English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons and Amendments

12:00

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C, C1, H and H1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I thank all noble Lords who engaged extensively in the brief period we had between Report and ping-pong. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill. As she outlined, the Government’s central aim with this Bill is to devolve power and money from central government to those with skin in the game, building a different type of state where communities with local knowledge are given the power to shape their areas.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pidgeon, for the first group of amendments today. Lords Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to Clause 2. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I do not believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. I have reflected on the points made on Report, and the central issue is not whether rural affairs appear as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competences. Rather, it is about how strategic authorities and their mayors exercise their functions, taking proper account of the needs of rural communities.

To address that, the Government propose to issue non-statutory guidance to strategic authorities to ensure that they consider the needs of those who live and work in rural areas when exercising their powers and functions. Separately, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners, which will give the flexibility to assign multiple commissioners to a particular area of competence. This approach enables commissioners to focus on specific aspects within those areas, such as rural affairs, should they wish to do so. With these points in mind, I ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment.

Lords Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process and that the criteria and process for appointments are published, as well as commissioners’ remuneration. Through the passage of this Bill I have been emphatic about the Government’s focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that. I trust that the statutory guidance published by the Government on 16 April, which covers important issues raised in this House, provides confidence to noble Lords in that regard. Members in the other place raised concerns about appointments being based on merit. I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointments should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner’s role, once they are appointed, must also be published on the website of the combined authority or the combined county authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, queried directly with me how adherence to the guidance is monitored and enforced. As the guidance is statutory, relevant authorities must have regard to it unless they have a good reason to depart from it and can explain that reason. If the guidance is not properly considered, decisions may be unlawful and therefore open to challenge through a judicial review. Failure properly to consider the guidance will also be a relevant consideration for government in assessing whether an authority is meeting its statutory responsibilities, including compliance with the best value duty, and would form part of MHCLG’s assessment of governance and improvement.

Lords Amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would enable the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s budget with a simple majority. The Government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities, including London. A general principle in that simplification is that the voting arrangements for exercising functions should match those for agreeing the budget that funds those functions. In mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, most functions will now be decided by the default arrangement of a simple majority of authority members, which must include the mayor, but some functions—strategic planning, bus franchising, mayoral development corporations and fire—are exercised solely by the mayor. For that reason, these authorities have two budgets, one for functions exercised by the authority as a whole and one for functions exercised solely by the mayor.

The Bill streamlines the process for setting and agreeing the budget for functions exercised by the authority as a whole. They will now be subject to a simple majority, including the mayor. However, mayoral budgets will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend, as set out in existing secondary legislation. It is right that we empower democratically elected mayors to set the budget for functions exercised solely by the mayor, with the appropriate checks and balances that the two-thirds majority provides. The GLA’s budget and governance are fundamentally different from those of combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, so there is a single consolidated mayoral budget for the GLA. The assembly’s role is to scrutinise the mayor’s budget and exercise the functions, not make decisions on them. It is therefore appropriate that the threshold for amending the final draft of the Mayor of London’s consolidated budget remains a two-thirds majority, as is the case for mayoral budgets in other mayoral strategic authorities.

That is why it is the Government’s view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as they would put the scrutiny of the mayoral budget in London out of step with those in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for raising it and for providing a helpful opportunity for the Government to clarify the position. I am happy to confirm that the Government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure that this principle can be easily understood.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that there are a very few exceptions to that, and I will detail why that is the case. Those differences exist for technical reasons—for example, in the east Midlands, given the Nottingham tram contract, or where the number of constituent authorities within a CCA does not allow for a neat two-thirds split. The Tees Valley has five constituent authorities, and therefore a three-fifths voting threshold is the closest equivalent to two-thirds that is possible with that number of constituents. As I said, the Government will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements.

On Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu, the explanation that I have given clearly sets out that a review of voting arrangements for the London Assembly’s ability to determine the Mayor of London’s budget is unnecessary. I hope that this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the Motion from the other place not to insist. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments in lieu.

Finally, Lords Amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, collectively seek to remove the powers for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or a combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government do not support these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that devolution can play a central role in boosting regional growth, attracting investment and improving outcomes for communities, with decisions taken closer to the people they affect.

The powers in the Bill are intended to ensure that progress towards those aims is not stalled indefinitely where there is a clear potential for devolution but, importantly, where no workable proposal has come forward locally—because that is what we all want to happen, ideally. They provide a backstop power to be used only where necessary and appropriate, and with clear statutory safeguards. In practice, our approach continues to be one of collaboration with local partners.

That commitment to partnership has been reinforced by the assurances given by the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities in the other place, where, as your Lordships will know, the Government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent they will not commence the powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities or the expansion of existing strategic authorities without local consent. They have further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent they will not use these powers to provide for a mayor without local consent. These commitments provide a clear and proportionate backstop power while preserving the legislation’s ability to support devolution over the long term. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments to Schedule 1.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.”

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. The Commons have disagreed with our amendment, which was carried 285 to 156: a majority of 129 and a pretty convincing endorsement of the strength of feeling in the Chamber for rural affairs to get the recognition they deserve. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter and offer for rural affairs to be included in non-statutory guidance.

The reasons given by the Commons were that rural affairs are covered by the other competences in Clause 2 of the Bill, as the Minister has already referred to. Just as rural-proofing was considered an essential element of any service delivery, infrastructure project or change to local government, it should have been an essential element of the planning all through the process. The question should continually be asked, “How will what is being proposed affect rural areas?”

Rural England covers the largest geographical area of England but has the smallest proportion of population. The large towns and cities, due to the ease of connectivity, attract business of every description and provide jobs and economic prosperity. Ever since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s, this has been the case—but even Arkwright built his mills in rural Derbyshire.

This morning, I have been contacted by Richard Hebditch of the Better Planning Coalition, who emphasised how important rural areas are. If I may, I will quote from his email, in which he 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, and the Government is clear that it sees its cities and larger towns as the focus for both economic growth and infrastructure investment. We are concerned that there is a strong risk that rural areas will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up SDSs as well as in the other strategies and plans. We therefore welcome current Lords Amendment 2, which inserts rural affairs as a competency for strategic authorities”.


I am grateful to Richard Hebditch for his information this morning.

Those who live in rural areas want the same benefits as those who live in highly populated areas. We want the strategic authorities and the mayors to consider how their future plans will affect those in rural areas. The benefits of a thriving economy, good infrastructure, a buoyant jobs market, decent homes and good connectivity, especially digital as we enter the AI-dominated era, should be the right of those in rural areas. The town and parish councils are likely to be overlooked if care is not taken.

I recently returned from a short stay in rural Norfolk, where my mobile phone coverage was very patchy. Even at home in Hampshire, where I live on the outskirts of a village but only 200 yards from the secondary college which services a large area, bringing students in on double-decker buses, I have difficulty with my mobile reception. If I want to make a phone call or answer an incoming call, I have to go into the lounge at the front of my home to get sufficient signal to be able to have anything like a decent conversation.

The majority of 129 on the amendment on 24 March was one of the largest majorities, if not the largest majority, on this Bill, and demonstrates the strength of feeling in the Chamber on the importance of rural affairs. I remain convinced that rural England will get the recognition it deserves only if it is in the Bill and is covered in statutory guidance, not relegated to non-statutory guidance, which is not sufficient. Every policy and strategy brought forward by mayors and strategic authorities should have been through a process whereby the question has been asked and considered, “How will this affect those living in rural areas?” How will this affect their safety, environment, access to decent affordable housing and travel arrangements? Asking commissioners to consider rural affairs if they wish, I am afraid, does not cut it. I beg to move.

12:15

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.

I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.

This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.

Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?

However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.

Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.

On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:

“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.


That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.

It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.

In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.

Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,

“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]

It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.

There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.

That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to speak to Conservative Motion C1. As I was in the Chamber when that was addressed, I was told I could speak.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

The noble Baroness was not in the Chamber. I saw her take her seat.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have just had advice that I can speak, otherwise I would not have.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness was not here at the start of the debate, I do not think she is able to speak.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion C1, in support of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. The Minister will be aware that, during the passage of the Bill, I have suggested on a few occasions that there should be a full review of the London mayoral governance process, because there is lots of learning since the original scheme was brought through that really should be revisited.

The Minister issued a letter to us this morning that, as I understand it, gave us this reason on changing to simple majority voting in London: the Assembly is actually a scrutiny function and not part of the mayoral budget process, and therefore that would not be right because it is not part of that policy-making responsibility. Indeed, in the Minister’s opening remarks she said that London is “fundamentally different” and “out of step” with others.

Does this not endorse my earlier proposal? Elsewhere in the country, in governance proposals that have been brought forward since, local council leaders are part of that policy-making process. That would give some opening for other people being involved. In London the current situation—the mayor has sole responsibility and there is a two-thirds majority for the assembly—means that it is unlikely to ever be challenged. Surely, London deserves better. Either it needs to be 50% or, as I suggested throughout consideration of this Bill, we need to relook at London.

12:30

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will refer first to the amendments on rural affairs and the areas of competence. The issue here is not the areas of competence; the lack of an area of competence for rural affairs will not impede strategic authorities or disadvantage those who live and work in rural areas. The Bill is not prescriptive. The use of functions sits at the discretion of the relevant strategic authority or mayor. Where an authority has a significant rural population, it can and should consider the challenges and opportunities affecting those communities when exercising its powers.

As noble Lords will be aware, many existing strategic authorities and their mayors are taking the matter of rural affairs very seriously. In Devon and Torbay, for example, the combined county authority has published its working plan, which outlines the authority’s long-term goals for the next 10 years. Many of these goals focus on resolving the issues faced by the region’s rural communities, from poor transport links to digital isolation. I know our mayors have taken up the very important issue that noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised—the digital exclusion arising from poor broadband in many of our rural areas.

In York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority is rolling out DNA marking kits to reduce rural crime and thefts. The North East Combined Authority is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The existing areas of competence and their associated functions empower authorities to engage in rural affairs, and that is why the Government view publishing guidance as the most effective means of ensuring rural matters are considered in strategic authority thinking.

To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the culture competence—why that has been made a competence and rural affairs have not—the areas of competence are intended to capture broad, thematic priorities affecting communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban. The challenges faced by rural communities are already 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 by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities, as in the examples I set out.

On Report, noble Lords outlined many of the issues that rural communities face. One example was public transport and the infrequency of bus services. As we are all aware, the Bill provides for an area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. It confers upon strategic authorities, via Clause 32, functions over local transport planning, including securing public passenger transport services and bus franchising. This shows that the Bill gives strategic authorities the tools and the means to address the issues that noble Lords have raised. However, it does not highlight the challenges faced by rural communities or assist strategic authorities in recognising and effectively responding to these issues. That is why the Government view the issuing of non-statutory guidance on the consideration of rural needs as the most effective way of ensuring that rural affairs are not overlooked.

Turning to the issue of commissioners, I welcome the debate we have had surrounding the new commissioner role throughout consideration of the Bill. Noble Lords and Members in the other place have consistently raised questions about the number of appointments, their selection and their ability to be held accountable. It is important that the increase in appointments be viewed in the context of improving operational flexibility for combined authorities and combined county authorities. The amendments we have made mean that mayors will have the ability to appoint a commissioner to the new culture area of competence, as well as allowing more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence. They also ensure that commissioners can work or exercise functions in any aspect of an area of competence, rather than needing to work on the whole area.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their comments about the guidance. I was really pleased that the guidance is thorough and deals with many of the issues your Lordships have discussed during the progress of the Bill. There are also clear arrangements around the remit of local scrutiny committees and commissioners when they are introduced to an authority. Commissioners will be subject to sanctions, including removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties if they fail to answer questions or provide information or mislead a local scrutiny committee. With the new guidance that has been published, I hope we have dealt with many of the issues that were raised during our discussions on the Bill.

On voting arrangements, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lady, Baroness Pidgeon, for her very collegial engagement on Lords Amendments 13 and 87 concerning the London Assembly. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that it is important that we remember that we are not debating whether there should be a review of voting arrangements in London. The Government believe that London’s devolution model has been successful over the last 25 years, but we will continue to work with the Mayor of London and London Assembly members to ensure that the model is fit to support the capital’s continued growth.

On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I have set out, these amendments would bring scrutiny to the Mayor of London’s budget. If the amendments were passed, they would bring him out of line with his counterparts in the rest of England. As such, I ask that the House does not insist. For the same reason, I also ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her Amendments 87B and 87C.

Lastly, on ministerial powers of direction, noble Lords will be aware that, without a backstop power, there is a risk that some areas will get left behind. I have been very clear that these powers will only be used as a last resort when all other options have failed. However, notwithstanding the safeguards in the Bill, I have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords. That is why my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, made the commitment that we will not commence the powers to establish a non-mayoral strategic authority or expand an existing authority without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent, nor will we commence the power to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank those taking part in this short debate, and I also thank the Minister for her comments. However, I disagree that leaving the consideration of rural affairs to the discretion of strategic authorities and mayors and not including it specifically on the face of the Bill, nor in statutory guidance, is sufficient. Non-statutory guidance can be easily set aside. Now is an opportunity to recognise the importance of rural affairs. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

12:38

Division 1

Motion A1 agreed.

Ayes: 220

---

Conservative: 138
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 16
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1

Noes: 143

---

Labour: 125
Crossbench: 15
Non-affiliated: 3

12:48

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because it is not necessary to legislate for the process of appointing commissioners.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 13 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A and 87A.

13A: Because it would be inappropriate for changes to a proposed GLA budget to be subject to a simple majority decision by the London Assembly.

87A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 13 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu—

87B: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the voting arrangements for determining the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the situation of the Authority in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities in other regions, and make recommendations on whether there is a case for reducing the majority required for the Greater London Authority.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within one year of the passing of this Act.”

87C: Clause 92, page 86, line 34, at end insert—
“(ia) section (Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement) (review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement);””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1 in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

12:49

Division 2

Motion C1 disagreed.

Ayes: 152

---

Conservative: 138
Crossbench: 5
Non-affiliated: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 207

---

Labour: 128
Liberal Democrat: 51
Crossbench: 22
Non-affiliated: 6

12:59

Motion D

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 89, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 26A and 89A.

26A: Because national planning policy already ensures that brownfield land is prioritised for development.

89A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 26 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion D, I will also speak to Motions G and G1. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, for their amendments in this group. Turning first to Amendments 26 and 89, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their engagement on this issue. As I have previously said to this House, the Government fully support a “brownfield first” approach to development. The NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, it is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

I appreciate that there is a feeling among noble Lords that the NPPF has not had the full effect that is desired. However, conclusions on the effectiveness of brownfield policy are premature and cannot fully be seen at this stage. The nature of plan making means that there is often a lag between changes made to national policy and seeing impacts on the ground. Also, we have yet to publish our revised NPPF, so the full effects of our wider “brownfield first” policy interventions are yet to be seen. Prescriptive changes in primary legislation are therefore not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that would not support effective delivery or allow local circumstances to be taken into account. It would also undermine wider government objectives to deliver the homes this country needs, including new towns. We therefore must resist the temptation to do this.

However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords, and to further stress the importance of prioritising brownfield land over greenfield land the Government are committing today to prescribing in secondary legislation that when preparing their spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayors and strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.

On Lords Amendments 89B and 89C specifically, spatial development strategies do not allocate or designate specific sites or land. That is a role exclusively for local plans. Instead, SDSs are there to set a spatial framework and to identify broad locations for development. It is likely that some of those broad locations will contain both greenfield and brownfield land, and it is for the local planning authority to work out which land should be allocated for specific purposes. We intend SDSs to be high-level documents that are relatively quick to produce, and introducing what amounts to a series of legal tests would serve to slow that process and open up potential avenues for legal challenge. This would have a drag effect on setting the framework for the development that the country needs. For these reasons I respectfully ask the House to agree with the Motion not to insist from the other place, and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her amendments in lieu.

I turn now to Amendments 41 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the noble Baroness, as well as my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Keeley, Lord Spellar and Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their insight and very constructive engagement on this issue. I am also pleased to have met the Music Venue Trust yesterday to discuss this amendment and to further understand its concerns. While the Government do not consider that primary legislation is the appropriate mechanism, we fully share the objective of ensuring that new developments do not unduly impact existing businesses. That is why my colleague in the other place confirmed on Tuesday that guidance will be updated to set clearer national expectations and promote best practice across local authorities. In parallel, we will write to local authorities highlighting the importance of this policy. This commitment will support national planning policy, which already carries significant weight within the planning system, while allowing decision-makers the necessary flexibility to apply it in the light of the specific circumstances of each development proposal, including a proportionate assessment of impacts and mitigation. Updated guidance will complement the steps we are already taking to strengthen the effectiveness of the agent of change principle.

As part of our most substantial revision to planning policy in a decade, we have recently consulted on setting out more clearly what information decision-makers should take into account in the National Planning Policy Framework. A policy approach is more agile than primary legislation, and we can continue to refine it based on feedback on how it is working in practice. This is exactly what we have done through our recent consultation. We sought views on whether our proposed policy is sufficiently clear, and we are currently in the process of analysing responses. I believe we have had 20,000 responses to the NPPF consultation.

Furthermore, as part of the NPPF consultation, the Government have been clear that the decision not to designate statutory national development management policies at this time will be kept under review, and we will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions. Therefore, I am not persuaded that primary legislation is going to be effective or necessary. Taken together, our changes to policy and guidance will help to ensure that businesses and cultural venues are robustly protected from the effects of new development within their vicinity. This is what we all want to happen, and that was certainly echoed by the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope the House will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place. I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not press her amendments in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 89B and 89C in lieu—

89B: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Brownfield land priority
(1) A spatial development strategy prepared by a mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority must seek to prioritise the development of suitable brownfield land within the relevant area before designating greenfield land for development.
(2) Greenfield land may be designated for development where the authority is satisfied that—
(a) the use of available brownfield land alone would be insufficient to meet identified development needs, or
(b) development of such brownfield land would not be viable, deliverable, or would give rise to unacceptable environmental impacts, having regard to subsection (3).
(3) In applying this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the availability and deliverability of brownfield land,
(b) the economic viability of development,
(c) the suitability of brownfield land for the proposed development,
(d) the environmental impacts of any development,
(e) the need to meet housing and economic development requirements in the relevant area, and
(f) and relevant national planning policy.”

89C: Clause 92, page 88, line 1, at end insert—
“(ka) section (Brownfield land priority) (brownfield land priority);””

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Throughout the debate on this Bill there has been agreement across the House that there should be a focus on brownfield first, putting homes where they are most needed—close to jobs, facilities and infrastructure. It is better for the environment, helps to regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields. The current crisis has highlighted the need to grow our own food.

While prioritising brownfield is in planning guidance, it is not working. Greenfield development continues to represent around 50% of all housing development, with the loss of around 50,000 hectares in the last three years according to government statistics—and that excludes solar farms. Why? Because it is easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields. If we are genuinely to move the dial, we need to do more. We need a more proactive approach. Strategic development strategies are an opportunity to proactively look at how more can be done to build on brownfield to regenerate those urban areas and build the homes we need, to remove barriers and to support doing the right thing. That is why we are moving this Motion to make clear that this should be the case and to give it legislative backing.

The Minister raised some concerns, and I appreciate the time she has given to discuss this. We have listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and, as such, legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as policy-led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates in practice. We have specified the amendment as pertaining to spatial development strategies and have recognised that land is allocated to meet specific identified development needs. Our amendment recognises that authorities must have regard to relevant national planning policy; housing and economic requirements for relevant areas; environmental impacts; and deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development. We do not believe, as the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, it is the reverse: this is an opportunity to have more sites available for development.

I reiterate that we are not seeking to stand in the way of development. Rather, we want authorities, mayors and central government to properly address and overcome the challenges of brownfield development. I hope the Minister will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendments in lieu, on which I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I also thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her efforts on her amendment in lieu, to bring it more in line with the arrangements in Scotland while seeking to reflect English planning laws.

We must remember that this is not just about music or cultural venues. It involves several other existing businesses and facilities, which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend from the Front Bench, and I will speak to Motion G.

I take this opportunity to most warmly thank the Minister for meeting with a group of us this week and following that up with a meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday. I listened very carefully to what she had to say. I understood that, possibly, last week, the Government were minded to bring forward an amendment; it is still not too late for them to do so.

I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. The amendment is wider than the Scottish proposed law, which has now been in force for seven years, and our proposed amendment goes on to reflect English planning practice.

In the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, the world has not caved in, and I do not think that, in that time, a significant number of music centres have closed, nor indeed have there been other instances of massive mitigation costs being sought. The Scottish provision has brought clarity and legal certainty to all those concerned. I am afraid I part company from the Minister: I think the House and the Government need to move on from light, fluffy, non-statutory policy to give statutory basis and legal certainty in the provision that I have set out.

We have set out in Amendment 94B that, in the event of an impact-sensitive development, regard is held and it is the agent of change—the new business—which takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense. It gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments.

I am very mindful of the fact that this mostly concerns music centres in England. We have had some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard. This is a wider issue than that. It reflects the fact that we have an urban-based problem here—a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and restrictions perhaps being imposed by others. While it is without doubt mostly music venues that have been affected by mitigation costs and the risk of businesses closing, the problem is wider and arises from dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and mixed-use development. The beauty of the amendment before us today is that it engages planning, licensing and nuisance in a way that would resolve this problem.

I firmly believe that the Government would be sticking their head in the sand by trying to go along with fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter, and I ask the Minister to explain what status a letter would have. The provision proposed today, which would come into effect two months after the Bill is enforced, would resolve the issues once and for ever. It would give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we could move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various iterations of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

13:15

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, under Motion G1: Amendments 94B and 94C, on the agent of change. I do so with particular reference to music venues. I also thank the Minister for the meeting we had this week.

The principle of the agent of change is not an issue in itself; that is supported on all sides of the House. The question is very much how best it can practically be enabled, and it is clear that the guidance by itself has not worked. The experience of the Music Venue Trust in terms of cases is hugely informing, and points clearly to the distinction made between the Scottish system as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which is statutory, and the English experience based on guidance. MVT says that the reason why the Scottish system works is that developers know applications will be rejected if they do not abide by agent of change. Response is, therefore, twofold: either applications abide by agent of change first time, which immediately speeds up the process, or if applications do not abide, the council has clear legislation to which to refer when declining the application. This means that organisations such as the Music Venue Trust do not enter a time-consuming back and forth of repeatedly objecting with the council and the developer.

Of the 300 music venues that have closed since 2015, the Music Venue Trust has documented 125 cases of venue closures where planning has been a direct cause of closure, rising to over 175 cases that include that as a contributory factor. But closure itself is not the only factor; as the MVT says, the absence of a clear statutory requirement means that every planning application near a music venue involves protracted negotiation over whether and how agent of change is applied. Venues spend months, sometimes years, in a process that a statutory requirement would resolve at the point of application. Moreover, as the MVT says, with only guidance in place, every time a developer seeks to circumvent the principle, a venue and its supporters must fund the legal and professional costs of enforcement through the planning process—costs that run to approximately £20,000 per case on average, rising to over £50,000 in more complex cases, which are not sustainable for the industry. A statutory provision would avoid this, but it is clear that the statutory solution has much wider support than in the industry itself.

In the just published and excellent Fan-led Review of Live and Electronic Music from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, a report for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the fans’ charter states:

“The UK Government should embed the ‘agent of change’ principle in planning legislation in England. Following Scotland’s example, we would like to see the principle strengthened in law across the whole of the UK”.


The Government are saying that they will strengthen the guidance. There is no guarantee that this will work, and at the end of the day guidance is still guidance. We have the luxury of a ready-made template of the Scottish statutory system, proven over seven years to work smoothly, quickly and with minimal dispute. There is really no reason why the Government should not accept this amendment, based on that law, inclusive of that law, other than their aversion to a statutory solution.

I fully support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. If she divides the House, I will support her in the Lobby.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time on this Bill, and I apologise to the House for doing so rather late in the day. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has just explained why I have not been participating actively before: for the last year or so I have been undertaking a review of live electronic music, commissioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons. He referred to one of the 50 recommendations in that excellent report, which I commend to noble Lords to study carefully. It is exactly as the noble Earl has just said: that the UK Government should embed the agent of change principle in planning legislation in England, following Scotland’s example. That is a key part of it.

I will just say the following on the Government’s Motion G and the amendment to it in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I pay tribute to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, who originally introduced the successful Private Member’s Bill many years ago in the House of Commons, which got the ball rolling, shall we say, on the whole agent of change issue around music venues and got it strengthened in guidance. That was a welcome step forward. However, even at the time I remember him saying to me, “This will not be enough; we will need a statutory provision eventually”.

I therefore very much welcome the engagement there has been from my noble friend the Minister, and the fact that the Government have acknowledged that this is not currently working effectively in practice and that it needs strengthening, and made clear commitments to do that within the National Planning Policy Framework. That is an extremely welcome move. However, I still have the view—I would not have said so in the review—that putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen. Without that, there will always be the issues which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, so effectively outlined for those people operating music venues.

Having said that, I would have preferred any amendment that was put down—I mentioned this to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—to replicate the Scottish position, which is specifically about noise nuisance caused by music venues. It is not about church bells, cockerels in the morning or living next door to a pig farm; it is about a specific problem that really needs to be dealt with, where an existing music venue produces noise but is operating legally, and a developer decides to move in next door and then expects that existing business to pick up the mitigating costs for any nuisance that might be caused to residents moving into the flats, houses or whatever they are. There is a danger, if you draw this too wide, that that principle will be diluted.

I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. It remains my view that this should be a statutory provision, but I am very pleased that the Government are acknowledging that there is a problem, because this is not working currently, and that they have already committed to responding in due course to all the recommendations in my report.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for meeting us this week and for meeting the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

The Minister in the other place told us that the agent of change principle is “already firmly embedded” in national planning policy since 2018, yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grass-roots music venues from closure. If that is what “firmly embedded” looks like, one shudders to think what neglect would produce.

The Minister’s answer is more guidance—updated, strengthened, consistent. But that is precisely what was promised when the principle entered the NPPF in 2018, and again in every consultation since. The guidance says the right thing—it always has. The problem is that guidance is only guidance. Developers know it. They test it, challenge it and too often circumvent it, because they do not have to comply. No amount of strengthened wording changes that; only statute changes that calculus.

The Minister speaks of flexibility for local decision-makers, but flexibility cuts both ways. It means inconsistency: one authority holds the line while another folds under developer pressure. It means venues exhausting their reserves on legal fees to enforce what policy already supposedly guarantees, and it means that venues without access to specialist support do not achieve a remarkable success rate. They simply close—quietly, invisibly and without appearing in any dataset as a planning casualty.

Even the Government’s own Back-Benchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his constituency, where flats remain unbuilt precisely because developers lack the clarity that only statute can provide. The Minister offered him a meeting. One can only hope that the music venue at risk survives long enough to hold it.

Scotland did not offer meetings or updated guidance; Scotland legislated. Disputes there are vanishingly rare because the law is unambiguous and developers comply from the outset. There is no costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect venues, and no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. The Government have had seven years to make guidance work; it has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle—the Government themselves have endorsed that principle repeatedly—it simply gives it the legal force it has always lacked so that decision-makers have a firm statutory footing, and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. I support Motion G1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.

The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.

Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.

The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.

Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.

13:30

As I set out for the first time yesterday, we will publish new planning practice guidance on the agent of change, following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred extensively to the Scottish experience, as did others. Despite the agent of change being placed on a statutory footing there, there is no clear evidence of any significant effect on implementation. Scottish Ministers have called in a number of applications where this is a central issue to make sure that a suitably balanced approach is being taken. That includes arguments from both sides, the developers and the venues. This demonstrates that primary legislation has not removed the questions of implementation at a local level, and I am not persuaded by the evidence that we have seen that this approach has made a material difference on the ground.

The Government are committed to supporting the UK’s music industry as part of our industrial strategy. At my meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday, it clearly highlighted that problems with the music industry are many and various. The agent of change is one of them, but there is often more than one issue when music venues are in trouble. We will soon publish a music plan drawing together all that the Government are doing to support the music industry. That includes a £30 million music growth package over three years from 2026 to support domestic growth, talent development and music exports.

We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt a voluntary ticket contribution, where £1 from every stadium and arena ticket will go towards supporting grass-roots music. In 2026-27, all live music venues will benefit from 15% business rates relief on top of the support announced at the 2025 Budget. Their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years to allow the vital infrastructure that showcases our vibrant music industry to continue to thrive.

Lastly, on the licensing regime, local authorities can already take account of the agent of change principle within the current licensing system. The legislation recognises that different areas face different pressures, and licensing authorities may reflect this principle in their statements of licensing policy where they consider it appropriate or necessary.

We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework. It sought views on whether there is value in strengthening the existing approach. The call for evidence included a specific question on the agent of change principle, and the detailed analysis will be published in due course. This will help to guide our thinking on next steps on the issue.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their support and thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that the Minister has offered assurances that the Government will set out in regulation that strategic planning authorities, when preparing spatial development strategies, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land. However, as I said earlier, this approach has not worked. If we are genuinely going to move the dial, we need to strengthen the prioritisation of brownfield development. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.

13:33

Division 3

Motion D1 agreed.

Ayes: 209

---

Conservative: 130
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 14
Non-affiliated: 4
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 145

---

Labour: 130
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 5

13:44

Motion E

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36 and 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 36A and 90A, do not insist on its Amendment 155 and do agree with Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F.

36A: Because it is appropriate for the Leader and Cabinet Executive to be the principal type of executive arrangements for local authorities.

90A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendments 36 and 155 to which the Commons disagree.

155A: Schedule 27, page 283, line 10, leave out “or remained”

155B: Schedule 27, page 283, line 11, after “resolution” insert “under this Part”

155C: Schedule 27, page 283, line 36, after “resolution” insert “under this Part”

155D: Schedule 27, page 283, line 37, leave out “or remained”

155E: Schedule 27, page 286, line 18, leave out paragraph (a),

155F: Schedule 27, page 286, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3)

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.

Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.

As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.

I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.

On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.

Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.

Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.

Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.

Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.

In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to support the Government’s amendment in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Shipley]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s statement a moment ago. We have debated this issue several times. I still believe that the case I have been making, with colleagues, remains the right one.

I was interested in the fact that the Minister cited in evidence a moment ago research done by CIPFA on a mayoral cabinet system, but of course what that research did not mention was that local people might have a view about it and wish to change the system. The problems have arisen in places where there has been a cabinet model that has worked badly, and where local people have wanted to change the model back to a committee system. That is the issue, and what is happening under this Bill is that they will no longer have the power to do so.

I read carefully what the Minister said in the other place when it debated our amendments on Tuesday. She said that the Bill

“sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 238.]

If that is what the Government believe, why does that not extend to the governance structure under which decisions are being made on communities’ behalf? They do, of course, pay the bills. I just find that the Government say one thing but are simply entering now the straitjacket of a single governance structure, giving no power to local people to affect change in their area where that does not work well.

I feel strongly that, even at this late stage of the Bill, we must safeguard local consent for local government changes. We need to promote parish governance for unparished areas and prevent the compulsory imposition of the executive model on all local councils. I have never understood why central government can claim that this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, at the same time as forcing Clause 59 upon us, which does precisely the opposite of what the Government are seeking to do, and this very simple issue stays in place. There is still time for the Government to change their mind.

Throughout this Bill, my amendments have been to produce a more transparent system that the public can understand and thereby support. It would extend democratic engagement by all councillors across all parties and groupings and really help to improve the quality of decision-making at the point a decision is made. I have found this overcentralisation of power, which is the reality, very worrying in a Bill that masquerades as being about devolution in England and community empowerment, because in some respects, that is true, but in most respects, it is not. Therefore, I beg to move my Motion E1.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I want briefly to speak in favour of my noble friend Lord Shipley’s amendment. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said about how the committee system does not necessarily work.

I want to share the Sheffield experience with the noble Baroness. In Sheffield, when we had a strong leader model, the leader picked her cabinet, and we ended up with 10 people deciding for the entire city. There were 84 councillors and 10 people chosen by the leader. There was one occasion—I think my noble friend Lord Scriven will remember this—where, in one ward, all three councillors were part of the cabinet and large swathes of the city had no say. What we ended up with—I hope noble Lords go and Google this—was the Sheffield tree fiasco, where even the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who is not in his place, came up and could not see what was going on. That was a result of the groupthink that existed within that strong leader model.

Let me tell your Lordships what the situation is at the moment in Sheffield. There is no party in overall control. You would think that would be chaos, but it is not. It is made up of nine councillors drawn from all political parties representing different parts of the city, who all sit on a particular committee. There is a leader of the council—at the moment, he is a Labour councillor. All the committee chairs sit on what we call a strategy and resources committee. Therefore, all councillors have a say. We do not have the ludicrous situation where the scrutiny boards, as previously under a strong leader model, are picked by the same leader who is in charge of the cabinet. It was a ruling group which had all the cabinet positions and the scrutiny positions. That is why we ended up with bad decision-making.

It is why I say: let local people decide. If this Bill is about community empowerment, let them decide. People in Bristol and Sheffield have decided to go for a different model. I referred to Birmingham on a previous occasion and how it had a strong leader model but was not able to make the difficult decisions that Sheffield most recently has, despite no party being in overall control and moving to a committee system. We have not been in the financial crisis that the likes of Birmingham have been in.

What I am saying is that different models can work, but let us trust local residents. Let central government loosen a bit of control and let local people decide. Given what is written on the tin of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, why are we not empowering communities? At the moment, it feels disempowering. Therefore, I hope the Minister will address the issue of the Sheffield experience.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion F1 and particularly Clauses 37 and 91. Large parts of England—about 20% or one-fifth—will be unparished when the Government have finished vandalising our councils with LGR—the historic county boroughs, cathedral cities such as Norwich and Oxford, coastal communities such as Great Yarmouth, Hastings or Eastbourne, and new towns such as Stevenage, where the noble Baroness served with distinction as leader for many years. I note my noble friend Lady Maclean is not in her place, so I will save her from saying that the town of Redditch, which she represented with distinction, is wholly unparished—save for little Feckenham in the south-west of that new town.

When Labour is done, these places will not have a properly constituted, legally incorporated and democratically legitimised local council to mow the park, heat the baths and run the carnival, complete with a proper mayor, wearing red robes and a tricorn hat, with ribbon-cutting, convening powers. Through Clause 60, what the Government have in mind for these unparished areas is a system where out-of-town patsies are parachuted in to play politics in toothless talking shops with no resources, because there is nothing left in the precept once social care has feasted on it.

I read with astonishment this morning what the Minister wrote to us in proposing Amendment 37A, which will allow town and parish councillors to attend those meetings. Does she not see the problem here? In those places, there are not going to be any town or parish councillors—that is the point. By what alchemy will she conjure up councillors from thin air to attend these meetings? It is just magical thinking. That is why Amendment 37A is worthless: you cannot send people who do not exist.

14:00

By contrast, my noble friend’s amendment will ensure that elected community champions exist, that they have real resources to respond to local needs and, probably most importantly, that the self-selecting cronyism, nepotism, back-scratching and special interests with an axe to grind do not hold the majority over a barrel because nobody will be given the chance to cast their ballot for people who live in and love their town.

Without the cast-iron commitment to parish England from top to bottom, we risk making perhaps one quarter of our population second-class citizens, including by far the majority of Redditch. From start to finish, the Bill has been mis-sold. It is not about empowerment that any reasonable person would recognise but about the wholesale disempowerment of entire communities in the most historic corners of our country. I commend Motion F1 to the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply say that I entirely agree with Motion F1; in the interests of time, I will not go further. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, which have particular relevance to that Motion.

I will chiefly speak to, and offer the Greens’ the strongest possible support for, Motion E1. We believe in democracy; this is about democracy. I was intimately involved in the Sheffield tree campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, set out. I will just tell noble Lords of one occasion at the end of that story, when the cabinet model was falling apart. The cabinet member responsible for overseeing the cutting down of trees stood in the council chamber and brandished a slice of a tree that had just been cut down. It was a memorial tree to two twin brothers killed in the Second World War. He celebrated how they cut down that tree. That was where groupthink and that model of governance had led us to: the council was set against the people of the city.

I will not go into any more depth on that; it is an issue I have majored on since Second Reading. Instead, I will refer to something that has happened very recently in Bristol, where we have a similar situation to Sheffield and where the people decided they wanted democracy and did the very difficult job of delivering that democracy against the current, the push, from Westminster. There was a glowing peer review for the Local Government Association just this month, specifically noting how in Green-led Bristol council the committee system had strengthened democratic engagement and transparency of the council.

If an independent, non-political overseer can see the benefits of the committee system, surely the Government can too. I am not saying that they should mandate a committee system—I believe in local democracy—but surely they should see that they cannot apply their own authoritarian ideology to local communities up and down this land. That is unacceptable at any time, but it is particularly so in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution and community empowerment. This makes no sense. I urge your Lordships’ House, in the strongest terms, to oppose and to keep opposing Clause 59.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. At this very late stage, this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill. This is like a map of Sheffield—Manor Castle, Tinsley and Hunters Bar, and I am a former leader of Sheffield City Council—and the reason why we are speaking on this issue is not just because we saw what happened in Sheffield. We understand the power of giving local people the ability to hold others to account, not just at election time but in how they are governed, the administration and the powers devolved through all 84 councillors. This not only changes behaviour but helps to make the correct decision for a particular community.

I notice that a noble Lord opposite is shaking their head but, for Sheffield, it was the right decision. People turned out at the ballot box and decided that this was what they wanted, and—surprise, surprise—it has not created chaos. People in our city know who to go to about their bins or roads; they know who the chair of the committee is. They know that when they go to their local councillor, they have some power to influence the committee system, unlike the cabinet model where it is down to 10 people. My noble friend Lord Shipley has moved this Motion because if another Sheffield happens, once this Bill has gone through, there is no way the system can be changed. The community is left with an administrative system that they are completely locked out of other than at the ballot box in four years. Under the strong leader model, when I was leader of Sheffield I could have decided to hold all except reserve powers. I could have decided to have a cabinet of three people deciding what happened strategically.

The reason for this amendment—and why the Government must go away and rethink—is that we need to ask the Minister to answer this question. If another Sheffield arose in a year’s time after this Bill was passed, how would the local community change that system to make sure that local councillors had powers to ensure they were not held to ransom by three people within the strong leader model? If that question cannot be answered, it is really important to understand that communities are going to be left with systems that do not necessarily meet their requirements. It is really important. The reason why three people from Sheffield have spoken is because we understand what happens when it goes wrong, and we have faith in local people to use their knowledge and their votes to put that system right.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will raise a couple of broader points about where we are. A strong leadership system operates well when you have only two parties represented on a council. We are about to have local elections in which the number of councils elected with only two parties represented, and one party holding a clear majority, will probably be smaller than it has been for a very long time. Where we have multi-party politics, the need for co-operation and engagement among all those on council is of a different order than under the strong leadership model. If the Government do not recognise that, they are utterly failing to future-proof this Bill.

On Motion F1, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is going around the country talking about the Government’s failure to recognise the very radical implications of the strategic defence review. He talks about the need for mobilisation of the population at local level to deal with the new hybrid, civil and other threats facing this country. If we want to mobilise local volunteers and local services, we will have to engage our local population. If we have only distant councils representing half a million people, the population in Bradford will not be mobilised and will remain as disillusioned and unengaged as before, and the SDR will fail.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just said, and I will add a couple of points. One is that in a committee system, every single member of the council has a role to play, has a function and is a part of the system. It is a really good way of encouraging good people to stand as councillors. In a cabinet system, nine-tenths of the council has nothing to do and you just get total disinterest in wanting to sign up for that, particularly if you are likely to be in opposition. We need good people in councils—we might even apply the same to Parliament. Having a system where only a few people have a real role to play is a big disincentive to seriously talented people joining an assembly of any variety.

Secondly, on Motion F1, as has been said I am a resident of Eastbourne, and we will have nothing that represents Eastbourne except a committee of a unitary authority, which may well have a completely different political make-up from the councillors elected in Eastbourne. There will be no way of expressing our voice as a community; we will just be waiting to be trampled on by other people’s ambitions. That is not the right way to run a local community. Yes, we need to improve on what we have at the moment—having one big town council with a runaway precept with no limits on it is not much fun either—so we need to think through what we should do at the parish level. But to have nothing—no initiative or sense that this is important—is a big hole in the Government’s thinking.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward his Motion on the cabinet model. In doing so, he raises a question about how best local authorities should be governed and where the balance should lie between consistency and local discretion.

I support this Motion to leave out Clause 59. The removal of the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure would allow local authorities the freedom to determine governance models that best reflect their local circumstances, as we have heard so strongly about in Sheffield. That flexibility is not only sensible but at times necessary. Local government is at its most effective when it is responsive to the communities it serves. Imposing a single governance model risks overlooking the diversity of those communities and the different ways in which effective leadership and accountability can be achieved. Allowing councils to make these decisions for themselves is a recognition of their democratic mandate and their capacity to govern in the best interests of their residents.

That principle of local discretion and trust in local leadership brings me directly to my Motions on town and parish governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have quite rightly championed the voices of town and parish councils. These communities represent the most immediate and tangible layer of local democracy, rooted in the everyday lives of the people they serve. I and many others have been very disappointed with the lack of strong support from the Government in this Bill for parish and town councils as part of our true local government. Town and parish councils are the custodians of local identity, the stewards of community assets and often the first point of contact for residents seeking to shape the places in which they live. For this reason, Clause 60 must go further.

This Motion is modest yet important. It would enable parish council representation within neighbourhood governance structures—not just maybe in them. We are not imposing a rigid requirement, but we are encouraging inclusion where it is appropriate. This is a matter of democratic coherence. If neighbourhood structures are to speak credibly for their areas, they must reflect the full spectrum of local government within them. Excluding parish councils, bodies with a direct democratic mandate, with the word “may” in the government amendment would risk creating a disconnect between decision-making and those who know their communities best. Such inclusion would strengthen collaboration rather than complicate it. We should champion and encourage this important layer of local democracy, and this amendment reflects and respects its role.

14:15

In short, this amendment reinforces a principle that has underpinned much of our debate: that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect and that those already entrusted with local representation should not be overlooked. That is about empowering local communities. I therefore urge noble Lords to support both the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the Motion in my name as sensible, constructive steps towards more inclusive and effective local governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have championed localism and the voice of communities. It is therefore right that we now test the opinion of the House on these important issues.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to local authority governance arrangements. The Government have been clear and consistent in their view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide clearer accountability, stronger leadership and speedy and more effective decision-making for local government. That remains our firm view, and that is why we cannot accept these amendments.

However, as I set out earlier, this is not a rigid or prescriptive approach. The Government have listened carefully to points raised throughout the passage of this Bill and have responded. Councils that have only recently adopted the committee system will not be required to change immediately but may continue for the remainder of their moratorium period, after which they will undertake and publish a review of their governance arrangements. Meanwhile, the existing statutory notice requirements are being retained. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the executive forms of governance and the leader and cabinet model are also not rigid or prescriptive, but in fact leave room for flexibility in how they are implemented. While formally operating within the leader and cabinet framework, councils already employ a wide range of approaches to delegation, decision-making and scrutiny.

I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about most of the council doing nothing. I think that is completely wrong and denigrates the role that local councillors hold. Local councillors perform many important roles in councils, including scrutiny, licensing, planning and many other functions, as well as their very important role as ward councillors and, in the future, in the neighbourhood governance arrangements we are introducing. Some councils operate highly collective cabinets while others centralise decision-making. Some may choose to adopt a hybrid model, any of which can and should be employed best to reflect local needs. As I said, under the Government’s plans, councils that more recently adopted the committee system will retain this model.

In terms of evidence to justify moving away from the committee system, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. Decisions can be slower. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meetings were intensive, with six policy committees and nine subcommittees involving 78 out of 82 councillors. It can be much harder for councils to keep a single strategic view. Co-ordination across individual committees can be a persistent challenge. That same peer challenge flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments contributing to challenges in service delivery and communication.

Moving into and out of the committee system absorbs time and attention and increases administrative costs. Several councils that adopted the committee system later reverted to the leader and cabinet model, such as Brighton and Hove in 2024, and Newark & Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, both in 2022.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister is making the case in her answer that local discretion is required to move from one model to the other depending on local circumstance, rather than being centrally prescribed by Westminster.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.

Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.

The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.

Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.

Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.

Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.

We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.

I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.

At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.

Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.

14:23

Division 4

Motion E1 agreed.

Ayes: 207

---

Conservative: 129
Liberal Democrat: 56
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 141

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 2
Bishops: 1

14:33

Motion F

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.

37A: Clause 60, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, provide for the membership to include one or more members representing any parish council or councils within the neighbourhood area.”

91A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 37 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A, and do insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

14:34

Division 5

Motion F1 agreed.

Ayes: 197

---

Conservative: 125
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 8
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 144

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 3
Bishops: 1

14:45

Motion G

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 94A.

41A: Because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

94A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94B and 94C in lieu—

94B: After Clause 63 insert the following new Clause—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments
After section 70D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert the following new section—
“70E Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “impact-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing activity in the vicinity of the development.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 70(1), a planning authority—
(a) must, when considering under section 70 whether to grant planning permission for an impact-sensitive development subject to conditions, take particular account of whether the development includes sufficient measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effect of the anticipated impact of existing activities on the development from any existing cultural venues or facilities (including in particular, but not limited to, live music venues), or dwellings or businesses in the vicinity of the development, and
(b) may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for an impact-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that impact.””

94C: Clause 92, page 88, line 21, at end insert—
“(z1) section (Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments) (protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments);””

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who spoke. For all the reasons we rehearsed in our arguments when we moved the amendments, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

14:47

Division 6

Motion G1 agreed.

Ayes: 208

---

Conservative: 126
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 17
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 138

---

Labour: 126
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 2

14:58

Motion H

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.

85A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 103 to which the Commons disagree.

86A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 120 to which the Commons disagree.

97A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

98A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

99A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

100A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

101A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

102A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

103A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

104A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

105A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

106A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

107A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

108A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

109A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

110A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

111A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

112A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

113A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

114A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

115A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

116A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

120A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

121A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

123A: Because streamlining the processes relating to the establishment, expansion and functions of combined county authorities is necessary to ensure that Strategic Authorities are in place across England.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

14:59

Division 7

Motion H1 agreed.

Ayes: 199

---

Conservative: 131
Liberal Democrat: 52
Crossbench: 6
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 146

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 14
Non-affiliated: 3
Bishops: 1