English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 310 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, while also supporting all the other amendments in this group. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Town and Country Planning Association, and as an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Amendment 310 would create a duty for strategic authorities to consider the needs of rural communities. It specifically covers land use, development of land and regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. Several noble Lords have made the point that there are quite different considerations for these functions when addressing rural needs as opposed to those of urban communities. For example, on housing, many rural areas will see competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, from rightsizing retirees and, in many places, from second-home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet, on average, social housing accounts for just 11% of homes in rural locations, compared with 17% in the country as a whole. Younger people brought up in the locality, including those badly needed for public and private sector jobs, are forced to move away to find somewhere affordable.

On land use, there will be severe constraints on rural areas including green belts, areas of outstanding natural beauty—now known as national landscapes—and local constraints. But urban-rural differences apply to opportunities as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. For example, rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere, and there are opportunities to work with major landowners.

In many respects, there are substantial differences that require different policies and actions for rural communities, yet these communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority, and pressing priorities from the majority urban areas may drown out the rural voice. A duty to take on board the needs of rural communities would counter this imbalance.

Of course, the mayor or the combined authority could take a far-sighted approach to embracing the rural agenda for their area without any legislative prompting, but this is by no means guaranteed. The amendment provides the safety net that would make sure that rural issues are not neglected in places where towns and cities dominate. I strongly support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The tiny village where I have a house, 10 miles from Exeter, is not just a rural community but a farming community. For years, Exeter City Council has wanted to take over the area; those of us living in this tiny village and the other villages round about it know perfectly well that there is not a single person in the city council who has the slightest knowledge of anything to do with rural affairs. It is very important that the Government pick up and take on the fact that rural affairs need to be separately considered.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret not having taken part in Committee. If you come to the arguments on Report quite fresh, they have a curiously powerful impact. This afternoon, we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments on rural needs and ambitions that have been very powerful. We do not have planning and development Bills that often, and I know my noble friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of the Bill, but I do think that a Bill that claims to speak for the whole of development, in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK, and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country.

We have had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, rural priority and rural needs as long as I have been in this House, for 25 years. The same arguments have been made by many of the same noble Lords and have grown in urgency rather than diminished. The loss of the unit for rural-proofing was very seriously misjudged.

If the Minister could give some further thought to Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend, it would be incredibly welcome. It is reasonable, proportionate and comprehensive in what it would achieve, to flag up the seriousness with which the Government take the contribution of rural areas to growth, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.