English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

244: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to speak briefly on this revised amendment, which I have brought back from Committee. At the outset, I would like to echo the words of the Minister on the loss of Lord Beecham, who was a very charming colleague and a very hard-working and assiduous Member of this House. He will be missed, but his legacy, as the noble Baroness said, lives on.

In response to the amendment in Committee, I was delighted to get such warm and encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. He accepted entirely the issues of sparsity of population and distances to travel, and the introduction of combined authorities in counties such as North Yorkshire has compounded them. I took great encouragement from this response to the amendment, and it is why I have sought to echo the wording used by the noble Lord. I would like to quote from his comments. He said:

“The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise … engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format … Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 183]


Well, this is the time; this is the place, and this is the legislative opportunity. I am completely baffled as to why the Government are not seizing this opportunity, having responded formally to the consultation last year, to grab this issue and enshrine it in statute. Parliamentary time permits this today, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look favourably on this new Amendment 244.

This Bill, on English devolution and community empowerment, is the right time to implement such legislation. I would like to understand from the noble Baroness why in the Government’s view this is not the appropriate legislation to introduce what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so eloquently set out in his response to my amendment in Committee. I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to commit to this amendment. Were they not to, will the noble Baroness confirm that such legislation will be announced in the King’s Speech? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her usual thoughtful submission of the amendment and her moving of it. This is an important issue about how local authorities conduct their meetings, and the Government, as the noble Baroness will know, are very sympathetic to the aim of her amendment, that local authorities should have the flexibility to hold meetings online where it is appropriate to do so.

The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.

Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. On behalf of councillors in North Yorkshire who have approached me on this, I have to say I am deeply disappointed, for all the reasons that we have given. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure there will be other opportunities to bring this back.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

246: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a local planning authority construed in accordance with Part I of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities)(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this was debated some time ago, but if my memory serves me well, I believe it is an unacceptable position that we find ourselves in. We have heard from the music industry and from licensing and planning legal practitioners about how unsatisfactory the current situation is. It is actually delaying the Government’s own growth strategy timetable, because it is leading to unnecessary delays and tensions in planning decisions. As Scotland has now established on a statutory basis the agent of change principle, I believe if it is good enough for my homeland then it is good enough for England. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.