rural village in Essex, and that was 65 years ago, so it is interesting that social life in villages is still at or by the bus stop.
I will start with Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The current areas of competence outlined in the Bill broadly cover the responsibilities of public officeholders. While we previously expressed concerns that rural affairs should not be considered in isolation, since Committee stage the Government have announced changes to ensure that a commissioner’s work can relate to one or more aspects of an area of competence, to tackle these cross-cutting issues. Therefore, we support this amendment to include rural affairs.
As it stands, the Bill fails to highlight the specific attention that rural affairs deserve. While it does indeed cover the environment and climate change, this is a more macro—and, I dare say, politicised—area of policy. Rural affairs are far more localised and are often the basis around which local economies function. They should therefore get specific consideration and be part of the responsibilities of these new authorities.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendments. We entirely understand the desire to mandate the appointment of a commissioner to oversee rural affairs, and we support that sentiment, but we are hesitant to specifically legislate that mayors must do so. In the debate on group 9, we will highlight that we are rather sceptical of the proliferation of these commissioners in the Bill. These commissioners are unelected and often bureaucratic; we do not want them to absolve mayors of the responsibility that they were elected to hold. We have already outlined our support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which would add rural affairs to their areas, meaning that mayors would already be required to oversee rural affairs. I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendments none the less, and we will wholly support the principle behind them.
I believe that the same argument can be made for Amendment 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. If rural affairs is to be included in the responsibilities of strategic authorities, then, by definition, they will have the duty to consider the needs of rural communities.
We believe that accepting Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, would be the easiest way to achieve the end that everyone in this debate seems to be after: that rural communities’ needs are acknowledged and catered for.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and her explanation as to why rurality is not in this Bill at all. Mayoralties are moving much closer to the more rural areas of this country and away from our cities and our more urban areas. It therefore seems sensible that rurality should at this point be taken into account. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, decides to divide on this issue, we on these Benches will support her.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.
Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.
On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,
“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,
and
“the environment and climate change”.
Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.
I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.
However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.
The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.
Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.
I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.
I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.
I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley
“Devolution of powers within strategic authority areas(1) A strategic authority may devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds.(2) In carrying out any action under subsection (1), a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(3) Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must—(a) consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level, and(b) where it considers that to be the case, act so as to enable such devolution.(4) Within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, a strategic authority must publish a plan setting out how the strategic authority and its member local authorities intend to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3) (a “Community Empowerment Plan”).(5) A Community Empowerment Plan must set out how the strategic authority and local authorities within its area will consult local communities on the exercise of those powers which are not devolved to lower-tier bodies.(6) A strategic authority must review a Community Empowerment Plan at least once during the period of four years beginning with the day on which the Plan is published. (7) In carrying out any function under this section, a strategic authority must ensure effective collaboration with any local authority or other body to which it has devolved powers.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision about the powers of a strategic authority in circumstances where the strategic authority considers there to have been a serious failure or breach of duty in relation to a power devolved to a more local level.(9) Regulations made under subsection (8) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for co-signing this amendment, which covers a fundamental issue. It would simply allow a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a lower tier of local government.
This Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Devolution should be at the heart of the Bill. What we actually have is decentralisation to mayors from Whitehall, but there is to be no decentralisation or devolution of power from mayors to lower levels. If this is a serious devolution Bill, it should devolve powers and responsibilities to the lowest level possible. It is very difficult to see where the community empowerment that the Government talk about actually is.
Some things in the Bill are relevant but, for the main, there is no money for councillors elected in existing local authorities to deliver the community empowerment that the Bill sets out. This is crucial, because we now face centralisation around the mayoral structure. The set of competences that we have been talking about will suck power out of existing local authorities, whereas I want to see people empowered in their neighbourhoods to take greater responsibility for what happens in those neighbourhoods. By that I mean that we need to enhance town and parish councillors, who are currently missing from the Bill.
So, this Bill is about decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. I want it to go further and to be about devolving powers from mayors to local authorities and then from existing local authorities to lower levels: the town and the parish council structure. My amendment simply says this: I am trying to prevent upwards mission creep. I want a strategic authority to
“devolve to any local authority within its area any power which it holds”,
through an annual review system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, having attached my name to this crucial amendment. I declare my position as vice president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils.
What we are trying to do here is to save the Government from themselves, because without this amendment, this Bill risks being entirely referrable to the Advertising Standards Authority for false advertising. This is supposed to be the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but instead it concentrates power and does nothing about empowering communities, so this is the essential amendment.
We know how much parish and town councils are embedded in and are part of their communities. We are taking away that district council layer and putting all the power in the hands of one person. It is no secret that we in the Green Party do not believe in elected mayors, but even if you do believe in them, just think about that concentration of power. Should we not also refer power outwards?
There are two crucial parts of the amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) states:
“Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must … consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level … and … where it considers that to be the case … enable such devolution”.
Proposed new subsection (5) states that local authorities must have a community empowerment plan to work out how to empower their communities. These are absolutely basic provisions.
I guess I apologise to noble Lords for bringing up the Brexit referendum, but last week I was with a group of young university students. Ten years ago, they were, of course, quite small children, and it was really refreshing and telling that they were asking me what had actually happened: “How did Britain get itself into this mess? Why are we in this situation?” One answer I gave them was that “Take back control” was a very powerful slogan which lots of people felt really spoke to them. We now know that, now we have left the European Union, people do not feel any more in control. If we do not make this Bill provide some sense of taking back control in England, that enormous problem of lack of trust in politics will only increase.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, democracy starts with local engagement. As the saying goes, all politics is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community.
We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire; place is your local community. What this Bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should perhaps be somewhere between 1.5 million and 4 million people. There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and Iceland, with populations below that, and Luxembourg is not that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we are talking about Denmark, Estonia and Latvia: states that seem not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them—and they work.
I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the winter Olympics the other week, at which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present. They have several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe, and what this legislation is intended to reduce as far as possible. Local politics is essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds: things that, ideally, are not left with strategic authorities and mayors, who would be roughly equivalent to the President of Finland—to whom I was listening the other day—in terms of the number of people they are responsible for. Let us be realistic about that and recognise that, unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level, with elected representatives who know those who voted for them and who are known by those who voted for them, we will lose an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party—and, I hope, everyone else here—is committed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I too declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing back this amendment. In Committee, we discussed how much of this Bill, despite its title, centralises rather than devolves. This amendment would enable a strategic authority to devolve a competency or function to a more local level. As other noble Lords have pointed out, strategic authorities cover large geographical areas, whereas parish and town councils have long been promoted in this House as vehicles for genuine localism and community empowerment. It is why, elsewhere in the Bill, we have our own amendments to support the role of town and parish councils.
We support devolution. However, this amendment is not simply an amendment to devolve community empowerment. That is the first subsection in the amendment. There are further eight subsections, and we have some reservations on the details and complexities in these additional subsections. Delegating competencies or functions must be accompanied by clear assessments of capacity, resource and capability. It must avoid additional bureaucracy, and duties imposed must be practical in their implementation. That said, I thank the noble Lord for his efforts and for the spirit of this amendment, which we agree with. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to how powers can be genuinely devolved to local levels to support town and parish councils, and how local authorities can be enabled to exercise them effectively.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for Amendment 6 on further devolution of powers. As your Lordships will know, one of the core aims of the Bill is to create a standardised devolution framework, with a consistent and coherent set of functions held by strategic authorities and their mayors. This amendment would risk undermining that objective. It would lead to functions being devolved in some places and not in others, making it harder for local residents to know who is in charge and what they are accountable for.
The noble Lord and others argued in previous debates that power should be devolved to the authorities best able to carry out that work. The Government agreed with that principle and are therefore conferring powers and functions through the Bill that are best exercised by strategic authorities operating across wider geographies: for example, strategic transport and spatial planning matters. I understand that part of the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling this amendment is a concern that there will be a transfer of powers away from lower-tier authorities to higher ones. It is not the intention of the Bill to strip powers from communities and councils and give them instead to strategic authorities. Indeed, the Bill provides new powers for communities, such as the new community right to buy.
There was a lot of talk about parish and town councils and I think everybody in this Room appreciates the work that local parish and town councils do, but this amendment would essentially force a new level of bureaucracy on local authorities. In Derbyshire, for example, there are 204 parish and town councils and a further 199 in Nottinghamshire. That would mean that the East Midlands combined county authority and its mayor would be engaging with over 400 councils. Were such an approach taken, it would place a considerable cost of consultation on an authority, as well as potentially crowding out time for other core strategic responsibilities. I think we need a plan that fits the bill for each of the local authorities concerned, not one kind of framework that apparently suits everyone.
We need to take into consideration that there are 10,000 parish councils in England, with more than 100,000 local councillors. The sector varies hugely in size, from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings, which I know a lot about from when I represented Sedgefield. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections 21% of seats were left vacant. Where we can engage with parish councils, we should do so. If we cannot, because of competence issues or a lack of councillors, we should look at other ways of doing it. That is exactly what this Bill will do. The new neighbourhood governance duty will bring decision-making closer to residents and aims to ensure that people across the country, no matter where they are based, have the opportunity to influence the decisions that mean most to them in their local areas.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for pointing out that issue. I am glad that she did. I thank the Minister for his reply, but I have concluded that the Government have no plan to empower local communities in the way that the Bill suggests: it talks about devolution and community empowerment, but I see little prospect of real community empowerment.
The Government need a plan to prevent the upward drift of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, talked about lots of parish and town council seats not being contested, but that is because they do not have decent enough powers to make it worthwhile for people to stand. People do not stand because they do not see what they would do. The Government have to be convinced that devolving power to communities can make for better governance in England. That is where I am. I am grateful for the Conservative Party supporting the spirit of the amendment, which I think means it will be abstaining on this—or perhaps voting against, but I think abstaining. I wish to test the opinion of the House because this issue is central to an English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which, without it, will be neither of those things.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out Clause 4 on the basis that the establishment of (and changes to) combined authorities and CCA should be based on local consent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group, on the establishment of combined authorities and combined county authorities, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.
Our concern is about the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. As drafted, Schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State to create or make certain changes to the governance, boundaries or composition of authorities, without necessarily obtaining the explicit consent of the councils involved. This is entirely contrary to the principle of community empowerment. It is a top-down reorganisation directed by the centre. We firmly believe that changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities must be based on local consent. Reflecting that principle, Amendments 7 and 38 would entirely remove Clause 4 and Schedule 1 respectively.
Other amendments in this group, Amendments 9 to 24, 28, 29 and 35, are consequential to Amendment 8, but they all rest on the same fundamental principle: that changes should be made with the consent of the local authorities involved, not imposed from above by the Secretary of State. Are not local empowerment and consent the very essence of devolution?
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the relevant authorities have consented “in principle” —but that is not enough. How can local democracy be meaningful if changes can be imposed without explicit consent? Should locally elected councillors merely rubber-stamp decisions made in Whitehall? I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of a situation in which authorities have not consented explicitly, but the Secretary of State could argue that they have consented “in principle” to justify top-down changes?
These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they go to the heart of the balance of power between local government and central government. Obtaining the consent of the relevant authorities is not an inconvenient administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Changes to local government should reflect the wishes of those they are intended to serve. If anything, the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill raises questions about the Government’s true intentions. Is the Bill truly about empowering local communities, tailored to their geographic, historic and cultural identities? Alternatively, will it force locally elected representatives to conform to managerial directives from the centre? Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments address the specific drafting of Schedule 1, and I am minded to test the opinion of the House on them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am not at all sure that the Government understand that decentralisation and devolution are fundamentally different things. What we have here is a Bill for continued central control of the governance of England, subject to allowing mayors rather more powers. I therefore strongly support these amendments from these Benches, while saying that the practice of the last Conservative Government was rather different from the principles we have heard enunciated today.
I recall vividly that all but one of the councils in the great county of Yorkshire asked, when negotiating with the Government for restructure, for a whole of Yorkshire authority with other authorities underneath it, and it was made clear that it would be conditional on acceptance of a four-mayor structure for Yorkshire. If we were to get the money that the Government were offering, we would have to accept what the Government insisted on having. That is a good example of Conservative decentralisation, and now we have Labour decentralisation.
I am my party’s Cabinet Office spokesman; I am concerned with constitutional issues. In the majority of democratic states, the structure of local and regional, as well as national, government is a constitutional issue. In England, it is dealt with as a matter of convenience. Successive Governments talk a certain amount about how to get civil servants out of London, but the extent to which what local government does is controlled and funded in detail by Whitehall departments means that of course the majority of civil servants have to stay in London because that is where the power is and the decisions are taken.
This is a very flawed Bill. We are doing our best to limit its many problems. This amendment will perhaps limit the damage a little and allow local and regional areas to have some continuing say in how the governance of England should be maintained.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, not only on these Benches, the Bill is titled the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but it seems that it does the exact opposite. I strongly support my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson’s amendments in this group.
Amalgamation of councils or the establishment of new combined authorities should definitely not be allowed without local consent. Consent is necessary to ensure that the proposed restructuring reflects the views and needs of the local community. Without local consent, the transfer of contracts and services may not be efficiently handled, and there is a large risk that service continuity will not be maintained. Of course, that will lead to increased public discontent with the changes. Already the public are not happy at the rushed changes being proposed, not only to local government but because the changes themselves are unpopular and probably mostly bad. However, in addition to that, to try to install, from above, elected mayors for every local authority in the land at the same time is very risky and damaging.
Where new combined authorities are to be created, particularly those being directed by the Secretary of State, it is very important that the new structure preserves local identity and sense of place, which is so important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has often acknowledged during the debates on the Bill. It is also very important to obtain consent from councils because without consent, it is unlikely that adequate discussions will have been held between either councillors or staff, and there is unlikely to be a common understanding of which roles will be affected by the reorganisation.
For these and other reasons already well put forward by my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I support all the amendments in this group and will certainly support my noble friend if she should divide the House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will just say very briefly: what a load of hypocrisy from the other side of the House. I was a member of Cumbria County Council from 2013 onwards. In 2021, a Conservative Minister took a decision to ignore our wishes and create two unitary councils in Cumbria instead of what would have been the most sensible solution: a single unitary council. I hope that when my noble friend on the Front Bench responds, she will agree with me that the Government are not proposing what previous Conservative Ministers did.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who I have great respect for, that I see the Bill as a foundation on which further devolution can be built. If you mess around with it, you will prevent the whole thing going ahead.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for these amendments on the establishment of combined authorities.
The Government are very clear that devolution has the potential to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver meaningful change, led by local leaders who understand their communities best—I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle. This is why we want more places across England to access devolution, ensuring that no area is excluded from its benefits. As I have said previously, it is to support that objective that we are introducing these powers, alongside clear safeguards to ensure that they are exercised appropriately and only when justified.
Our clear preference, and established practice, is to work in partnership with local areas to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local leaders and stakeholders. I hope that this will be evident from the orders that we have laid for new mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in recent weeks: in Hampshire and the Solent, Sussex and Brighton, Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill that the powers are intended to operate as a last resort. These powers would be used only where no viable locally led proposal has emerged.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would also remove the provisions in the Bill that simplify and streamline consent, consultation and statutory test requirements for creating and changing the arrangements of combined authorities or combined county authorities. That cuts across one of our core objectives, which is to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so that devolution can be delivered more efficiently and be less onerous for local authorities. Removing these measures would entrench the existing complex processes and risk delaying areas accessing the practical benefits that strategic authorities are already delivering.
Consultation and consent will remain key features of that process, where proposals are developed by a local area. A new, consolidated statutory test will also apply to the establishment of any new authority. These ministerial powers are therefore a backstop mechanism in the Bill, allowing the Government to establish strategic authorities in areas where local leaders have not been able to agree on how best to access devolved powers. This will help ensure that all parts of England can benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind. As I have made clear in many discussions on this subject, we cannot accept proposals that would block other areas from accessing devolution or would risk creating devolution islands.
Finally, I point to the oral evidence given to the Public Bill Committee following the introduction of this Bill in the other place. When asked whether these powers were necessary, opposition witnesses were clear that such powers were indeed needed to advance the course of devolution in England. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, so that the way is clear for all residents to benefit from the funding powers and functions that are set out in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Can the Minister explain what a “devolution island” is?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to do that. Where local areas are putting together their proposals and a small area in between those areas is left out, it may be necessary to use the powers for that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support, and to the Minister for her reply.
I am afraid that I am not reassured by the Minister’s response. I return to the principle that underpins this group of amendments. Any reconfiguration of local governance must be rooted in the clear, explicit and democratically expressed consent of those authorities affected. Amendment 8 and the consequential amendments simply seek to protect safeguards, safeguarding the relationship and genuine partnership between local and central government.
The question is simple: should change to local government be based on consent or ordered by the Secretary of State? We stand firmly on the side of consent. For these reasons, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments and would be grateful for the support of other noble Lords across the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment opposes paragraph 11 on the grounds that no local consent is needed.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the proposal for the new combined authority, in circumstances where it is directed by the Secretary of State rather than by the communities it is intended to serve.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the proposal for the creation or expansion of a combined authority where the Secretary of State directs the inclusion of existing areas, rather than the communities it is intended to serve.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments 75 and 106 correct references to combined county authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined authorities. Likewise, Amendments 25, 26, 27, 32 and 37 correct references to combined authorities where the provisions are intended to apply to combined county authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out this group of amendments. As has been outlined, they are technical in nature, correcting references between combined authorities and combined county authorities to ensure consistency across the Bill. We recognise the need for that consistency.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I commend these amendments to the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Member's explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Lord Teverson
“(2A) The local authority of the local government area does not have any specific responsibility for and stewardship of the rights of its population under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent an area from being added to another combined authority, if that authority for that area has responsibilities relating to a protected national minority and language. It is intended that this provision would apply to Cornwall.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 31, I shall speak to my Amendments 33 and 34. I am very privileged to have a group all to myself. These amendments aim to safeguard Cornwall’s distinct constitutional and cultural position within the Government’s devolution framework. I thank the Minister and her team for the time they gave to talk through these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Hutton and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for adding their names to the amendments. I also thank the Public Bill Office for its efforts in crafting these amendments.
I must explain to the House that, although these amendments are on Cornwall, they do not actually mention that name. The reason is that, if these amendments were agreed, I am assured that they would hybridise the Bill—although London does not seem to have the same problem, as is so often the case in our affairs. That is why the amendments refer to certain European conventions, which I will come to later. Needless to say, in effect, these amendments refer specifically to Cornwall.
I will not take up a huge amount of the House’s time, but I remind Members that Cornwall is not traditionally part of England: it has its own language and its own Celtic culture and, indeed, used to have its own Stannary Parliament. Although it does not allow those traditions to get in the way of its future, there is still a huge pride in Cornwall’s own culture and history, among not just those who were born there and have a long pedigree of being Cornish but the many people who come into Cornwall to have it as their home and workplace. They too treasure the distinction that comes with that history.
I wish to make this point quite strongly: Cornwall is not isolationist. These amendments attempt to prevent moving towards a mayoral system, which has not been received well in Cornwall generally, and to ensure that it is not part of a wider authority; the Isles of Scilly could perhaps be an exception to that, but I am not here to speak on their behalf. We do not want to take on the Government’s devolution agenda.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.
There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.
We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.
This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.
As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that
“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.
Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.
Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her excellent comments. This is the first time I have put down an amendment that has been rejected by the Government partly because it gets in the way of international treaties or something like that. I mark that up as a first, and I am sure Cornwall will be delighted to hear that news.
I take the point that discussions are continuing, and I stress again that this is not Cornwall isolationism. We are there to work with our friends in Devon on the other side of the Tamar and further up in the south-west as well. In the meantime, because even I must admit that the amendments are so highfalutin in terms of avoiding hybridisation, I will not press them, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about CCAs, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “combined authority” that appears here.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment opposes the requirement that decisions of a Combined County Authority have the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a majority of members.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. These amendments address a fundamental question at the heart of this Bill: whether decisions of a combined county authority should depend on the agreement of the mayor or instead be determined by a majority of its members. At its core, this is a question of democratic balance. Combined authorities are designed as collective institutions bringing together elected councillors to reflect the diverse voices and experiences of the communities they serve. That purpose is fundamentally compromised if the will of the majority can be overridden by an individual. Requiring the mayor’s agreement is not a minor procedural step; it is a significant concentration of power that cuts against the grain of local democratic tradition.
In Committee, noble Lords raised serious concerns that granting the mayor what amounts to a veto could sideline the will of the majority and move us towards a more presidential model of governance. That concern is not merely theoretical. One can readily imagine a situation in which the majority of councillors support a vital transport or investment decision only for it to be blocked because it does not command the mayor’s agreement. In such circumstances, can it truly be said that the outcome reflects the democratic will of the area as a whole? If the majority view can be set aside so easily, what meaningful role remains for the collective body?
I recognise the argument made by those who support these provisions. Directly elected mayors bring visibility, leadership and a clear mandate, but strong leadership should not come at the expense of collective accountability. What is the value of a majority decision if it can be overridden by a single officeholder? Does such a system strengthen democratic legitimacy or does it in fact weaken it by concentrating power into too few hands?
These amendments seek to restore the balance for three reasons. First, they uphold the principle of collective decision-making. The authority should act as a body reflecting the range of communities it represents, not as a forum in which the majority view can be set aside by a single voice. If we accept that councillors are elected to represent their communities, on what basis do we justify diminishing their collective authority? Secondly, they reinforce democratic accountability. Councillors, like mayors, are elected representatives, answerable to their constituents. Where decisions are taken collectively by the majority, responsibility is clear. Where agreement of the mayor is required, accountability becomes blurred. In such cases, who is ultimately responsible for the outcome? Is it the mayor or the authority as a whole? Thirdly, they support effective and practical governance. Combined authorities must take timely decisions on transport, economic development, public services and many other things. A system that enables one individual to block decisions supported by the majority creates a clear risk of delay, deadlock and politicisation, particularly where political control is divided.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.
Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.
I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.
Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?
Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.
In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?
In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.
We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.
These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.
The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.
The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.
The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.
I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.
Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.
We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.
Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.
We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.
We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that
“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]
In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 307 would require every local planning authority and every strategic authority, separately or jointly, to appoint a qualified and experienced person to act as chief planner, as a number have done already. This amendment has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has been steadfast in his commitment to this reform, which he has maintained would accelerate housing delivery and growth. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who in Committee stressed the value of a high level of professional planning input for mayors and strategic authorities.
The proposal for a chief planner has been gathering momentum from the time of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It has been promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute with support from the Better Planning Coalition, which represents some 40 organisations in this sector. Just last week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment recommended this approach to drive the professionalism and responsibility in decision-making that is required to unlock planning delays and command the level of respect needed when negotiating and liaising with senior local authority members.
The relationship between council members and their officers is changing. The Government’s policy for deregulation of planning decision-making means that decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by planning officers alone will be determined by the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This procedure underlines the need for a senior figure to be identified with the status to assume this responsibility. It has also been suggested that the chief planner might have a formal role in ongoing training for council members with planning duties, a role that requires a person of seniority who commands respect.
Having a named chief planner who is fully qualified and experienced with the corresponding status attaching to the role provides, in the words of the chief planner for Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority, the strategic direction and strong professional leadership that a planning authority needs. It creates a clear and trusted voice for our communities, our elected members and our developers. She concluded:
“Making this role statutory would strengthen our profession and inspire the next generation to aspire to be chief planners themselves”.
Meanwhile, the experience of taking this approach in Scotland has demonstrated its value there, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. It is worth noting that the amendment would enable authorities to choose to share a chief planner with one or more other authorities, if they so wish.
Here is a chance to help reverse the decline in the position of planning, raise morale and support the profession without costs to the Government. Planning departments have been starved of resources over recent decades, yet planning is set to be hugely important in the work of new mayoral and other strategic authorities. The RTPI’s latest survey of the state of the profession lists the recruitment and retention challenges. Local planning departments are short of up to a third of their staff. Two-thirds of them are using agency staff to fill gaps. Shortages of suitably qualified people mean delays that undermine new development and less proactive engagement before and during a planning application, leading to worse outcomes. The profession needs boosting, bolstering, encouraging and promoting, as well as very welcome additional government funding. This means changing perceptions and enhancing the status of a vital profession. Appointment of the key officer as chief planner would do much to achieve this.
In Committee the Minister said she would continue to keep this matter under review but would want
“to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 593.]
I hope that she has now been able to satisfy herself that this is a worthwhile initiative and that she is able to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 186, which would allow a separate cultural ecosystem plan to be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan. I was very heartened by the support for this amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He said this amendment
“really matters … because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what”.
Furthermore, he drew attention to
“the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 619.]
I could not have put it better myself.
Our cultural assets are an ecosystem that crosses boundaries as well as being hugely important at the local level, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasises. We talked at some length about culture on the first group today, but I ask the Minister once again whether cultural ecosystem plans might be considered for the guidelines at the very least.
I have also put my name to Amendments 124, 127 and 246 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which she fully explained. Her agent of change amendment is hugely important. I will not repeat the arguments I gave in Committee except to say that the Music Venue Trust points out the significant difference between how the system works in England, where it is non-statutory and unsatisfactory, and in Scotland, where there is a statutory requirement and it works well. If the noble Baroness wishes to take this to a vote when the time comes, I will certainly support her in the Lobby.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I remind the House that I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I provide advice to the Norfolk and Suffolk, Thames Valley and greater Cheshire development forums as well. I apologise to the House in advance, as I know that I cannot be here for days two and three on Report, which is one reason why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for leading the amendment relating to the statutory position of a chief planner.
In the spirit of the Whips’ rendition of the Companion, I will not repeat either the points so splendidly made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, or the speeches I made in Committee and on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I know that his amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my own Front Bench, appears to have a great deal of support not only in the country but in the House. I hope that when the time comes, if that is on day three, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House to show that support. We have not previously imposed that provision on the Government but, if necessary, the House should impose it in this Bill.
I also thank warmly my noble friend on the Front Bench for speaking to Amendments 122, 123, 125 and 126. As he said, they are all about making the local growth plan consistent with the spatial development strategy. I will not go through that in some detail, but we have now seen the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework. While it says, for example, that the spatial development strategy should give spatial expression to the strategic elements of the local growth plan, that plan, as set out in the Bill, does not make it clear that it should identify which employment, commercial, industrial and logistical projects are integral to the growth projections for a strategic authority area. It needs to do that so that those strategic elements will necessarily be reflected into the spatial development strategy; exactly the same is true for infrastructure as well. That is why those two additions to the content of the local growth plan are so important in being reflected into what then, in due course, should be incorporated in the spatial development strategy, which is already legislated for.
I finish merely by saying to the Minister that I hope she and her colleagues will look carefully at the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework, in so far as it relates to the spatial development strategies. It should say more by way of the content of a spatial development strategy, along the lines of what we have already discussed. Many noble Lords will recall that we debated at length whether the spatial development strategy and the Planning and Infrastructure Act should deal with both the amount and distribution of housing and, specifically, the amount and distribution of affordable housing, but the National Planning Policy Framework does not refer to the latter.
It is really important that the NPPF, to which the equivalent of statutory weight is to be given in planning policy decisions, should reflect the statutory requirements mandated in legislation by this House. I very much support my noble friend’s amendments, which would have that effect.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 124 and 127 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and Amendment 246, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to all of which I have added my name. A common thread runs through all four.
Culture, as we have heard, does not function in isolation. It depends on an ecosystem of different venues and activities that sustain one another. Amendments 124 and 127 would ensure that cultural considerations are genuinely embedded in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 186 asks authorities to consider the cultural sector as an interconnected whole, rather than a collection of separate parts.
Lord Shipley (LD)
Briefly, my Lords, this has been another important group of amendments. The response by the Minister will be important, because a lot of very good and important issues have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for remembering what I said in Committee. Like him, I have concluded that I was right on that occasion, but I will not repeat it now.
I want to say something about Amendment 307, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, because I have signed it. This really matters: if you are devolving power over planning, including infrastructure planning, if you are serious about driving growth and want to improve local infrastructure, and if you want good-quality key decisions on land use, you need a very senior planning person named as a chief planning officer. This is not new. I have raised this matter on several Bills in recent years and still think it needs to be done, because it is about raising the status of the profession as a career option, but it is also about giving the general public the necessary respect for views expressed by a chief planning officer.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about my city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East Combined Authority, and I agree entirely with what he said. He is absolutely right: it needs to be a statutory role. This is not a complex issue. The Government should just do it, and have the confidence to do it, because we want devolution to be a success—and to be a success, you have to have the right quality of decisions being made by the right level of senior officer, who recommends the right answers to politicians. With that, I hope very much that we shall hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to agree Amendment 307, at the very least.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for amendments relating to planning, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125 and 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, moved or spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. While I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying and meeting growth opportunities, these amendments are not necessary. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy that they have published, and consider relevant, while preparing their spatial development strategies. This could include a local growth plan.
We set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should give
“spatial expression to strategic elements of Local Growth Plans”,
as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Further, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, local growth plans will be required to include a pipeline of investment opportunities to enable economic growth. We expect those pipelines to include investment opportunities linked to infrastructure or development. I hope the noble Lord contributed to the consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework with the other points that he made.
I turn to Amendments 124, 127 and 186. As I have set out, the Government want arts and culture to thrive across the country. That is why we are introducing culture as a new area of competence for all strategic authorities. It is also why we have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector. Many are already supporting the cultural sector in their local growth plans, while some places are taking this further with dedicated culture strategies and industry partnerships. Local growth plans look across a wide range of needs and opportunities in their regions, including the cultural sector.
As I mentioned, our guidance on local growth plans asks mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set a pipeline of projects critical for unlocking growth. It must be up to local areas, working with relevant stakeholders, to determine which projects fit this requirement. That is why we have avoided being overly prescriptive about the content of local growth plans. The additional requirement proposed by these amendments would risk upsetting that approach, which is already under way in many places.
I turn to Amendment 120. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are firmly committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling drainage issues and to strengthening the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. However, these matters are more appropriately dealt with by local planning authorities, rather than strategic authorities. We are putting in place a robust framework to guide and support local planning authorities in this important work.
The National Planning Policy Framework already requires all developments that may have drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. However, we are proposing to go even further. The consultation on a new framework, which closed on 10 March, proposed that
“Sustainable Drainage Systems should be designed in accordance with the National Standards”
introduced last year to improve their design and implementation.
The consultation also included a proposed plan-making policy expecting early engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of drainage and wastewater capacity constraints and any additional infrastructure requirements, with particular regard to the impacts of planned growth and relevant infrastructure plans. We have recently laid regulations for the new plan-making system. These regulations prescribe water and sewerage companies under the new requirement to assist. They will be obliged to assist with plan-making where a plan-making authority reasonably requests it. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary, given the actions I have set out.
I turn to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I appreciate the strength of feeling which has brought this amendment before us again; it is an important issue. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is something we can take forward in legislation without first having further engagement with local authorities and the sector to understand the full implications. New legislative requirements on local authorities in this area must have a clear purpose and add value. In particular, I am keen to monitor how our national scheme of delegation reforms from the Planning and Infrastructure Act works in practice and to get feedback from local planning authorities on the role of chief planners and the equivalent officers in this process.
As the noble Lord is aware, we consulted last year on reforms to planning committees, which will give chief planners a strong role in deciding which applications should go to planning committees. We hope to publish the statutory consultation on the draft regulations and guidance shortly. We welcome views about these important new arrangements, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the final regulations later this spring.
Turning to Amendment 246, I am sympathetic to the need to ensure that our drive for new homes does not come at the cost of existing business. However, I do not believe the statutory route is the most effective way forward. The issues the agent of change policy needs to address are inherently scheme-specific, requiring case-by-case assessments of potential impacts and mitigations as part of the overall planning balance, which lends itself to a policy approach. National planning policy already clearly enshrines the agent of change principle as a material consideration. The onus is squarely on applicants to provide suitable mitigation where existing development in the vicinity is likely to have significant adverse impacts.
Moreover, the new planning policy framework proposes to strengthen the agent of change principle. It sets out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and engage early with existing uses. Following analysis of the responses, we will publish the final version in the summer. Local planning authorities can require noise impact assessments when they consider that a proposed development is likely to be affected by existing noise sources. Guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered, including good design to reduce the impact of noise from adjoining activities, incorporating noise barriers and optimising sound insulation.
Additionally, local authorities can already take the agent of change principle into account under the existing licensing regime. The legislation recognises that different areas face different challenges and licensing authorities may reflect the principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it helpful or necessary. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether it would be beneficial to strengthen the existing approach. A full analysis of responses to this proposal will be published in due course.
Finally, local authorities have a duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to investigate a statutory nuisance complaint. They consider a number of relevant factors, including the noise level and frequency and the character of the local area. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of protecting cultural venues from the impacts of new housing nearby, I do not consider a statutory approach to be the right solution. Existing policy and legislation already give local authorities the tools to apply these principles in their decisions and we are taking further steps to strengthen implementation across the planning and licensing systems.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.
Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.
Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.
Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.
The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and valuable debate where noble Lords have sought to improve the system. I thank noble Lords who have made contributions to the debate and am grateful for the apparent support from across the House for many of these amendments.
However, while I thank the Minister for her comments, I am somewhat disappointed that she was unable to make any commitments on the co-ordination between spatial strategies and local growth plans, and on neighbourhood priorities statements—all of which would be very valuable. Similarly, it is disappointing that there were limited commitments on sustainable drainage, fire and rescue consultees, agent of change, cultural infrastructure, and the potential benefits of appointing statutory planners. Noble Lords made a compelling case for many of these. Indeed, this House has shown its expertise and unique value to the legislative process. These are practical proposals, and I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a CCA may appoint from 7 to 10.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by thanking noble Lords for their rigorous and detailed representations on the mayoral commissioners model that the Bill introduces. I think it is fair to say that there is a plurality of views on this important area, evidenced by the substance of the amendments tabled and the hours of considered debate in both Houses. The government amendments that I am introducing today follow considerable deliberation on those contributions. They focus on ensuring that we balance the operational flexibility of the commissioner model with appropriate accountability and scrutiny—issues that have been raised repeatedly in this House.
I will take these amendments in five groupings. First, government Amendments 42 and 46 increase the maximum number of commissioners the mayor may appoint from seven to 10. Secondly, government Amendments 50, 53, 55, 59, 62 and 64 allow multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence. Thirdly, government Amendments 51 and 60 ensure that commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area, rather than only the area as a whole. Fourthly, government Amendments 54 and 63 clarify that a commissioner must not carry out work in cases where a mayor ceases to hold office early, with the exception of winding down their office. Finally, government Amendments 56 and 65 clarify that an appointment can end in accordance with contract law if not otherwise provided for in the terms and conditions of their appointments.
These changes will increase the overall flexibility of the model, enabling mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs related to an area of competence, and allowing them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for instance, two commissioners operating within the transport and local infrastructure area of competence, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel. I emphasise that the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners recognises that we expect the devolution framework to grow over time, thereby providing a contingency as mayoral duties and powers expand. It does not mean mayors frivolously appointing people based on patronage. We know that mayors want high-calibre individuals whom they can trust to help them deliver for their regions. Therefore, to bring in people with a track record of success, these appointments should be on merit.
While combined authorities and combined county authorities will have the ability to remunerate commissioners, that does not give mayors carte blanche to pay them what they want. Commissioners may only be remunerated in line with the recommendations and maximum amount specified in a report from an independent remuneration panel.
To be clear, no additional funding is being provided for these appointments. We expect combined authorities and combined county authorities to make appointments prudently on the basis of where they determine that a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes. Part of that success relies on commissioners being accountable and their performance being open to scrutiny. That is why, alongside the mayor being able to terminate appointments, the overview and scrutiny committee may also recommend a termination. The decision on whether to accept that recommendation must then be put to a vote of the authority’s board.
Commissioners will also be subject to the strengthened accountability measures being introduced through local scrutiny committees. This includes removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties for failing to answer questions or provide information, or for misleading a local scrutiny committee. I beg to move government Amendment 42, and I commend government Amendments 46, 50, 51, 53 to 56, 59, 60 and 62 to 65. I reserve my right to speak later in response to other noble Lords’ amendments.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, this is going to be the shortest speech I have ever made in the Chamber, but it is really meant. I thank the Government and the Minister for the three amendments that I moved at an earlier stage, which are now tabled as government Amendments 42, 46, 51 and 62. These make three excellent changes that will very much assist the flexibility that will be enjoyed under the new devolution principles. Again, I thank the Minister very much for her and the department’s assistance with these three very good amendments—I think that is now probably the unanimous view—that will add to the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I can see that this is a very important group. We have moved on, and I am happy for us to have moved on. So, while in Committee I said that I wanted to see the abolition of the principle of unelected commissioners—it is the unelected bit that has really bothered me—they will not have powers to vote or make decisions. You can therefore make the case for the expertise that is required—certainly in some of the areas of competence that the Government are proposing. We can debate whether there should be five, seven, 10, or some other number, but I would devolve it and let people make their own decisions at a more local level.
I got concerned last week as I began thinking about the Government’s changes to overview and scrutiny. I welcome them very much: a lot of progress is being made. The question for me was: who appoints a commissioner, and to what test and what level? If a mayor can appoint a commissioner, what criteria are used for that appointment? I thought that the overview and scrutiny committee could be used, before somebody was appointed, to assess whether the person being appointed would be satisfactory in the role. I have come to the conclusion that Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is a better amendment.
We need an appointments process that is public: a fair and open selection process where the criteria and the process are publicly understood, as are levels of remuneration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, have said, this will be in order to ensure transparency and accountability. This really matters: the public will not have confidence in some of these appointments if they think that someone has been appointed without the right qualifications or experience to undertake the job. When you give power that is too great to an individual—a mayor—there is a danger that, in some places, at some times and on some occasions, that could happen, and we do not want it to. I want the Bill to succeed; we are in favour of driving the devolution agenda.
I am not planning to move Amendments 48, 66, 57 and 58 in this group, but I hope very much that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, decides to press Amendment 45, she will have our support.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have expressed my strong reservations and serious concerns about the appointment of unelected commissioners on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and I again join the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his criticism of Clause 9. Again, I ask the Minister: do we really want or need more unelected bureaucrats involved in running local authorities? To make matters worse, they now propose to increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10—why? What possible reason could the Government have for allowing mayors to appoint even more?
In Committee, we asked why senior councillors could not take on these roles, and we have not had a satisfactory answer. This is a perfect example of how, if you create a bureaucracy, it grows. We need to ensure that this does not happen, because it is all paid for by the taxpayer and we need to ensure value for money. That is why I, along with my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, tabled my Amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 44 would reduce the number of commissioners who can be appointed from seven to five. Reducing the costs of local government to taxpayers should be a priority. Amendment 45 would require the appointment process for commissioners to be fair, open and transparent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support in this. It is important that these appointments of unelected officials are transparent. The Local Government Association has expressed concern about the role of commissioners and wants assurances that there will be robust scrutiny arrangements to hold them to account, given their potentially significant role and remit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that accountability is maintained in the appointment of commissioners? I am doubtful that the Government will be able to satisfy me that the process will ensure value for money and democratic accountability, so, when Amendment 45 is called, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said earlier, I recognise that this is an important issue, and we want to get it right, not least because we care about bettering those places and communities that are personal to all of us.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to reduce the number of commissioners a mayor can appoint to a maximum of five. I remind noble Lords that ensuring that mayors have the capacity and capability to undertake the new responsibilities we are devolving to them is essential to ensuring that devolution is a success. Commissioners are a key part of a mayor’s toolbox. Reducing the number of appointments to a maximum of five simply limits the flexibility and scope of the model. In particular, it would mean that a mayor would not have the option to appoint at least one person to operate in each of the eight areas of competence should they want to. We have had much discussion, both in the Chamber today and during Committee, with noble Lords wanting other areas of competence, including rural and cultural areas. We do not want to inadvertently force mayors to neglect particular areas of competence because they lack the support they need.
I must reiterate that these are optional appointments. We expect combined and combined county authorities to make their appointments prudently, based on where they determine a commissioner will add value to achieving public outcomes.
To respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why council leaders cannot do this work, commissioners are expected to be politically restricted posts, which means that they should not be able to undertake certain activities that someone sitting as a council leader would do, such as canvassing on behalf of a political party. It would therefore not be appropriate for a council leader to be appointed as a commissioner. Council leaders acting as portfolio leads play an important but distinct role from commissioners, and we expect both to work together and will detail this in forthcoming guidance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(1A) Appointments under this section must be made following a fair and open selection process.(1B) The mayor must publish the criteria and process for appointment.(1C) The mayor must publish the agreed remuneration for the appointed commissioner.(1D) The mayor must publish details of appointments made under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process, and that the criteria and process for appointment are published, as well as their remuneration, in order to ensure transparency and accountability.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would increase the maximum number of commissioners that the mayor of a combined authority may appoint from 7 to 10.