Lords Chamber

Thursday 23rd April 2026

(began 3 weeks, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:05
11:07
11:08
11:08
Lord Stockwood Portrait Lord Stockwood, Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Lord >> I'm grateful to the noble Lord for the advanced sight of his follow up question. I commend the forensic technical nature of the question as well. The trade measure he refers to covers 20 categories of steel, including all steel that is made in the UK that includes Breitbart wire and stainless steel. Categories were not covered in the safeguard are all now in scope. This means that the measure protects 100% of steel production domestically in the UK, whereas the steel safeguard only protected 96%.

We engaged extensively with industry when developing this measure and have sought to balance the need to protect the domestic steelmaking industry whilst maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses as well. We will continue to engage closely with industry as we implement the measure, and we have committed to reviewing the measure in the next 12 months to ensure that it is entirely fit for purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the. My friend, indicate what further helpful measures there may be for this beleaguered industry in be for this beleaguered industry in terms of energy costs, a green taxes which are necessary have dealt severe blows to the long term dealt severe blows to the long term prospects for steel and. In Wales we have seen the erosion of tens of we have seen the erosion of tens of thousands of steel jobs. May I also ask him to bear in mind that rail connections between steel producers
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Funding to permit farmers to undertake environmental measures for flood prevention and drought resilience Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question. Sunny in my name on the Order Paper.
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:51
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> Malvern Hills Bill and one other motion, the Senior Deputy Speaker. >> My Lords, I beg to move the first two motions in my name be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first two motions in my name be agreed to. En bloc question is that the two motions in the name of the Senior motions in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker be agreed to. En bloc, as many as are of that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Debate on the Report of Procedure and Privileges Committee on changes relating to Grand Committee and delegated legislation. Debates. Procedural changes resulting from the coming into force of the House of Lords.

Hereditary Peers Act 2026. Highlighting international agreements. Committee reports in House of Lords business. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Procedure and Privileges Committee report to the Senior Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the seventh report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee be agreed to. The first part of the report The first part of the report proposes changes to grand committee sittings and to debates on delegated legislation in order to increase the House's capacity to scrutinise legislation before the scrutinise legislation before the House and give peers more certainty around timings. The committee recommends that the default maximum sitting length of grand committee should be increased to five hours, with grand committee on Thursday starting at 12:15 p.m.

rather than 1 p.m. further, we recommend there should be an additional grand committee for delegated legislation only on Tuesday morning, starting at 11 a.m. for up to three hours. As now, these provisions will only be used when necessary. We also recommend changes to debates on delegated legislation to create greater certainty for members, both those taking part in debates on delegated legislation and those taking part in business taking place after such debates. We recommend time limiting debates on delegated legislation in the chamber to a maximum of 60 minutes and having a speaker's list, the usual channels would, in exceptional circumstances, be able to extend the time limit to 90 minutes or longer.

The committee also recommends that during debates on delegated legislation, both in the chamber and grand committee, the clock should time the length of speeches rather than the whole debate, bringing practice on the use of the clock into line with that. For debates on primary legislation. My Lords, all these changes, if agreed by the House, will be implemented for a trial period only and will be reviewed in spring 2027. The second part of the report seeks the House's agreement to changes to the standing orders and companion that reflect the coming into force at the end of this session of the core provisions of the House of Lords Hereditary Peers Act 2026.

This repeals. This requires the repeal of eight Standing Orders and the amendment of another, along with consequential changes to the companion. Finally, the report seeks the House's agreement to minor changes to the companion. Following the House's decision on 14th April that departing hereditary peers should have the same access rights as members who retire under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. My Lords, I commend the report to your Lordships. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I want to put on the record that I I want to put on the record that I very much approve of the suggested additional day on Tuesdays specifically for delegated legislation. I think it's important that the delegated legislation is, that the delegated legislation is, given the stature that it deserves, and I think this will be a popular addition to the abilities of members of your Lordships' House to discuss delegated legislation.

I note it is only for a trial period initially, but I feel sure that it will be at the end of that period adopted on a permanent basis, which I would very much welcome.
11:55
11:55
11:57
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Portrait Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Milords two interesting comments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, obviously, I would also want to take this opportunity to thanking him and his committee for undertaking what is a very key part of our committee work, and I express gratitude for that. I would say both to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle that I specifically said the committee wanted to have this as a trial. The intention behind all this rationale.

And when we as a committee looked at it, was to in no sense stifle scrutiny, indeed, to give peers greater certainty about timing. We had had a number of observations about the difficulty of of this issue. So it is, as I say, for a trial at no point. And in fact, as chairing that committee, at no point did any of us see this as a route to, to use the words, the noble Baroness shutting down debate. It's very important that these matters are properly scrutinised.

What I would say is this is one of my passing and final shots. Senior Deputy Speaker is that when I have ever I've spoken to the House, the House is almost unanimously felt that we should all speak succinctly to the point and not over stress their Lordships with lengthy contributions. And I do think that what we all need to do in this trial is to ensure that, yes, there is proper scrutiny, but that it is done in a way that I think is conducive to the whole spirit of having these debates in the terms that I've described.

So on that basis, and the points that have been made by noble Lords, I hope that the your Lordships will approve the committee report, and I beg to move the motion standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are. That opinion will say, content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Standing orders public business. The Deputy Senior Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move the forth motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Order. The question is that this motion be agreed to as many as are of that opinion as they content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
12:00
None Portrait Legislation: English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. >> The question is, if the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered as many as are that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment two, to which the its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason to a. I will also speak to reason to a. I will also speak to motions B, c, c one, H, and h one. My Lords, it's a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place, and can I thank all noble Lords who have engaged extensively in the very brief period we have had between report and Ping pong, and I would like to 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.

Turning now to the first group of amendments in discussion today, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pigeon, beginning with Lords Amendment two, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. My Lords, this amendment seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to clause two of the Bill. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I don't believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. Having reflected on the points made during report, the central issue is not whether rural affairs appears as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competencies.

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 proposes 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. My Lords, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to ten 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. And with these points in mind, I would ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment. Turning now to Lords Amendment four in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, this amendment 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.

My Lords, I've been emphatic through the passage of this bill about the government's focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that, and I trust the statutory guidance published by the government on the 16th of 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, and I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointment should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner's role, once 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 and failure to properly 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 assessment of governance and improvement.

Turning to Lords amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon, which enabled London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London's budget with a simple majority, the government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangement 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 this 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 is set out in existing secondary legislation.

It's 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 is fundamentally different from combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, and 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. Therefore, it's 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.

And that is why it's the government's view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as it 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, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, for raising it and providing a really helpful opportunity for the government to clarify the position, and I'm happy to confirm the government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure this principle can be easily understood.

And can I just comment briefly at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble Lord Jamieson raised that there are a few, a very few exceptions to this, and I'd like to just detail why that's the case. These are where 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, or in the Tees Valley, which has five constituent authorities and therefore a 3/5 voting threshold as the closest equivalent to two thirds possible with that number of constituents, the government, as I said, will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements regarding amendment in lieu 87 B and 87 C.

The explanation I've 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 this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the motion to not insist from the other place. And I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendments in lieu. Finally, my Lords, I turn to Lords Amendment 85, 86, 97 to 1 one six and 120121 and 123.

In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, they 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 does 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 this 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 when 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 your Lordships will know, the government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent, it 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. It has further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent, it 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 would ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments in schedule one.
12:10
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A be >> The question is that motion A be agreed to motion A one. The Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mandeville. Lord, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion a leave out an amendment to motion a leave out from house to the end and insert do insist on its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons to a. The Commons have disagreed with our amendment, which was carried 285 to 156, a majority of 129. A pretty convincing endorsement of the strength of the feeling from the chamber for Rural Affairs to get the recognition they deserve.

And I'm grateful for the Minister's letter and offer from Rural Affairs to be included in non-statutory guidance. The reasons given by the Commons were that rural affairs are covered by the other competencies in this on clause two of the Bill, as the Minister has already referred to as. When rural proofing was considered as 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 the way through the process.

The question should continually be asked how will what is being proposed affect the 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 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, emphasising how important rural areas are and, if I may, I will quote from his email 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 sds's, as well as in the other strategies and plans. We therefore welcome current Lords Amendment two, which inserts rural affairs as a competency for strategic authorities, and I am grateful to Richard Hebditch for his information this morning.

Those who live in rural areas want the benefit of 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 comedy economy, good infrastructure, a buoyant jobs market, decent homes and good connectivity, especially digital. As we enter the AI dominated area area should be the right of those in rural areas. My Lords, 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 the 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 in order to get sufficient signal to be able to have anything like a decent conversation.

My Lords, the majority of 129 on the amendment on the 24th of March was one of the largest, 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. Convinced that rural England will only get the recognition it deserves if it is on the face of the Bill and covered in statutory guidance, and is 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 by whereby the question has been asked and considered how will this affect those living in rural areas? How will this affect their safety, their environment, access to decent affordable housing and travel arrangements? Asking commissioners to consider rural affairs if they wish.

I'm afraid does not cut it. I beg to move. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A B agreed to since when motion A1 has been moved as an motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. Firstly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly. My thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward
12:15
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
her motion again A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs to the list of competencies and I agree list of competencies and I agree with every word she said, including that about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. Whilst we've been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this government wished to push forward their reforms, then it's only right that reforms, then it's only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the noble Baroness Neate 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's more, the government tabled amendments to at Report stage, which allowed a commissioner's work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues. My Lords, I do feel very strongly that a Commissioner for rural for Rural Affairs within an area which has a rural area in as part of its its responsibilities, does allow that rural proofing not just of rural things, but of all other services that the mayor is considering as a.

As a result of my understanding now is that this does not mean that every mayor has to appoint a Commissioner for Rural Affairs. That may not be suitable, as I've said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate, as I have said, to rural affairs, and would enshrine rural affairs into law rather than leaving it, as we've heard, to non-statutory guidance. This brings me to the appointment of commissioners, and I'm very grateful for all the time that the noble Baroness the Minister has given me and and others for, and her work and engagement on this issue and other issues.

My Lords amendment four sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointments of commissioners, and I'm very pleased of of the commissioners, and I'm very pleased with the draft statutory guidance that for full fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for ensuring us that the guidance has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account and therefore, we will not be pushing this amendment.

Turning now to voting arrangements, my Lords, on the London Assembly, and I'm also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the bill's exact position on this. It was very complicated, and it. And it was useful to have that that explanation on the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two thirds majority. But as the noble Baroness Limb Minister has continually said in this bill, the government wants consistency. We're not all sure that we agree with that, but the government has made it very clear that they want consistency across the country.

So why not in mayoral voting arrangements? However, as we've said, and the noble Baroness, the Minister has said there are exceptions across the country. We've got the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority. We have the London mayoral voting arrangements and given this is this extensive bill seeks to, as I said, to simplify the system of local government as a whole. It's not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we've a tabled amendment 87.

B asking the Secretary of State to review the voting arrangements of the London Assembly in context of the budget setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend the government do more work in this area, ensuring that voting arrangements are not only consistent, but they also allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I'm therefore on this one minded Tess opinion of the House. Finally, my Lords, our package of amendments on schedule one regarding the Secretary of State's powers to direct changes to combined and combined county authorities based on on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent.

I note the government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively, but surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We've made it very clear throughout this bill 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. Whether the powers are used by this government or by a future government. Their use could do serious damage, my Lords, to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils.

And, as I've said, their local communities. And for these reasons, we remain concerned about the conclusion of these powers in the bill, and I hope Liberal Lords will see the risk they pose, not now but also into the future, and will support our motion H one. I beg you.
12:21
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I wonder if I might just add a thought or two around the issue of rural affairs, but first, can I just say that I am grateful for the movement the government has introduced on the appointment introduced on the appointment processes for commissioners? I did a Second Reading and at Committee stage and at Report stage have stage and at Report stage have quite a lot to say about commissioners. The appointment of them, the terms and conditions, and my worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are being appointed for the reasons of political favour or similar, and what you actually need are the best people for the job.

And therefore the guidance that's been issued, I think is really very helpful. Can I say something about this? The issues around rural affairs, because there is a problem in the documentation we now have in the sense that the Nobel Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was that the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs, but that is not the case.

They don't. And for Baroness Bakewell of Ardington Mandeville mentioned 1 or 2 of those. But let me just explain why it is not sufficient. The first is that whereas it is very important that for all the competencies that an authority has, that rural affairs are embedded in decision making. For example, on transport, and I'm sure they will be by the commissioners and the mayor and those who are charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things which are not within the the competence framework.

As an example, I will give the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It's not clear to me that that light of any of the competencies that the the government has has come up with. There are issues around cost of living, travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, you know, there are many young people who are undertaking placements as part of their education, which require substantial costs in in travel. And it is more expensive in rural areas than it is in, in, in, in urban areas.

Baroness 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 has come up with. And in general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. So the provision of NHS services would have a different focus. If there was to be a Rural Affairs Commission commissioner. I think the same is true of leisure facilities as well. So there are many areas of policy that one can think of that are actually not within the Meryl, the areas of competence.

So I think it would be very helpful if the government would come back to this. But having said that, the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment. The Undersecretary of state said this. 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. Well, I think that it would be really helpful if that became statutory as opposed to non-statutory guidance. I would like to know more about what is actually planned and the timescales for that, because I think it really matters.

And the danger is where you have a wholly urban area. You know, some of these issues are of lesser importance because there aren't the rural areas within them and where you have a wholly rural area within the metal structure. Well, then due attention inevitably, I think, will be given by the mayor. I see the problem coming where the there's a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population, and it's the rural area then that may feel they are losing out.

And unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think that we're going to find in a year or two years time that people are feeling short changed in rural areas. Which takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister, which is this there is to be an annual review. I think the government should state clearly in the other place, if the House decides it goes back to the other places, I hope it will. But that actually an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground, I think could be very helpful.

So I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points that have been made across the chamber. But I think there are issues here that do need to be addressed. And if the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I certainly will be supporting her.
12:27
12:28
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
Minister will be aware that during the process of this Bill, I've suggested on a few occasions that suggested on a few occasions that there should be a full review of the London governance process, mayoral governance process, because mayoral governance process, because there's lots of learning. Since the original scheme was brought through that really should be revisited. Now, the noble Lady, the Minister issued a letter to us this morning that gave us a reason, from my understanding that said to change to a simple majority voting in London, the Assembly are actually a scrutiny function and not part of the mayoral budget process.

And therefore that wouldn't be right because they're not part of that policy making responsibility. Indeed, the noble Lady the Minister has read as part of her opening remarks, said that London is fundamentally different and it's out of step with others. My Lords, doesn't this endorse my proposal earlier on, you know, elsewhere in the country in in governance proposals that have been brought forward since London, local leaders, council leaders are part of that policy making process. That would give some opening to actually have other people involved.

Whereas in London, the current situation that it is only the mayor that has sole responsibility and the two thirds majority for the Assembly means that that's unlikely to ever be challenged. Surely, my Lords, London deserves better. And either it needs a 50% or, as I suggested throughout the process of this bill, throughout the process of this bill, we need to relook at London.
12:30
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I refer first to the amendments on rural affairs and the area 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 of the 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 ten years. And many of these goals focus on resolving the issues being faced by the region's rural communities, from poor transport links to digital isolation. And I know our mayors have taken up the very important issue that the noble Baroness Bakewell raised about, about the digital exclusion of having poor broadband in many of our rural areas.

And in York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority is rolling out DNA marking kits to reduce rural crime threats, thefts, sorry. And 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's why the government views publishing guidance as the most effective means of ensuring rural matters are considered in strategic authority thinking.

Just to respond to the noble Baroness Cox points about the culture, competence and why that's been made a competence and not rural. 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 standalone 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. Like, as in the examples I've already set out during Report stage, noble Lords outlined many of the issues that rural communities face, and one example given was the issue of public transport and the infrequency of bus services.

As I'm sure we're 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. And what this shows is that the bill gives strategic authorities the tools and the means to address the issues that that noble Lords have raised. However, it doesn't highlight the challenges faced by rural communities or assist strategic authorities in recognising and effectively responding to these issues.

And that is why the government views 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. My Lords, turning to the issue of commissioners, I welcome the debate we've had surrounding the new commissioner role throughout the process of the Bill. My Lords and members in the other place have consistently raised questions around the number of appointments, their selection and ability to be held accountable, and it's important that the increase in appointments is viewed in the context of improving operational flexibility for combined authorities and combined county authorities.

The amendments we've made mean 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. Can I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and the noble Lord Shipley for their comments about the guidance? I was really pleased that the guidance is very thorough and deals with many of the issues that your Lordships have discussed during the process of the Bill, and there are also clear arrangements around the remit of local scrutiny committees and commissioners when they are introduced to an authority.

So they will be commissioners will be subject to sanctions, including removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings at a local scrutiny committee and financial penalties if they fail to answer questions, provide information or mislead a local scrutiny committee. So I hope that with the new guidance that's been published, we have dealt with many of the issues that were raised during our discussions on the bill. On voting arrangements. Can I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lady, the Baroness Pidgeon, for her very collegial engagement on Lords Amendment 13 and 87 concerning the London Assembly.

And just to Baroness O'Neill, can I say I think it's important we remember we're not actually debating today whether there should be a review of voting arrangements in London. It's just that the government believes London's devolution model has been successful over the last 25 years and will continue. But we will continue to work with the Mayor of London and Assembly members to ensure the model is fit to support the capital's continued growth and to respond to the noble Baroness Brady. Scott's comments, as I've set out, these amendments would bring scrutiny to the Mayor of London budget.

If the amendments were passed, they would bring them out of line with his counterparts in the rest of England. And as such, I would ask that the House does not insist. And for the same reason, I also ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendments 87 B and 87 C. Lastly, on ministerial powers of direction, noble Lords will be aware that without a backstop power, there is a risk that some areas get left behind. I've 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 and that is why my colleague and the Other place, the Minister for devolution, Faith and communities, made the commitment. We will not commence the powers to establish a non-male 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.
12:37
12:38
12:48
12:49
12:49
None Portrait Division
-

Is. Is. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion C

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion C one be agreed to. I beg your Lordships pardon. As many as the latter opinion will say content To

**** Possible New Speaker ****

latter opinion will say content To the contrary, not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And is And is that And is that motion And is that motion C1B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And is that motion C1B agreed And is that motion C1B agreed to. My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I have My Lords, I have voted My Lords, I have voted contents My Lords, I have voted contents 152 not contents 207. So the not contents have it. The question is that motion C be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content.

The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion d the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move motion d

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion d that this House do not insist on its amendments. 26 and 89, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 26 A and 89 a. I will also speak to motions G and G1I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Macintosh for their amendments in Macintosh for their amendments in this group. Turning first to amendment 26 and 89, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness,
13:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Lady Scott and the noble Lord Jamieson for their engagement on this issue. As I have previously said to this House, the government fully supports a brownfield first approach to development. The NPF is approach to development. The NPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework is a should be made. The framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have 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 there is a feeling amongst noble Lords that the NPF 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 there is often a lag between changes made to national policy and seeing these impacts on the ground.

Also, we have yet to publish our revised NPF, so the full effects of our wider brownfield first policy interventions are yet to be seen. Prescriptive legislative changes in primary are therefore not needed to support this objective and will create overly rigid requirements that will not support effective delivery or allow local, local circumstances to be taken into account. It would also undermine wider government objectives to deliver the homes this country needs, including on 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 is 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. Turning to Lords Amendment 89 B and 89 C. Specifically, spatial development strategies do not allocate or designate specific sites or land.

This is a role exclusively for local plans. Instead, the Sds's 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 Sds's to be high level documents that are relatively quick to produce, and introducing what amounts to a series of legal tests is going to serve to slow that process and open up potential avenues for legal challenge.

This will 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 not to insist from the other place. And I would kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendments in lieu. I will 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 Kiely, Lord Spellar Lord Brennan and the noble Lords Lord Freyberg and the Earl of Clancarty for their insight and very constructive engagement on this issue.

And I am also very pleased to have met the Music Venue Trust yesterday to discuss this amendment and to further understand their concerns. While the government does 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, and that is why my colleague and 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 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 of how it's working in practice. This is exactly what we have done throughout 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've had 20,000 responses to the NPF consultation. Furthermore, as part of the NPF framework consultation, the government has 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. And 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, which is what we all want to happen. And that certainly was echoed by the Music Venues Trust. Yesterday. For the reasons I set out. I hope the House will agree to the motion, not to insist from the other place, and I would kindly ask that the noble Baroness, lady McIntosh of Pickering, will withdraw her amendments in lieu.

I beg to move.
13:06
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that motion d be agreed to motion D one Baroness Scott of Bybrook. Scott of Bybrook. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion d one, as amended, in motion d at the end insert and do propose amendments 89 B and 89 C in lieu. My Lords, I declare my interest as My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, throughout this 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, to facilities and infrastructure.

It is better for the environment, helps regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields, something 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. And why? Because it's easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields.

If we're genuinely going 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 support doing the right thing. That is why we will move this amendment to make clear that this should be the case, and to give it legislative backing. Now, the noble Baroness Parminter did raise some concerns, and I appreciate her time that she has given to discuss this.

And we've listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the noble Baroness, the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and as such legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as a policy led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates. In practice. We specified the amendment as it 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 as well as deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development.

We do not believe, as noble Baroness, the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, the reverse. This is an opportunity to have more sites available for development. To reiterate, we're 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 that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendment, 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, but this. This involves several other existing businesses and facilities which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the noble Baroness, the Minister. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion D one has been moved as an amendment to motion D at end to insert the words as printed on the martial list. The question, therefore, is that motion D one be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords. I'd like to echo the comments of my noble friend from the front bench, and I'd like to the front bench, and I'd like to speak in particular to amendment G one motion G one that I move as an
13:10
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
amendment to motion G at the end insert and do propose amendments 94 insert and do propose amendments 94 B and 94 C in lieu. May I take this opportunity to thank most warmly opportunity to thank most warmly the Minister, the noble Lady for for meeting a group of us this week, and in particular for following it and in particular for following it up with a meeting with the Music Venues Trust. Yesterday I listened very carefully to what the noble very carefully to what the noble Lady had to say, and I understood that possibly last week the government itself was minded to bring forward an amendment, and it is still not too late for the government to do so.

I should declare that I am a non-practicing Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model actually gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. It's wider and reflects. The amendment is wider than the Scottish Proposed law, which has now been in force law, which has now been in force for seven years and goes on to. Our English planning practices. What has happened in the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, is that the world has not caved in, and I don't think in that time a significant number of music centres have closed, nor, indeed has there been other instances of of massive mitigation costs being sought.

So the Scottish provision has actually brought clarity and legal certainty to all of those concerned. So I'm afraid I part company from the noble Lady, the Minister and I need to. 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've set out. So what we set out in amendment, what I've set out in amendment 94 B is that there should be, in the event of an impact sensitive development, that then regard is held and that it is the agent of change, i.e.

the new business who takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense, so it gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments. And I do. I'm very mindful of the fact that it's mostly music centres in England, and I think we have some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard, but this is a wider issue than that, and it actually goes to reflect the fact that we have an urban based problem here, where you get a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and possibly restrictions being imposed by those others.

So one, it is without doubt that it's mostly music venues that have been affected in terms of 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 to resolving this problem that I firmly believe the government, by sticking its head in the sand and trying to go along with it with a fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter.

And I do ask the noble Lady to explain what the status of a letter would have. I believe that the provision proposed today, which is scheduled to come into effect two months after the bill is enforced, resolves the issues once and forever. It will give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various variations of the national planning policy, framework and guidance. I beg to move, and I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.
13:15
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Baroness McIntosh of Pickering amendment G1994B and 94 C on the agent of change, and I do so with particular reference to music venues. And I also thank the Minister for the meeting we had this week. My Lords, 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 Music Venue Trust has experienced in terms of cases is hugely informing point clearly to the distinction made between the Scottish system as outlined by Baroness McIntosh, which is statutory, and the English experience based on guidance and MV say this. The reason the Scottish system works is because developers know applications will be rejected if they do not abide by agent of change. The 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 to 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 developer, my Lords. Of the four of the 300 music venues that have closed since 2015, the Music Venue Trust had documented 125 cases of venue closures, where planning has been the 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 Music Venue Trust say, 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 MV say, 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, which run to approximately £20,000 per case on average, rising to over £50,000 in more complex cases. Costs which are not sustainable for the for the industry. My Lords, a statutory provision would avoid this. But, my Lords, it is clear that a statutory solution has much wider support than in the industry itself. In Lord Brennan of cantons just published an excellent fan led review of live and electronic music. A report for the culture, Media and Sport Committee. The fans charter states and I quote 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. My Lords, the government is saying they will strengthen the guidance. There is no guarantee this will work and the end of the day guidance is still guidance. We have the luxury, the luxury of a ready made template of the Scottish statutory system proved 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.

My Lords, I fully support Baroness Mackintosh's amendment. If she divides the House, I will support her in the lobby here.
13:18
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
Here, my Lords and I rise for the first time to speak on this the first time to speak on this bill. I apologise for doing so rather late in the day, but the Earl of Clancarty has just given an explanation for why I haven't been participating actively before, because that for the last year or so I have been undertaking a review of live electronic music commissioned by the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the House of Commons. And he. He referred to one of the 50 recommendations that are contained within the excellent report, which I commend to to to study carefully.

And one of them is exactly as the Earl of Clancarty just said, that the UK government should embed the agent of change principle in planning legislation in England, following Scotland's example, and I think that's a key part of it now in just rising to speak in relation to the government's amendment, G and and noble Lady McIntosh's amendment. And I'd just like to say this, first of all, to pay tribute to my colleague Lord Spellar, who originally introduced the private member's bill successfully many years ago in in the House of Commons, which got the ball rolling, shall we say, really on the whole agent of change issue around music venues and and did get it strengthened in guidance and that was a welcome step forward.

But I think even at the time Lord Spellar, I remember saying to me, this will not be enough. We will need a statutory provision eventually. So I do very much welcome the engagement that there's been from my noble friend, the Minister. And I do very much welcome the fact that the government has acknowledged that it isn't currently working effectively in practice, and that it needs strengthening and has come forward and made it clear, commitments in order to do that within national policy planning policy framework.

And that is an extremely welcome move. But I still have the view, and I wouldn't have said so in the review, that making the agent change principle around music venues, putting it on the face of the bill, making it a statutory provision, is ultimately what will need to happen, because without that, there will always be issues that the Earl of Clancarty just so effectively outlined for those people operating music venues. Having said that, I would have preferred any amendment that was put down and I did mention this to the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh to replicate the Scottish position, which is specifically about noise nuisance caused by music venues.

It isn't about church bells. It isn't about, you know, cockerels in the morning. It isn't about living next door to Pig Farm. It's about a specific problem that really does need to be dealt with, namely the issue where an existing music venue does produce 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 those residents moving into the flats or houses or whatever.

They are next door to the music venue. And I think there is a danger if you draw this too wide that that principle would be diluted. So I'd be very much interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. It it remains of my view that this should be a statutory provision, but I'm very pleased that that the government is acknowledging that there is a problem because it's not working currently and that the UK government have already committed to responding in due course to all the recommendations of my report.
13:22
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I too would like to support the. >> McIntosh of Pickering's Motion. >> G1, and. >> To thank the Minister for meeting us this week and also for meeting us this week and also for meeting the Music Venue Trust. Yesterday. The Minister in the other place told us the agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, firmly embedded since 2018. And yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grassroots music venues from closure.

If that is what is 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 principal entered the NPF 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 changed 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 data set as a planning casualty.

Even the government's own backbenchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his own 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 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.

No costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect them, no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. My Lords, the government has has had seven years to make guidance work. It has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle. The government itself has endorsed that principle repeatedly. It simply gives it legal force. It has always leapt so that decision makers have a firm statutory footing and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. My Lords, I support a motion G1.
13:25
13:26
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, noble Lords have >> My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The government fully supports the The government fully supports the brownfield first approach and we've set this clearly in national policy. We've 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 is 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, and I hope this will further demonstrate the government's clear commitment to a brownfield first approach and assure noble Lords. This issue is being taken seriously and I hope that they will not insist on this amendment. The agent of change lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation does not provide decision makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance.

National planning policy, as it stands, already carries very considerable weight in the planning system. It is certainly not light and fluffy as the noble Baroness Pidding McIntosh described it, 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 the 10th of 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 licenses for music venues. The government has also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and has decided, given the impact which we expect, the proposals in the consultation will not have will have not to to do that at this stage, we will keep this decision under review and will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions.

We are currently analysing all the feedback we've received and will publish our response in due course. Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of mitigation measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation. As I set out for the first time yesterday, we will publish new planning practice guidance on the agent of change following publication of National Planning Policy Framework. Despite placing a. I know the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh referred extensively to the Scottish experience, as did other noble Lords.

Despite placing the agent of change on a statutory footing, 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 on both sides from the developers and the and the venues. This demonstrates that primary legislation is not removed. The questions of implementation at local level, and I am not persuaded by the evidence which.

We've seen that this approach has made a material difference on the ground. The government. I would also add that the government is committed to supporting the UK's music industry as part of our industrial strategy, and because my meeting with the Music Venues Trust yesterday, it was very clear and they highlighted that the problems with the music industry are many and various. An agent of change is one of them, but very often those music venues who are in trouble is more than one issue.

So we will soon publish a music plan, drawing together all that the government is 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 a pound from every stadium and arena ticket goes towards supporting grassroots music in 2627, all live music venues will benefit from a 15% business rates relief, on top of the support announced at the budget 2025.

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. And 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 the 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, which 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, and this will help to guide our thinking and on next steps for the on the issue.
13:32
13:33
13:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Haven't finished G1. that this House do not insist on its amendments 36 and 90 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 36 A and 90 A, and do not insist on its amendment. 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 155 A to 150 5FI will also speak to motions f and f1. I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments. In this group.

I turn to Lords amendments 3690 and 155, which 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 and in particular 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 at Report stage to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples I gave highlighting the difficulties with coordination, decision making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operate in the committee system.

The government has listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House, and has responded constructively, and I would also comment on the Cipfa, the Cipfa governance review. In 2025, they did a sector wide governance review and framework and issued a framework delivering good governance in local government that emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. This 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. At Commons Report stage, the government brought forward its own amendments to ensure that councils, which 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 has 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. Finally, my Lords, I should 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 stands ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. And for these reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the motion that this House do not insist on these amendments. Turning to amendments 37 and 91, which require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. While we have heard noble Lords valid arguments about the important role which town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those those comments.

We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role we intend to parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. This 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.

This 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 which 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.

This has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for this 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.

My Lords, it should be evident 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. Second, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils.

And third, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions, in a framework published later this year, ahead of laying regulations for the reasons I've 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 here.
13:51
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion be agreed to. Motion E1 Lord Shipley beg to move motion E1 as an amendment to motion E leave out amendment to motion E leave out from house to the end and insert do insist on its amendments 3690 and insist on its amendments 3690 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their amendments. 155 a to 155F to the word so restored to the bill. I'm very grateful for the Minister's statement a moment ago, and we've debated this issue several times.

I still believe that the case that I have been making with colleagues remains the right one. I was interested by the fact that the Minister quoted in evidence a moment ago research done by Cipfa on a metal Cabinet system. But of course, what that research didn't mention was that local people might have a view about it and might wish to change the system. The problems have arisen in places where there has been a Cabinet model which has worked badly, and where local people have wanted to change the model back to a committee system.

That is the issue. And of course, what is happening in this bill is that they will no longer have the power to do so. And, you know, I read carefully what the Minister said in the other place when they debated amendments on the on on Tuesday, and the Minister said this, the bill sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundations 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.

So, my Lords, if the if that is what the government believes, why does that not extend to the governance structure and under which decisions are being made on their behalf? They do, of course, pay the bills. So I think I just find that the government says one thing and is simply entering now a straitjacket of a single governance structure and giving no power to local people to affect change in their area where they don't work well. I feel very strongly that even at this late stage of the bill, that we must safeguard local consent for local government changes.

We need to promote parish governance for unparished areas, and we need to prevent the compulsory imposition of the executive model on all local councils. My Lords, I have never understood why central government can claim this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, yet at the same time as it forces clause 59 upon us, which does precisely the opposite of what the government is seeking to do. And this very simple issue stays in place. There is still time for the government to change its mind.

My amendments throughout the stages of this bill have been to produce a more transparent system that the public can understand and thereby support, and which extends democratic engagement by all councillors across all political parties and groupings, which I think really helps to improve the quality of decision making. At the point a decision is being made. And so I found this over centralisation of power, which is is the reality is very worrying in a bill which masquerades as being about devolution in England and community empowerment, because in some respects that is true in most respects it is not true.

And therefore, my Lords, I beg to move my motion. E1. The original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. Was that. Motion be. Agreed to, since when motion E1 has been moved as an amendment to has been moved as an amendment to motion E leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion E1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just. Briefly speak in favour of my noble Lord Lord Shipley amendment?
13:55
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble Lord Lord Shipley amendment? And I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and talked about how the committee system doesn't necessarily work, and I just want to share that Sheffield experience with the novel Baroness Carr, because in Sheffield, when we had a strong leader model, the leader picked her Cabinet at the time and basically we ended up with ten people deciding for the entire city. There were 84 councillors, ten people chosen by the leader. Often there was one occasion, I think Lord Scriven remember this, where in one ward all three councillors were part of the Cabinet and large swathes of the city had no say.

And what we ended up with, my Lords and I really hope that noble Lords do go on. Google Sheffield tree fiasco right where even Michael Gove Lord Gove is not in his place at the moment. Even he came and could not even see what was going off. And that was a result of the group thing that existed within that strong leader model. Let me tell you what the situation is at the moment in Sheffield. There is no party in overall control.

You'd think that was chaos, but it isn't. It's 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 council at the moment he's a Labour councillor, but all those committee chairs sit on what we call a strategy and resources committee, and therefore all councillors have a say. We don't have the ludicrous situation where the scrutiny board, previously under strong leader model, was also picked by the same leader who's in charge of the Cabinet, and therefore it was a ruling group who had all the Cabinet positions and had the scrutiny positions.

And that's why we ended up with bad decision making. And that's why I say let local people decide if this bill is about community empowerment, then let them decide where people in Bristol and Sheffield have decided to go down a different model. And I refer to Birmingham in my previous occasion about the fact that they had a strong leader model, but they weren't able to make those difficult decisions that Sheffield committee system. We've not been in the financial crisis that the likes of Birmingham have been.

So therefore, what I'm saying is that different models can work, but let's just trust local residents. Let central government just loosen a bit of control, let local people decide and give them what's written on the tin. When it says English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, then why are we not empowering communities? Because at the moment it feels like disempowering. My Lords. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister, when she gets up to speak, will address this issue around the Sheffield experience.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My God, I rise. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Talk F1 and particularly clause 37 and 91 look large parts of 37 and 91 look large parts of England about 20%. A fifth will be unparished when the government is finished vandalising our councils finished vandalising our councils with LGR. The historic county boroughs, cathedral cities like Norwich or Oxford, coastal communities like Great Yarmouth, Hastings or Eastbourne, and new towns like Stevenage, where the noble Lady served with distinction as leader for many years. And I note my noble friend Baroness McClean isn't in her place, so I will save her from saying that in the town of Redditch, which she represented with distinction, is wholly unparished safe, or little Feckenham in the south west of that new town.

These places will not have a properly constituted, legally incorporated, democratically legitimised local council to mow the park, keep the baths, run the carnival complete
13:59
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
with a proper mayor wearing red robes and a tricorn hat with ribbon cutting convening powers when Labour is done, what Labour as what the government and clause 60 have the government and clause 60 have in mind for these unparished areas is a system where out of town is a system where out of town patsies are parachuted in to play politics in toothless talking shops with no resources because there's with no resources because there's nothing left in the preset. Once social care has feasted upon it.

So I read with astonishment this morning when I went from when the noble Lady wrote to us proposing amendment number 37 A, which is going to make an amendment amendment to allow town and parish councillors to attend her meetings, doesn't the noble Lady see the problem here? Because in these particular places there aren't going to be any town or parish councillors. That's the point. By what alchemy will she conjure up councillors from thin air to attend these meetings? It's just magical thinking.

And that's why amendment 37 A is worthless. You can't send people that don't exist. So by contrast, my noble friend's amendment will ensure that elected community champions do exist. They have real resources to respond to local needs and probably most importantly of all, to ensure that that self-selecting cronyism, nepotism, backscratching and special interests with an axe to grind don't hold the majority over a barrel because nobody was given the chance to cast their ballot. For people who live in and love their town.

So without the cast iron commitment to parish England from top to bottom, we risk making perhaps a quarter of our population second class citizens, by far the greatest majority of Redditch. From start to finish, this bill has been mis sold. It isn't about empowerment that any reasonable person would recognise, but the wholesale disempowerment of entire communities in the most historic corners of our country. I commend F1 for the House.
14:01
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords. >> In following the noble Lord Lord Fuller. I'm just going to simply say that I entirely agree with amendment F1. In the interest of amendment F1. In the interest of time, I won't go further, although I will declare my position as Vice President of the Local Government Association and the National Association and the National Association of Local Councils, with particular relevance to that. But I am chiefly going to speak on E1 and offer the strongest possible support. We believe in democracy.

This is about democracy. And yes, as someone who was intimately involved in the Sheffield Tree campaign, the noble Lord Lord Mohammed has set out the story. But I will just tell noble Lords of one occasion at the end, as that Cabinet model was falling apart, the Cabinet member who was responsible for overseeing the cutting down of trees, stood in the council chamber and brandished a slice of the tree that had just been cut down. A tree that was a second World War memorial tree to two twin brothers killed in the Second World War and celebrated how they cut this tree down.

And that was where groupthink had led us to. And that was the council set against the people of the city. And that was where that model of of governance had led us to. However, I'm not going to go in depth in that. This is an issue that I've majored on right since Second Reading, but I will just refer to something that's happened very recently. And here I'm referring to Bristol, where, of course, we have a similar situation to Sheffield, where the people decided they wanted democracy and they did the very difficult job of delivering that democracy against the current.

The push coming from Westminster. And I note that there's just recently been a glowing peer review for the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how in green led Bristol Council, the committee system has strengthened democracy, engagement and transparency of the council. If an independent, non-political overseer can see the benefits of the committee system, surely the government. I'm not saying 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 just unacceptable. It's unacceptable at any time, but it's unacceptable, particularly in a bill that's supposed to be about devolution and community empowerment. This makes no sense at all. And I urge your Lordships House, in the strongest terms to oppose oppose clause 59 and keep opposing it.
14:04
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, >> My Lords, >> I also say that I am a Vice President of the Local Government Association, and it's the first time I've spoken on this bill, and time I've spoken on this bill, and it's very late stage. And I'm going to speak because this is like a map of Sheffield Manor, Castle Tinsley and Hunter's Bar. And I've actually been a former leader of Sheffield City Council. And the reason why we're speaking on this issue is not because we are doing it out of just seeing what happened in Sheffield.

We understand the power that when you give local people the ability to hold to account, not just at election time, but how they are governed in the administration and the powers actually devolved through all 84 councillors. It changes not just behaviour, but it makes the correct decision for that particular community. And I noticed that there's a noble Lord opposite shake a shaking their head. For Sheffield, it's the right decision. People turned out at the ballot box and decided that it's what they wanted and surprise, surprise, it hasn't created chaos.

People in our city know who to go to for bins, for, for 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 that committee system. Unlike the Cabinet model, where it is down to ten people. And the reason why my noble friend Lord Shipley has moved this amendment is because if another Sheffield happens, once this bill has gone through, there is no way that that system can be changed.

That community is left with an administrative system which they are completely locked out of, other than at the ballot box in four years time. And as the model of the strong leader is I, when I was leader of Sheffield, could have decided to hold all powers except to reserve powers. I could have decided to have a Cabinet of three and it would be three people deciding what happened strategically. So the reason for this amendment and why the government must go away and rethink is this.

And we need to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, to answer this question. If another Sheffield arose in a year's time after this bill was passed, how does that local community change that system to make sure that local councillors have powers to be able to ensure they are not held to ransom by three people within the strong leader model? And if that question cannot be answered, then it is really important to understand that communities are going to be left with particular systems, which doesn't necessarily meet the requirement of that particular community.

And 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 here.
14:07
14:09
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I very much agree with what Wallace has just said. I have a couple of points to that. One. One is in. >> A in a. >> Committee system, every single

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee system, every single member of the council has a role to play as a function, has a has a is play as a function, has a has a is a part of the system. It is a really good way of encouraging good people to stand as councillors in a committee system. None of the council has nothing to do and you just get total disinterest in in wanting to sign up for that, particularly if you're likely to be in opposition.

We need good people in councils. We might even apply the same to Parliament, and to have 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, when it comes to to motion F1, as has been said, I'm a resident of Eastbourne. We are going to have no nothing. We're going to have nothing that represents Eastbourne except a committee of a. Of a unitary authority, which may well be a completely different political make up.

Exactly. To to the councillors elected in Eastbourne. No way of expressing our voice as a community are just waiting to be trampled on by other people's ambitions. This isn't the right way to run a local community. Yes, we need to improve on what we've got at the moment to have one big town council with a runaway precept with no limits on it is not much fun either. So yes, we need to think through what we should be doing at parish level.

But to have nothing, to have no initiative, to have no sense that this is important, is a big hole in government's thinking.
14:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I begin by thanking 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. My Lords, I rise to support this motion to leave out clause 59, the removal of the requirement to retain a leader and Cabinet struggle structure would allow local authorities the freedom to determine governance models that best reflect their local circumstances.

As we've heard so very strongly about Sheffield, that flexibility is not only sensible, my Lords, but as we've heard at times, it is 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 leaderships brings me directly to the motions in my lame on town and parish governance throughout the passage of this bill. My Lords, we have quite rightly championed 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. And I and many, have been very disappointed with the lack of strong support. The government has not shown in this bill.

To parish and town councils as a part of our really true local government's. 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. It is this for this reason that clause 6660 must go further. The motion before us is modest yet important. It enables parish council representation within neighbourhood governance structures, not just may be in them.

We are not imposing a rigid requirement 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. To exclude parish councils bodies with 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. My Lords, such inclusion would, in 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. In short, this amendment reinforces a principle that has underpinned much of our debate. That decision 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, my Lords. I therefore urge local 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.
14:16
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I turn back to issues of local authority governance arrangements. The government's been very clear and consistent in its very clear and consistent in its view that executive models of governance, and in particular 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 has listened carefully to points raised.

The government has listened carefully to points raised throughout the passage of this bill and has 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. Some are picked up. The noble Lord Lucas point about most of the council doing nothing. I think that's completely wrong and denigrates the role that local councillors hold. Local councils perform many important roles in councils, including scrutiny, licensing, planning, many other functions as well as their very important role in as ward councillors and in the future, within the neighbourhood governance arrangements we're introducing.

Some operate highly collective cabinets, while others centralised decision making. Some may choose to adopt a hybrid model. Any of which can and should be employed to best reflect local needs. And 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 which highlight the challenges of the committee system. Decisions can be slower. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021 and LGA Corporate Peer Challenge found its structure was large and meeting intensive with six policy committees, nine subcommittees involving 78 out of 82 councillors.

It can be much harder for councils to keep a single strategic view. Coordination across individual committees can be a persistent challenge. That same peer challenge flagged the siloed nature of council, with poor joint working across departments contributing towards challenges of service, delivery and communication. And moving into and out of the committee system absorbs time and attention and increases administrative costs. Several councils that have adopted the committee system have later reverted to the leader and Cabinet model, like Brighton and Hove in 2024.

Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, both of those in 2022.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Making the case in an answer that local discretion is required to move from one model or to the other, depending on local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other, depending on local circumstance, rather than being centrally prescribed by Westminster. Hey. Now I'm making the case that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now I'm making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models doesn't serve the public that we serve. serve the public that we serve. Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and Cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision making spread across multiple committees. It is not always clear who is in charge. The government is 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. And 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. And can I just mention, as a Hertfordshire County Council in opposition, we had a set of Cabinet panels which were very good at both pre scrutiny and post scrutiny of decisions.

Councils can and should adopt a version of the model that suits their individual needs and lessons learned 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. My Lords, 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 here is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives where they exist. Now we know 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 council 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.

Now I always find the noble Lords rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is. I'm afraid we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community governance review process, including adding in good practice that is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance and I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords amendments. 37 and 91 EA.
14:22
14:23
None Portrait Division
-

advise the House when voting is Question Question is Question is that Question is that motion Question is that motion E1 Question is that motion E1 be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left by the Is. Is. The Is. The question Is. The question is Is. The question is that My My Lords, there have voted.

Contents 207 not contents 141 so the contents have contents 141 so the contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Law Commission f Law Commission f the Law Commission f the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I have already spoken to motion f that this House do not insist on its amendment. 37 do agree with the Commons and their amendment 37 a in lieu, and do not amendment 37 a in lieu, and do not insist on its amendment. 91 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 90 1AI beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. That motion be agreed to. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That motion be agreed to. Motion f1 the Baroness Scott of Bybrook. My Lords, I beg to move motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. The original question was on motion f be agreed to since when motion f be agreed to since when motion F1 has been moved as an amendment to motion f leave out from house to the end and insert from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion f1 be therefore, is that motion f1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content not.

The contrary, not content not. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now The The question is motion F1 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the Question Question is Question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Too Too late.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 197 not contents. 144 so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents of it. Motion the contents of it. Motion G the contents of it. Motion G the Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. So I have already spoken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I have already spoken to motion G that this House do not insist on its amendments. 41 and 94 to which the Commons have disagreed to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 41 A and 90 four A. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. I beg to move. Question is that motion be agreed to? Motion g1 the Baroness McIntosh of Pickering is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

McIntosh of Pickering is. I'm grateful to everyone who spoke for all the reasons we rehearsed in our arguments when we moved the amendment. I would like to move amendment G one and test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opinion of the House. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. G. G one as an. At the end of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

G. G one as an. At the end of the Martyn Blake question, therefore motion G one be agreed to. therefore motion G one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar. bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What we will do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is Is that Is that motion. Is that motion. The Is that motion. The question Is that motion. The question is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that motion. The question is. The question is that motion G one The question is that motion G one be agreed to? As many as are that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The left by the ball.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. Stimulation. Yes. And then a seat gets.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taken away. So you've got. Yes. Amalgamation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amalgamation. Yeah yeah yeah. How are you?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah I know. G1B G1B agreed G1B agreed to. G1B agreed to. Could G1B agreed to. Could you. G1B agreed to. Could you. I My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have voted. Contents 208 not contents.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords motion My Lords motion H My Lords motion H Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion H that this House do not motion H that this House do not insist on its amendments. 85 and 86, insist on its amendments. 85 and 86, 97 to 1 16120121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 85 A and 86 A, 97 A to 116A120A121A and 123 a. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Question is the motion H be agreed to motion H one Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott of Bybrook. Lords, I beg to move the motion H one in my name and test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. The original motion question was that motion H be agreed to. Since that motion H be agreed to. Since one motion H one has been moved as an amendment to motion H leave out from house to the end and insert the words of printed on the Marshalled List. The question therefore, is that motion h one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content, not content. Question will be decided by a division.

I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now Lord Lord Dear. Lord Dear. The question is that motion H one be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content content to the contrary, not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that While also voted.

Contents 199 not contents 146 so the contents have it. My Lords, may I suggest a short
15:11
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
>> My Lords. >> Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday, the 16th of April on the Women's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the 16th of April on the Women's Health Strategy. Begin by thanking the noble Lady, the Minister, for repeating the statement. The ambitions for the renewed Women's Health Strategy, I'm sure, will be supported by noble Lords on all benches, and I know that the noble Lady. The Minister, recognises that women have too often felt unheard, with conditions such as endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain going underdiagnosed. Now, in the minister's statement, there was an emphasis on listening to women and tackling entrenched inequalities.

And of course, this is welcome and we support the focus on shift from treatment to prevention and hospital to community, as well as the ambition to unlock the potential of digital innovation through NHS online. I also thank the Minister for acknowledging that these initiatives build on work undertaken by previous governments. But, my Lords, many women will judge this strategy not by its intentions and its words, but whether it leads to tangible improvements in their day to day experience of care. All governments announced grand strategies but sometimes fail to deliver.

So while many of these individual announcements are welcome, I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will allow me to ask for further clarity on a few points, firstly on waiting times and access to care. Now it's encouraging that waiting times for overall gynaecology have begun to move in the right direction, but many women are still waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment, and we know what that leads to. It leads to a range of conditions, often worse than outcomes and quality of poor quality of life.

So what does the can the Minister tell us what the department is doing to speed up the whole pathway from when the patient first presents through to treatment, and how will it ensure that there's greater transparency for patients so they actually know where they are in the queue and how long they have to really wait rather than estimates. Secondly, the strategy rightly places an emphasis on listening to women and acting on their experiences. And I'm sure that's an objective that noble Lords across the House share.

But however, experience suggests that unless you have clear structures for accountability, good intentions do not always translate into change. So how will the department ensure that any consultation is not just perfunctory, but the patient feedback is not only gathered but consistently acted upon and reflects the diversity of women's experiences. Because there will be a range of experiences, not all women will have the same experience, and especially those who face additional barriers to being heard. Now, let me give you a couple of examples from my time in department.

I wonder what progress has been made. I remember when I was in the department, and a young official came up to me and told me about her friend, a young black lady who had lost her baby. And when they asked for the investigation and the paperwork, it had magically disappeared. Now, how do we make sure that that sort of incident doesn't happen again? And there's real accountability and there's no gaslighting, particularly for women from ethnic minority communities. Another one was I spoke to the Sands Baby Loss charity.

And of course, we value the work that Baroness Amos is doing nobly Baroness Amos is doing on maternity care. But here's an email I received recently from a lady I met at the Sands Baby Loss charity for almost three years. My case was handled by the same caseworker. Now, of course, sometimes I question competence, but at least the caseworker knew my case and they knew knew about whatever. And despite being advised that my complaint was at its final stages, I've just been told that it's been reallocated to a new case handler.

Someone has to relearn the case, but not yet given a date about when that case will be heard. I wonder what the minister's department can do to ensure that people who've suffered terribly and are still suffering from physically and emotionally from what's happened, how do we make sure that they really get the justice that they deserve? And let's move on to patient safety and redress. The statement refers to unacceptable experiences of women harmed in the past. As the House will be aware, the recommendations of the Hughes report were intended to provide redress for the medical intervention, such as pelvic mesh, sodium valproate and hormone pregnancy tests.

But many women are still waiting for some form of redress or some sort of help, and they're quite often racking up bills, taxi bills, etc. to go and visit, and many of them are still in pain. Now, when I was in the department and I was being asked a question when I was in the noble Lady, the minister's place, I would go back to the department and say, what are we doing about this? The first answer I was given is that you are not the Minister responsible.

Leave it to the responsible Minister. You are technology, innovation, life sciences. But when I probed again over time, I was told by one official, The Treasury doesn't like to write blank cheques. That's understandably understandable. The Treasury is causes a guardian of national finances. So I used to ask, well, is anyone doing any work on how much this would actually cost? So we can then present to the Treasury that how much this would cost to prevent, to provide some form of redress. Now, we know that the Hughes report suggested 2000 for mesh victims each and 100 000 for sodium valproate victims.

And we also welcome the fact that 100 of the ten 000 who suffered from vaginal mesh issue have received some payout from manufacturers. The question is what about the others? Now, I'm told that many women missed out due to limitations for civilian civil claims, so I wonder what the minister's department can do to help those poor women who are still suffering, and make sure that more women actually receive redress as quickly as possible. We now see, given as a result of the Hughes report, we now know it's not a blank cheque.

We know there will be negotiations between the Department of Health and the Treasury, but I wonder whether, noble Lady, the Minister could update us on those discussions so we can better understand whether these women are finally going to achieve some form of justice. So what we really need to see going forward as well, not only making up for the mistakes of the past that have occurred under all governments, but addressing the outstanding issues, making sure that those women who suffered are receiving long term report, but learning the lessons that if sadly, this ever happens again, we know how to address those issues and to give the appropriate care, compassion, but redress to those who suffer, if anything ever like that happens again, happens again.

The overall, my Lords, there are a number of different issues covered by the Women's Health Strategy. One of the concerns that some noble Lords will have, I know, will be that it's wonderful to have a grand overall strategy, but what about the individual interventions that we need from the departments, from the clinicians and from others? How do we deliver all those various issues that women particularly suffer from, to make sure that when whatever party someone supports or however they feel. But patients across the country, particularly female patients, believe that this women's health strategy or the renewed women's health strategy will finally deliver a safe system of health for all of them, but also justice for those who have suffered in the past.
15:18
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister, and I, too, >> I thank the Minister, and I, too, welcome the women's health strategy, including, as it does, many important objectives in communities important objectives in communities up and down the country. We've seen the devastating toll of sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women's health, women's lives, their families and their economic productivity are damaged when they do not receive treatment in a timely way. And indeed, this also happens when menopause difficulties are ignored.

This is because vital services remain understaffed and underfunded. While women and girls go without the care they need. In 2022, we have the previous women's health strategy, which had similar important goals to this one, with similar delivery mechanisms and the same reliance on local systems to make it happen. Yet four years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place. Half the women, half a million women suffering long waits for gynaecology, patchy access to services, women reporting that they're not listened to, women not being given pain release when they need it, and serious conditions diagnosed too late.

This fact must give the government pause for thought that perhaps things need to be done differently this time. Medical misogyny is still a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health service, and this requires a culture change which is notoriously difficult to achieve. Can the Minister say how her department plans to go about it? This strategy is being implemented at a time when the NHS is already stretched and icbs are facing cuts, whilst at the same time taking on some of the responsibilities of the disappearing NHS England.

And now we also have soaring inflation due to Trump's war in Iran. In this climate, can we reasonably expect this strategy to actually deliver meaningful change? I really hope so. While the issues affecting women's health generally are numerous, the NHS failures in maternity services are the most widely reported and deeply shocking. Review after review has uncovered the same failures across the country. Failure to listen to women, a lack of time for training, inadequate staffing levels leading to staff burnout, a lack of proper assessment, poor management of risk and a failure to learn lessons when things go wrong.

All this is leading to a rise in perinatal perinatal mortality, with the figures showing inequality between different groups, such as those on lower incomes and some ethnic minority groups. How will this be tackled by the strategy? That's why the Liberal Democrats recently launched our maternity secure package to make Britain the safest place in the world to give birth. We want to see every maternity unit in the country brought up to a good or outstanding level of safety. This could be done by guaranteeing 1 to 1.

Midwifery and specialist doctors on every unit. Will the Minister consider incorporating these proposed proposals into the new strategy? May I just say something about medical misinformation? Many people now get their health advice online, particularly via social media. Long waits for NHS services and GP appointments are pushing people into getting their so-called information this way. But advice on these platforms does not adhere to clinical standards or guidelines, which is leading to rampant medical disinformation. This sometimes disastrous results. There is some evidence that this is a particular issue in women's health, where gaps in scientific knowledge and public awareness are being exploited.

Does the Minister have any plans to tackle this? Because it is possible to fight back? In order to be helpful, we are calling for the following. For the minister's consideration. One A new kitemark for health apps and digital tools at a clinically proven to help people lead healthier lives. Regulated by the GMC. Secondly, a big effort by the NHS with the ring fenced budget to dominate the health advice, social media ecosystem and algorithms with clinically approved information. In plain English, this could improve patient care and save staff time and costs.

And thirdly, a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be written by a medical professional. Just a few more quick questions before I finish. In line with the ten year health plans objective to make care more local, is the Minister confident that women in every area will benefit from a family health hub, as promised, without the threat of threat of closure or cuts, especially in this time of reduced resources for Icbs. Secondly, how will the new system linking feedback from patients to provide a funding work, and will the results for each unit be made public? Will improve staffing be funded to achieve the promise that women no longer face? Long waits for diagnosis for conditions such as endometriosis, will we be able to hear from the Minister in the Education Department about the Promise Menstrual Education programme to ensure girls are better equipped to recognise the difference between healthy and unhealthy periods, and will the programme be evaluated by the girls receiving it? And finally, most importantly, will women themselves be involved in developing the implementation plans for the new measures in the strategy and co-production of their communication with other women? I would like to thank the.
15:24
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lord and the noble Lady on the front benches for their warm welcome for this renewed women's health strategy. It does represent a major shift in this country, and as the noble Lord Lord Kamall said, it also recognises the fact that women's voices have not been heard. It is shocking, although sadly not surprising, to know that some eight out of ten women report not having been listened to, and the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley talks about a culture change.

The biggest culture change I believe we can make is to embed women's voices into women's healthcare. And that is exactly what we will do. So, my Lords, this strategy does give women and girls voice choice and power over how they receive their health care. So when we are saying saying that we're transforming care as part of the ten year health plan, we mean it. And I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that unless the strategy is one thing, but it is delivery, that is the other thing.

And if I could just refer to why is this different to the 2022 strategy? Let me first of all acknowledge the importance of that 2022 strategy. And that was it was the first time we had a women's health strategy. I was talking to the women's health ambassador, Dame Lesley Regan, about this, and she said to me that with this renewal we have embedded in the NHS women's health care in a way that has never happened before. And I should say to noble Lords, how how moved and how struck I have been by the responses that I have had from stakeholders, from women, from parliamentarians.

The list goes on because their voices were heard. So to pick up some of the points and forgive me, I'm sure a number of the points that are raised will actually come up. But the matter of waiting times is key. They have improved. As the noble Lord Lord Kamall has said, and the number of patients on gynaecology waiting lists is down by over 25,000 in the same period. But there's so much more to do. And if I had to make one point about this women's health strategy, this is not the end of it.

This is the start of the continuum of the work that we have done. How will we drive down waiting lists? I am very excited that when we bring in the NHS online hospital, we will be prioritising gynaecology pathways when it launches next year. One of the limited numbers that there will be. We are prioritising gynaecology for treatment, surgical hubs. We are piloting gynaecology pathways and clinical diagnostic centres that are now being in place up and down the country, and we are increasing relative funding to incentivise more gynaecology procedures as and when they are clinically appropriate.

So those things are very practical and alongside shorter waits and more convenient gynaecology, gynaecological care patients will make that shift in practice and in culture as well. And I think one of the ways that this strategy is different to the 2022 strategy is the very considerable impact, as noble Lords have asked for, on measuring impact. If we can't measure it, we don't know. And there are three overarching measures of success reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy, which was seen to decline in the 20 tens to improve healthy life expectancy in the poorest regions to at least 61 years old, and to reduce the time that women spend in poor health, particularly for women experiencing the greatest health inequalities.

And that will be measured both in the short, medium and longer term. And I'll be happy to provide further information, if required. The. I just would like to refer to the point, excuse me, on women's voices. Absolutely. Key focus again in practice and culture, we are establishing a Women's Voices partnership. That means women's organisations, particularly those who are representing the more marginalised, will be able to influence national decision making. We've described it as a direct line to Whitehall.

In other words, this is not the end of the conversation and we have consulted very widely and that builds on what was done for the ten year health plan. But this will continue and that has been welcomed. In particular, we are introducing patient power payments as a trial. We will see how it goes. I look forward to monitoring that, and that will link provider funding to women's experiences, particularly in gynaecology services. If a service is found wanting. And the noble Lord asked about including those who are often excluded, which I absolutely agree with, and again, culturally to the noble Ladies point, women will be asked.

They won't have to just come forward with a complaint. They will be asked, what is your experience of care? That's crucial. It may be that the care was excellent, but the experience was terrible, and I think many of us will know about that. If that is the case, then the provider will have monies withheld. Where else? And I said this to a former health Minister, how do you make real change? You do it through finance. You do it through funding, you do it through systems.

It will be withheld, but it will come back into the improvement of those services. So women will not lose out, but that provider will have their feet held to the financial fire. I want to just refer to the very important matter of redress. We are carefully considering the work done by the Patient Safety Commissioner. I'm glad that the Patient Safety Commissioner welcomed the Women's Health strategy. And I want to reemphasize, as I've done before in this House, my very deep sympathy for those who have been harmed, and I recognise the harm on those individuals and the families.

But we continue to look at the recommendations for redress, and as soon as we have, we are able to make a comment. Of course we will do that. And in view of the time, I would just say reducing inequalities is hard wired. Throughout the women's health strategy.
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, my interest are well known in regards to women's health. known in regards to women's health. First of all, can I congratulate the Minister for this report, which I think is a good report. The gaps are in how, in some places that will be delivered on, but I also recognise her personal commitment to improving women's health, and I applaud that. I hope she'll forgive me because I you know, I observe something. It says the renewed women's health strategy.

So there has been suggestion that there was one before. Then you look at the command paper, number one, five, five, eight. That was the year the Queen Elizabeth the First came to the throne. So this is the strategy that's renewed, I presume, since 19, since 1558, but I joke to to the important point I want to make is related to research. Much of the issues recognised in the report is because of failure of research conducted over a long period of time in better understanding the biology and molecular basis of these diseases.

So they are treated empirically when they're treated empirically. The treatment cannot always be right. So what we need is a strategy in research that focuses on a longer term period of better understanding the biology of some of these diseases and finding treatments for it. One way to do this is not by project grants, as this report suggests in areas of research, but to promote long term research through what is known as programme research grants that are given over a longer period of time, competitively allocated into academic institutions.

That addresses the issue of understanding the biology of diseases in women's health and find treatments, polygenic risk scores sounds sexy, but isn't going to be the answer. They are exactly what it is based on scores. Some of them are evidence based. Some of them are not. What we need is better evidence. So my suggestion and the question to the Minister will be what? The government look at the possibility of investigating with research institution of developing a programme, grant funding for longer term period to research in women's health.

And if you like a little more conversation, I'd be delighted to do so.
15:38
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for that offer >> I'm very grateful for that offer and the engagement of the noble Lord. To his point about a command Lord. To his point about a command paper. 1558 I, I don't think that's the year the first one or this one was published, but I understand there have been that many command papers, but this is a cracking one. I'm glad that the noble Lord has welcomed it, and research is extremely important, as the noble Lord has identified.

So through the strategy, our approach will be to research and development that actually does work for. But it also empowers women. And that's why I'm glad we'll be launching a Femtech Challenge Fund. We want to accelerate the adoption of innovations, particularly. And we want to make sure that they transform women's health care. And they're also an accelerator for female funders. Founders. Forgive me. That's also key. I can confirm that the NIH will be applying the new sex and gender policy.

That will make sure that research is inclusive, as it hasn't been always in the past, as the noble Lord says, and it's representative of women. And I welcome that. But to the point about the long term research and programme grants, as we develop this work, I will ensure that my colleague Minister, Minister Ahmed, builds this in, but I will also make the offer of the discussion with the noble Lord, because I do feel this is an important point.
15:40
15:40
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson Portrait Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to add my thanks to the government and to the noble Baroness, the Minister, personally, for the commitment and the work for the commitment and the work done to renew the Women's Health Strategy and other noble Lords have mentioned maternity services, and I wonder if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could tell us a little bit more about the timetable for the conclusion of the noble Lady, Baroness Amos's review, and how the new maternity and neonatal taskforce will then translate her recommendations into action and with and fully integrate maternity and neonatal services into this women's health strategy.

As the Royal College of Midwives have called for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the noble Lady and Baroness Amos has recently Baroness Amos has recently published an interim report. She's been meeting hundreds of families and the national call for evidence and the national call for evidence is still going on. In the next few months, she will give her a final report. The Secretary of State has already started, has already already started, has already chaired a new maternity and neonatal taskforce to develop a new action plan, and we also have not waited to take action on maternity and neonatal care.

We've recruited 800 more midwives. We've invested over £140 million to address critical safety risks in terms of the estate, and we're also rolling out guidance to tackle the leading causes of maternal death. This is absolutely crucial, and that's why it's taking such a high priority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, consideration. Of Commons. Amendment on. The Victims and Courts Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Victims and Courts Bill. Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now considered. The question is that the Commons amendment be now considered as many amendment be now considered as many as of that year, say content. The contrary not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Motion a Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to move motion a. That this House do not insist on its amendments for B and for C, and do agree with the Commons in their
15:52
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
amendment for D in lieu. These amendments relate to private amendments relate to private prosecutions. My Lords, I start by expressing my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the Bill. contributions to the Bill. Throughout its passage. I thank the opposition frontbench team, in particular the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst and the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen for their scrutiny and for all the time they've given in these debates, the they've given in these debates, the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst gave up his time yesterday to meet me in my.

On Monday to meet me and my officials, and we had a productive discussion for which I thank him. I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to the Liberal Democrat frontbench team, in particular the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble and learned Lord Wood Marks of Henley on Thames for their constructive, helpful and friendly engagement throughout this bill. Whilst we've not always agreed, it's been a real pleasure doing business with them, it's clear to me that this bill has benefited from the quality of scrutiny in this House and has been strengthened by the considerable expertise and insight contributed by members of your Lordships House, both during debates and the informal discussions that we have had around the edges.

My Lords, I turn to motion A relating to amendments four B and four C, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen. I'm grateful to both houses for the depth and seriousness with which clause 12 has been scrutinised. I'm going briefly to explain the government's position and set out the statutory assurances that we have brought forward, for your Lordships consideration. My Lords, from the beginning we acknowledge the concern about a possible chilling effect on private prosecutions, and I reiterate the government's reassurances that this is not and never has been the intention.

We also recognise that amendments four B and four C were aimed at encouraging scrutiny and bringing transparency in relation to any regulations that may be made to determine the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds. The government shares those objectives. Where we differ is not on the importance of oversight, but on the appropriate and proportionate legislative mechanism by which that oversight should be secured. Lords amendment four C would require any such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The government recognises the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and we are committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny, but what form of scrutiny is proportionate to the power Parliament is being asked to confer? My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, clause 12 is merely an enabling provision. Self-evidently, it does not itself prescribe rates, and as matters stand, it is not yet possible to know the degree of technical complexity or, if you like, granularity, that future regulations may contain to require in primary legislation the affirmative procedure in every eventuality would mean that there would have to be full debates of both houses on regulations that may prove highly technical, detailed and or operational in nature.

The government's view is that such an approach would not represent a proportionate use of Parliament's time, nor did it necessarily enhance the quality of scrutiny. My Lords, the negative procedure strikes the right balance. It ensures that regulations are laid before Parliament. They're subject to scrutiny, including by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and may be prayed against, debated and annulled, where either House considers that the substance of the regulations, the supporting evidence or the consultation undertaken to be insufficient.

That procedure preserves Parliament's ability to intervene where there are genuine concerns, whilst allowing the detail of implementation to be addressed in a practical and efficient manner. I turn to Lords Amendment four B, which would require the Ministry of Justice to publish an impact assessment. Prior to laying the laying of regulations. I again wish to make clear that the government believes in the importance of transparency and evidence based policy making. That said, as drafted, this amendment is not appropriately framed for the established process.

Element B appears to be based on a misunderstanding of how impact assessments operate. The government does not respond to an impact assessment. Rather, an impact assessment is published alongside consultation to inform it, and it is then updated to reflect the final position when the government responds to the consultation and brings forward regulations. That is the established and proper process, but we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships House about the need for proper evidential underpinning and stakeholder engagement before any rates are set.

So for that reason, we are now tabling amendments in lieu which embed those objectives effectively by placing clear, workable and enforceable requirements in statute. First, the amendments will place a statutory duty in primary legislation requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult before laying any secondary legislation to set rates. So this will not be a discretionary power but will be a legal obligation. The consultation will be full, thorough and public, engaging those with relevant expertise as those who may be affected, as well as those who may be affected.

For example, charities and specialist lawyers. As part of the process of setting any rates, the government will also publish a full response to the consultation. My Lords, this will not be a box ticking exercise. The government remains open minded about where the rates should be set, and the consultation will take place at a formative stage, allowing evidence to inform and shape the rates in a meaningful way. Secondly, the amendments require that an impact assessment be published before any regulations are made.

This will provide Parliament's and others with an interest in these matters, with a clear assessment of the likely effects on any groups affected by the proposed policies. Taken together, these amendments in lieu embed consultation, evidence gathering and impact analysis directly into the statutory framework governing the exercise of this power. They ensure that the decision making is transparent and accountable while whilst preserving the necessary flexibility for an enabling power to operate proportionately and effectively in practice. My Lords, I hope this explanation demonstrates that the government has listened, has reflected and has responded constructively to the concerns raised by your Lordships House.

The alternative approach we now propose strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical administration, whilst ensuring that any rates set are founded on good evidence and tested through full and open consultation. I beg to move.
15:59
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is that motion A be agreed to? My Lords, Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I at. >> My Lords. I am going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I am going to intervene very briefly to say that it is good that an agreement has been reached on the difficult issue been reached on the difficult issue of the processes and arrangements relating to private prosecutions, and, as with many of the other issues we've discussed during the passage of this Bill, arrangements relating to private prosecutions are a complex issue, not one that can be resolved swiftly or even in a clause or two on the face of the bill, and that's why I want to thank the Minister for meeting with myself and Lord Marks on a number of occasions during the bill to discuss how we can get to a position that sets in place mechanisms to ensure that the consequences of the government changes will not have surprise or unintended consequences.

My noble friend Lord Marks will talk about the details of those changes, which he proposed to the Conservatives at the previous stage of ping pong, and their amendment then reflected Lord Marks proposal, for which we thank them. I welcome the government proposals in motion. A amendment 4D, which includes the two key elements of any effective organisation that there is data to inform decisions in this form, an impact assessment that would be published, and that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Law Society, the General Council of the bar and others considered appropriate, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will not just use these methods once.

It seems to me that Lord Marks has identified core actions that will work elsewhere in the court system, where reform may well be needed. And as we come to the end of this bill, I also want to put on record the support and help of Elizabeth Plummer in our whip's office, the many individuals and organisations who've worked with us, especially the offices of the London Victims' Commissioner and the Victims' Commissioner Claire Waxman. We would not be where we are today without them, and I thank them.

Finally, I want to return to the discussions with the Minister during the passage of the whole of the bill. Her willingness to discuss both publicly at the despatch box and privately in meetings speaks volumes to the noble Lady. The Minister's approach. I thank her for that and look forward to working with her again.
16:02
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I repeat and echo all the thanks that my noble friend the thanks that my noble friend Baroness Brinton has just made to the Minister, her officials and all the others who've helped with this bill. And I was going to say this at the end, but I shall say it now. I'm also enormously grateful and in awe of the work of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. During the course of this bill, her dedication and thoroughness on issues that have concerned her and on which she's worked for many years has been really awe inspiring, and I'm very grateful to her.

But my Lords, principally, I echo her thanks to the noble Lady, the Minister, for meeting with us and in particular for meeting with me after the first round of ping pong last week to discuss our concerns. It has been notable the way in which she has recognised, in the matter of private prosecutions, the risk of deterring such prosecutions by introducing inappropriate regulation of costs, and the way in which she and her officials have framed government amendment 4D to clause 12, which is laid in the Commons, and which government motion A today addresses.

Last Wednesday we sought a consultation on the regulations proposed by clause 12 and Impact Assessment and, as she rightly points out, a response to that impact assessment was also sought. But on consideration and after the discussions we've had, we are completely content that the consultations proposed involving the Law Society, the Bar Council and anyone else the Law Council, the Lord Chancellor believes should be consulted, meet the need for consultation on the regulations proposed. Importantly, the government has agreed to publish an impact assessment and I accept the assurances that that will be thorough and work through the fact that we originally sought a response to an impact assessment, may have respected, may have reflected a procedural misunderstanding.

But I take the minister's point that the response will be apparent when the regulations, such as they are proposed, are in fact made, and the response to the impact assessment will be reflected by the government's laying of the regulations. I also take the point, as does the government made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas and of. Come Keith, last Wednesday, that there may be some urgency to the introduction of such regulations and that insisting on a government response to an impact assessment beyond publication of the proposed regulations may delay them.

So we're quite content with the steps taken or to be taken by the government. But crucially, no regulations will be made before the consultation and the impact assessment are complete. And that is, I would suggest, the most important point. This is going to be a meaningful exercise in consideration of what needs to be done. Granted that the government has not conceded the affirmative resolution, but following a favourable consultation and a positive impact assessment, I accept that that is a secondary consideration and I also accept the points made by the noble Lady, the Minister on Proportionality.

So we're content that the government has met our concerns and we will support motion A my Lords, having mentioned my thanks to the noble. To my noble friend Baroness Brinton, I also mentioned my friend, my thanks to others in this chamber, including those on the conservative front Bench who have been helpful in achieving what I think is now a much better bill than the bill as it came to this House as a result. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady,
16:06
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
the Minister for her amendment. 4D this is likely my last appearance this is likely my last appearance on the front bench, though not anticipate my last speech in this chamber, I shall simply say that I chamber, I shall simply say that I have greatly enjoyed debating home, Office and justice issues, of which I have had practical experience, I have had practical experience, both as a barrister and as a recorder and deputy judge. I have recorder and deputy judge. I have enjoyed sparring with the noble Lady, the Minister, who, some 20 plus years ago was a member of the Bar Council's Legal Services Committee when I chaired it.

I continue to respect her ability and expertise, as demonstrated in all aspects of her portfolio in this House. It has been a pleasure to do friendly battle with her. My Lords, moving on. Private prosecutions are a vital safeguard within our justice system. They ensure that when the state cannot or does not act, victims, particularly charities, are not left without recourse. For charities. This mechanism is especially important. Fraud and theft crimes, which can often become cumulatively significant, divert funds from vital causes.

They erode public trust. Then, in those charities with limited police and Crown Prosecution Service capacity, many such cases would, I fear, otherwise go unaddressed. Private prosecutions are therefore an essential backstop. They secure convictions and compensation without burdening public resources. Crucially, the costs recovered from central funds are modest and typically only partial. They represent a small proportion of overall public expenditure, just 0.18, or 18% of the overall legal aid budget. Yet recovery of the costs of private prosecutions enables charities to pursue recoveries that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

If charities cannot rely on private prosecutions as a shield against theft and fraud, then we fear the public will be unwilling to donate towards their causes. My Lords, because of the importance of private prosecutions for access to justice, we tabled an amendment that clause 12 do not stand part of the bill. That Report stage. Unfortunately, the government cited financial privilege as a reason for rejecting the conservative amendment so that my noble and learned friend, Lord keen, instead tabled an amendment in lieu.

That amendment would have achieved the following. First, it would have ensured that an impact assessment was launched on the potential effect of clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims access to justice. Second, it would have constrained the government from exercising its regulatory powers until, after a response had been published. The impact assessment. Third, it would have required such regulation to be subject to the affirmative procedure of both houses. The amendment in lieu offered by the government today partially fulfils at least the first two of those aims.

It would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Law Society, the General Council of the bar and other bodies considered appropriate before publishing an impact assessment. I suggest that charities, as well as private prosecutors themselves, would fall under this final category. There is no reason why not. I also thank the Minister in the other place for confirming that the government will publish a full response to the impact assessment before setting any rates. That assurance is most welcome. Unfortunately, however, there is no provision that regulations made under clause 12 be a subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Minister in the other place said that given that it is unclear how complex the structure of the rates will be, it would be disproportionate to mandate a process that risks lengthy debate. My Lords, we would argue that precisely because of the novel and complex nature of these regulations, the affirmative procedure is all the more important and in no way disproportionate. To reject it is to undermine proper transparency and accountability. However, I do recognise that the government have moved some real way on the issue of private prosecutions, so we will not be opposing their amendment in lieu today.

The Conservative Party will always champion access to justice in the rule of law. We therefore keenly await the publication of findings of the impact assessment. We are also grateful to the cooperation and discussions which we have had with our the representatives of the Liberal Party in this place and the impact that has had on this whole Bill and on the particular aspect of private prosecutions. I look forward to the Minister's response. Thank you.
16:12
10:30
None Portrait Peers taking the Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Allegiance
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page