English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

218: 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 shall speak to Amendment 218. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others speaking to Amendments 219 and 220.

In responding on an earlier group, the Minister referred to the number of civil parishes in Cumbria. I would like to place on the record that, in North Yorkshire, there are 729 civil parishes, of which 662 are parish or town councils. It is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, county in the country, covering 8,037 square kilometres. That is on the North York Moors website; unfortunately, it does not give it in square miles.

Against that backdrop, I hope the Government will look favourably on a plea that local authorities should be able to meet on the same basis that we in this House meet, which is that, if you are attending a committee, you can attend remotely in hybrid form. For some reason that is beyond me, we are not extending that possibility to local authorities. Given the fact that North Yorkshire is possibly the most rural and sparsely populated county, I would like to give an example based on it. If a councillor is to attend council meetings in Northallerton, where the North Yorkshire Council—a combined authority, against my better judgment—now meets, on a good day that will take one and a half hours going one way, given that the roads are highly congested and, at this time of year, often quite dangerous with fog, snow, ice and other such challenges. On a bad day, it could take a lot longer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their amendments relating to council meetings.

First, on Amendment 218, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for raising this important issue, which she has rightly highlighted on numerous occasions in the House. I know that north Yorkshire, where she lives, is a large rural area, and I sympathise with her views on Sutton Bank. I live near there, just off the A19, and it is very steep; it is hard getting up there at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a snowstorm.

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 democratic 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.

Likewise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his amendment on the issue of allowing councillors to participate in local authority meetings remotely. Noble Lords may be aware of the High Court judgment in 2021 that confirmed that local authority meetings, to which that case applies, must be in person and take place at a single, specified geographical location. This amendment would allow for councillors to join a meeting virtually, by video call for example, but only if the meeting was still happening in a physical room. It would not allow meetings to be completely remote. As I set out on the previous amendment, we are committed to giving local authorities the choice about how they hold their meetings. We would therefore not want to restrict any changes to just enabling hybrid meetings. Again, we remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this important flexibility for local authorities. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the open and flexible way in which he has drafted his amendment, I must ask him to withdraw it at this time.

I turn now to the other amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which would give the Secretary of State a power to allow members to vote by proxy at local authority meetings. In person debate and public participation remain fundamental to local democracy. However, we recognise that personal circumstances can, at times, make physical attendance difficult and create challenges for the continuity of local authority business. That is why we sought views through public consultation and, in response, confirmed our intention to plan to legislate in order to introduce arrangements that would enable proxy voting at local authority meetings. Such arrangements would support more diverse and inclusive local government while preserving the certainty and flexibility that local authorities need to set proxy voting arrangements which reflect local circumstances.

In the meantime, therefore, and where appropriate, substitute or pairing arrangements remain available. These arrangements continue to offer support to councillors during periods of absence while ensuring that the electorate are represented. Any arrangements to enable proxy voting at local authority meetings must strike a careful balance between maintaining transparency and accountability and modernising arrangements to support more diverse and inclusive local democracy. The noble Lord’s proposal for wide ranging central government powers to mandate and adjust proxy voting arrangements would mean Whitehall deciding operational details that are best decided at a local level. We have no desire to micromanage local authorities, as that would run counter to our approach to devolution.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I do not know which slippery slope my noble friend Lord Jamieson was referring to, but he did not address the issue raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Pack. If it is good enough for committees in both Houses that we meet in hybrid form, I fail to see why we cannot extend the same courtesy to local authority meetings in certain circumstances.

I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister that may not curry much favour in this Committee. If his Government were minded to delay the King’s Speech, there would be legislative time available, and the Government could then bring forward the proposals. If I have understood him correctly as saying that he is in favour of local councils having the opportunity to meet online in a hybrid format as well as in person, but not just now, that is extremely disappointing, obviously, given the contents and results of some of the responses to the consultation; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for sharing them. Some 86% and 91% of respondents were in favour, which shows that they are crying out for this. My noble friend Lord Fuller argued forcefully in favour of why these amendments are needed. Councils were able to meet in hybrid form and online in certain circumstances during Covid; if it was good enough for Covid, it should be good enough for the rest of the year.

I reserve the right to return to this theme on a future occasion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 218 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. It seeks to insert a vital safeguard into Clause 45, ensuring that the specialised governance of our fire and rescue services is not diluted as the powers of regional mayors are expanded. As the Bill currently stands, it enables the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to elected mayors, yet it does not mandate the same dedicated oversight and accountability that is necessary for this important emergency service. Amendment 170 would rectify this by requiring a mayor with these functions to arrange for a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, specifically to exercise those responsibilities.

The prime strength of this amendment is that would ensure governance arrangements for fire and rescue services, which would then run parallel with those already established for the police service. As the Government have rightly sought to abolish police and crime commissioners, they have abjectly failed to ensure that governance and accountability to the public are paramount. A reflection as to how potentially fragile our governance arrangements are can perhaps be informed by events in the United States of America, where the governance arrangements of policing have apparently been overturned with ease.

Can the Minister explain how replacing an elected police and crime commissioner by an unelected appointment, accountable to no one but the mayor, is an improvement in terms of public accountability? By extension, how will governance work if, as proposed, the fire and rescue service loses its direct governance and becomes the responsibility of an unnamed mayoral appointee? Further, there is a real risk that, as this Bill establishes a new tier of “strategic authorities” with broad “areas of competence”, the elected mayors will become “Lord High Everything”, as was the arrogant Pooh Bah in the “Mikado”.

Amendment 170 would ensure that fire and rescue functions receive the dedicated attention they require rather than being treated as a secondary concern within a massive strategic portfolio. This role would provide a clear point of contact for local public service partners and ensure that the strategic direction of emergency services is managed by an individual with a specific, focused mandate—albeit not a specific and focused democratic mandate.

Proper accountability is also lacking within the Government’s plans. The idea that a scrutiny panel, as with the police service, can be effective when only able to consider decisions post hoc is for the birds. I hope the Minister can agree to think about the challenge that Amendment 170 provides in the interests of public accountability. What we need is structural consistency between policing and the fire and rescue services and the dedicated and democratic accountability necessary to protect both our fire services and the communities they serve. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am not causing any confusion by having moved to these Benches. It was simply because the other Benches are very congested; I continue to support the same party that I supported when I came into this House as a Conservative Peer.

I would like to use Amendment 170—I congratulate the noble Baroness for speaking so eloquently to it—to probe the Government on an issue that is causing great concern, not dissimilar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I think from memory we were the only two Peers in this very Room who spoke against the orders for the combined authority of North Yorkshire.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

It was thee and me.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It was thee and me, yes—that was the sum total who voted against. I think that we were right and history has proven that to be the case. I am still trying to get my head around where the fire and rescue service sits in the combined authority of North Yorkshire. I am concerned that now it is going to be even more complicated if, having elected a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, as the noble Baroness has highlighted, this will now pass to the mayor.

This is causing me concern because I raised the point elsewhere about the number of BESS projects—basically clean energy projects, particularly battery storage projects and solar farms—across North Yorkshire and the lack of consulting with fire and rescue authorities, because they are not statutory consultees. I believe that that has highlighted a gap in the structure at the moment. I use this opportunity to ask the Minister—I see that we have switched places; sliding doors and switching places is a theme for today—how that will impact on a county such as North Yorkshire, or York and North Yorkshire, if there is going to be no democratic oversight and no accountability, if that is the current understanding in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is on to something here and I would like to listen carefully to how the Government plan to monitor this. I do not believe that rural counties have really been considered in the mix of things. Clearly, it is an oversight if fire and rescue authorities are not being consulted as statutory consultees to such major projects. For all the reasons that she gave, I think that another lacuna has been identified by Amendment 170 in the great scheme of things and I look very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.

I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am not sure whether there were any questions there.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I take this opportunity to put the question I asked in my intervention? For what reason are fire and rescue services not statutory consultees? The noble Lord indicated in his reply that they are, but they are not. It is driving people in North Yorkshire wild that all these highly flammable and highly combustible projects are being planted next to schools and people’s homes without the fire service being consulted.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

As I said, it may not be a statutory body, but being involved in a great deal of things on a statutory basis would be a bit of an onerous burden on the fire brigade. The noble Baroness mentioned the fires that could potentially happen. I have said that I will write to her about how the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire functions and works but, from what I can see and what I understand, there are requirements for the fire and rescue service to be there when required. It has a resilience role in all this, and it does not necessarily need to be a statutory body to do all these things when it can do them anyway.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Lord said that the budget, the strategy and the planning were passing to the elected mayor, so is the elected mayor undertaking assessments? For example, if, hypothetically, two of these battery storage plants caught fire and at the same time there was a wildfire on the North York Moors, would the mayor assess whether there are sufficient resources—water, manpower and equipment—to deal with those fires? Who will be responsible for planning that?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I repeat that the function of the mayor is for the budget and the risk plan, so he or she will take into consideration the potential problems that the noble Baroness mentioned. He or she is also responsible for the appointment or dismissal of the chief officer, and therefore that accountability stays with the mayor, who is the directly elected representative for the area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those helpful comments. I want to be absolutely clear that it was not a formal consultation I had on Saturday; it was an informal meeting, but a number of London leaders were there. It was not representative, so I will not pretend it was, but it is clear to me that there is more work to do before moving forward with this. Between now and Report I am happy to meet all those who have spoken in this debate but, for now, I will withdraw Amendment 174.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is perfectly reasonable that the Minister has suggested that there should be a more joined-up set of regulations, but I tabled an amendment that would have achieved this through the agent of change. Will she reconsider her views on how we can balance the late-opening nightclubs with the new residences next door to them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had extensive discussions of the agent of change; it is a slightly different proposal. I know it could potentially be linked to this, so if the noble Baroness wants to get involved in the discussions on this, I am happy to include her.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

I anticipate what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will be able to add in relation to Scotland, where such a statutory role has been implemented. Pam Ewen, the chief planner at Fife Council, said, “The role helps get planning and planners at the top table in local government”. She added, “The role has been positively received and implemented in Scotland. It has not raised issues; rather, it has positively highlighted the importance of planning”. I submit to the Minister that, if she wants to raise the role of planning, to put planning reform at the top table in local government and to see the planning reforms deliver—I am sure she does—a statutory chief planner role would be an instrument to enable those things to happen.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having broken my ankle before, I feel her pain. I will speak to Amendments 132 and 222B in this group and, if time permits, Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.

The Minister will be aware of my interest in SUDS. What I am seeking to do here is align her department with Defra, because Defra is much keener than her department is on bringing in mandatory standards for sustainable drainage. I hope that we can bring them closer together so that they speak with one voice.

The importance of SUDS as a natural containment of water is twofold, but it is primarily to prevent flooding and to prevent floodwater from being displaced. For example, if as few as 30 or 60 houses have been built on a waterlogged field—it does not need to be a major development of 300 houses—it can displace the water into existing developments. I saw this when I was the MP for Filey, for my last five years in the other place. Flooding of sewage was caused when rainwater mixed with the additional sewage into the combined sewer. It went onto the highway, meant that households, including some pensioner households living in bungalows, had to be evicted for six months and caused £1 million of damage to Filey School.

I know that the noble Baroness will reply by saying that the Government published guidance in June 2025 and that SUDS is part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to which I would say, even more firmly than before, that these are, regrettably, not mandatory. Since my earlier attempts to put SUDS on a statutory basis during the passage of the levelling up Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, there has been a court case, which I will come on to now.

With this amendment, I am seeking to ask the noble Baroness to conduct sustainable drainage assessments relating to planning applications by strategic authorities, before those applications are approved. The assessment

“must include consideration of whether existing public sewerage systems have capacity to support proposed developments in planning applications.”

I refer to the excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, Flood Resilience in England, which was published last year. It makes two references to SUDS, one in particular. I quote its paragraph 48:

“We heard that the Flood Risk Management Strategy requires Lead Local Flood Authorities to maintain a register of flood risk assets, but that implementation is inconsistent and that many assets, especially SuDS and nature-based features are not captured”.


That was the initial background to this. It also emphatically recommended, in its conclusions in paragraphs 30 and 31, that more needs to be done on the whole issue of surface water.

I part company with the Minister in that I believe the guidelines need to be mandatory, we need a legal basis and we need to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, because of the ruling last month in the case of Gladman Developments Limited v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council. This is important and has caused much concern among practitioners, in particular the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, with which I did some interesting work on bioresources, removing the solids out of sewage and making money out of that, but that is for another day.

CIWEM is deeply concerned because this case set aside the sequential test. I quote from its letter, which I will make available to Hansard. The court judgment

“has a large impact on Planning, not just the Sequential Test which is worrying but also the status of SuDS in development. At the original appeal the inspector dismissed the application as A sequential Test was not carried out but required. The applicant then went to the High Court, contending that the inspector has erred in law, by treating the NPPF as establishing a requirement that planning permission must be refused in every case where the sequential test had not been undertaken… The court agreed and quashed the decision, finding that this is one matter that needs to be weighed up against the other factors and not a sole reason to refuse an application. The scheme was for 64 new homes in Lancaster”.

In the view of CIWEM and others:

“This not only weakens Flood Risk Policy but also the implication that weakens the stance that if a development does not include SuDS is this a strong enough reason in the planning balance to refuse an application on its own”.


That court case has driven a coach and horses through government policy, and I would argue most vigorously that we need to have a mandatory basis and set aside these voluntary guidelines. We need to have one mandatory standard respected by all planning authorities the length and breadth of the country—otherwise we are not doing our duty to householders to have a safe residence, free from the prospect of flooding and, in particular, free from sewage coming into their homes.

I turn now to Amendment 222B. I spoke in the clean energy Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has just taken his place, was an excellent Minister. He has now been replaced by another excellent Minister. I was staggered by the way in which these battery energy storage systems were criss-crossing north Yorkshire and the rest of rural England and causing complete havoc. We do not yet know what additional resources are being given to the fire and rescue services, but we know that they are not statutory consultees to these developments. We had a major wildfire—and there were 196 wildfires in England last year, which takes an enormous amount of resources in terms of water and the fire and rescue services. The wildfire came perilously close to burning down farms and residences, and it also imperilled livestock.

The thinking behind Amendment 222B is to ensure that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees going forward. My main concern is that, for example, in my former constituency, the village of Scotton, which is very important to me, because my niece lives in Lingerfield, one of the villages next door to it, is going to have two of these large battery storage plants, and for good measure, one of the largest solar farms in the country is next door to it. There is another one elsewhere in what was my constituency, in South Kilvington, also perilously close to a school. If both those units were to go on fire at the same time, as well as there being a wildfire in a different part of north Yorkshire, what resources are there? To make sure that that is considered at the time of a planning application, I am asking that there be a duty to consult fire and rescue services and that they be statutory consultees.

Briefly, I bumped into the chief executive of the North York Moors National Park, who briefed me on the earlier amendment on national parks and strategic planning. I put on record that it goes the extra mile to ensure that it consults with every single body, including other planning authorities such as North Yorkshire Council and others, including NGOs, to make sure that any planning application on its land is fully considered.

With those few remarks, I hope that the Minister will finally agree to a mandatory duty for SUDS, and also that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 241E is in my name. I hope that it does not need much introduction, because it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Where a spatial development strategy involves a national park, the national park authority should be involved in the development of the strategy. That sounds so much like a no-brainer that I would not be surprised if the Minister tells me that it is in the Bill already, but my understanding is that, without this amendment, although the national park authorities need to be consulted before a strategy is submitted, they do not need to be consulted while it is being developed in the first place.

This may come from the thinking that a national park is a big, empty wilderness just for nature, but the South Downs National Park and New Forest National Park are places where nearly 500,000 live, and even more work, and cover around 10% of the land in England and Wales, including key bits of national infrastructure, such as roads and energy projects. It seems clear that working with the national park authority is the best way in which to plan a spatial development strategy within or affecting a national park. The relevant national park authority has experience and expertise about so many aspects crucial to an SDS—infrastructure and planning, the rural economy, the tourist economy, opportunities for nature recovery and climate targets—so excluding it seems to set things up for failure. This amendment aims to give national park authorities a statutory role during the planning of an SDS in a really simple way, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees with its sentiments, at least, and will consider tabling a government amendment along these lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand what the noble Lord says. I do not have the statistics in front of me but I have visited a number of very good brownfield sites in London. The issue of building on brownfield is not the only issue preventing building in London; there are viability issues that are quite unrelated to that. I accept that viability can be an issue on brownfield land. Indeed, we are very much taking into account some of the issues around viability in the new packages that we are developing with London in order to encourage London boroughs and the Mayor of London to think about how we can work further to deliver against the housing demand in London.

This is a key issue, but it is not as simple as a lack of use of brownfield sites. Nearly all the housing sites that I have visited right across the country have been, to one extent or another, developments on brownfield sites. That is the right way to go. We will of course continue to monitor this, but I do not want to create an inflexible requirement that will mean that people who are in a situation where they cannot use brownfield sites cannot develop anything. We must be very careful about this, but I understand the points being made.

I turn to Amendment 131. I am glad to see that the House of Lords is taking our environmental responsibilities very seriously, because we have a number of amendments to this Bill that have been recycled from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, of which Amendment 131 is an early contender. However, I appreciate that this amendment is slightly different in that it relates specifically to strategic development strategies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. His amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. As we discussed during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I share the view that it is very important for planners to have a presence within the leadership structures of local authorities. As I have said previously, it is our mission to try and make sure that we highlight the role and importance of planning for all local authorities, whichever level of planning they are operating at.

However, I do not believe that this is an issue that should be addressed through legislation at this stage. The Government consider it essential that each authority should retain the flexibility to determine the most effective way to organise its own planning functions, particularly because, in England, they vary widely in scale and nature. In practice, many already operate with a chief planner, as I think the noble Lord said, or the equivalent senior role, although what that role entails varies widely between, for example, a county authority focused mainly on minerals and waste, a small district council and a large London borough.

As I promised to do during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I will continue to keep this matter under review as we take forward further reforms to the planning system. This is something that I am happy to explore further with local authorities and the sector as part of that work. I will aim to expedite that work, but it would not be appropriate to introduce this into legislation without doing that first. I therefore want to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 132, which would require strategic authorities to prepare sustainable drainage assessments. I admire her persistence on the issue of sustainable drainage systems; she has a great deal of knowledge on this that I greatly appreciate her bringing to planning matters. I reassure her that the Government are committed to taking a systemic approach to tackling drainage issues and , in particular, improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Through this Bill, we are giving mayors of strategic authorities outside London the ability to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance. Where a planning application is called in, the mayor must consider the application in accordance with the development plan for the area and national planning policy.

In December 2024, we revised the National Planning Policy Framework to require all developments that may have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are proposing to go further through the current consultation on the new framework, which proposes that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with new national standards introduced by the Government last year. The consultation also includes proposals for clearer engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies when plans are being made, taking into account the impacts of planned growth. This is to provide a clearer understanding of capacity and any additional infrastructure needs.

Against this background, I am concerned that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose a burden on strategic authorities without being effective. Mayors of strategic authorities will deal with only a small number of planning applications themselves, so it would be disproportionate to expect them to produce a statutory drainage assessment, which would likely be very partial, as they would not be able to look holistically at all potential development coming forward in their area. Nor should this amendment be necessary, given the steps that we are taking to improve the assessment of drainage needs and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems and the clear requirement for drainage matters to be addressed when individual development proposals are being considered.

I will take back the issue that the noble Baroness raised on the specific legal case. That is as a relatively new court decision, so I am sure that the MHCLG team are reviewing any impact on the Bill. I will respond in writing to her and other Members of the Committee on that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister said that the judgment was on 15 January. If she and her department consider that their policy is being set aside by very clever planning barristers, would she perhaps bring forward an amendment from the department that would be much better worded than my humble effort in this regard? It is completely inappropriate for the sequential test to be set aside in the way that it has been, and it is contrary to what she is trying to do in her department.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

141: Schedule 20, page 225, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to ensure that local growth plans include provision about cultural venues.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the amendments in this group. I thank my noble friends—I call them that—Lord Clancarty and Lord Freyberg for supporting them. I support Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I will speak particularly on Amendments 141, 146 and 222.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering —who never tests my patience, she has so much knowledge and experience—and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their amendments on the role of culture in local growth plans and on the agent of change principle.

On Amendments 141, 146 and 147, the Government are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country. In January, the Government announced an investment package of £1.5 billion, of which £1.2 billion is new, to support arts, culture, museums, libraries and heritage. Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the inclusion of culture, heritage and arts to be included in mayoral competences, which is still under active consideration. We have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector.

We know that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities recognise the role of culture and the creative sector in supporting thriving communities. I also mention the cohesion role that they play, which was mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in an earlier debate on this subject. Indeed, many of them are raising culture in their local growth plans. Many places are taking this further, such as Greater Manchester with its dedicated culture strategy and the West Midlands—for the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin—establishing a partnership programme with the industry. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave other powerful examples. I take this opportunity to congratulate those two absolutely brilliant young women from the BRIT School who won Grammy awards. They absolutely stormed it at the Grammy awards the other day—so congratulations to them.

Introducing an additional duty would be burdensome and, as demonstrated, is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, published her independent review of Arts Council England. Following that, the Government are considering how to ensure that culture is supported by strategic authorities. As part of this, we are considering how it relates to all strategic authorities, not just the mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities that are developing local growth plans.

Specifically on the amendments from noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relate to the pipeline of investment projects that must be set out as part of local growth plans, I point out that our guidance sets an expectation that this pipeline should be a shortlist of projects that are critical for unlocking growth, with the potential to crowd in private investment, and capable of unlocking significant returns. It is our view that, ultimately, it must be up to local areas to determine which projects fit that bill. These amendments would run counter to that principle and would require a one-size-fits-all approach that I know many Members are wary of. Rather than being mutually reinforcing for local growth, and the arts and culture, these amendments could cause confusion over the types of projects to include as part of that investment pipeline.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Amendment 222, and share her desire to ensure that new housing does not constrain the operation of existing facilities in the surrounding area. I think that the music trust makes a very powerful case in this regard. However, new legislation would be duplicative of existing policy and is also less flexible, as it gives authorities less ability to weigh important considerations when making planning decisions. The agent of change principle is firmly established in the planning system as a relevant policy consideration. The current National Planning Policy Framework is clear that businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.

Local planning authorities can request noise impact assessments when they consider it necessary; when making decisions, they have the ability to consider factors such as the type of development and how close it is to major sources of noise. The planning process can help to reduce adverse impacts by using measures such as careful layout and good design to limit noise transmission. The licensing regime also already enables local authorities to consider the agent of change principle when making decisions. The legislation is designed to recognise that different communities face different challenges, and local licensing authorities are able to incorporate the principle into their statements of licensing policy if they consider it necessary or useful to do so.

Furthermore, local authorities can consider a range of factors when deciding whether a complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance. They have a legal duty to investigate each case individually, taking into account relevant circumstances and their knowledge of the local area. I recognise the importance of safeguarding key cultural establishments from new residential development, and we are already taking a number of steps to improve the implementation of the agent of change principle. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about this being in place. We want to toughen it up, and I will talk now about some of those steps.

In planning, we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses, such as licensed music and cultural venues. As I pointed out before, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself—it cannot be because it needs to be flexible as circumstances change—it sits in the statutory planning process and carries substantial weight because of that.

In licensing, we recently conducted a call for evidence as part of the licensing reforms programme, which included a question on the application of the agent of change principle within the licensing regime. Detailed analysis covering responses to this will be published in due course.

For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken; it goes to show the breadth of knowledge we have, both in the Committee and in the House, among those involved. I was particularly taken by the reference that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, made to the BRIT School. It is outstanding that we had two clear winners at that time.

On the venues, I think it is important that we continue to stress these, but on the principle of agent of change, I am afraid I have to say that I am not content with the Minister’s response. I should have known, being a non-practising Scottish advocate, that we have a statutory basis for this in Scots law. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has proven very eloquently how we are operating under an inferior system here. Certainly, it is the wish of all those who gave evidence to the inquiry on the reform of the Licensing Act 2003, albeit in 2016-17, that it could operate better. We are still in a position where we do not have statutory guidelines.

I simply do not accept, for the same reasons I gave in the earlier debate on SUDS, that planning guidance is planning guidance. You can have a legal basis in an Act such as the Licensing Act, which we recommended be reformed, or this would be the ideal Bill in which to put it. If that is what licensing and planning practitioners are asking us to do, I feel honour-bound that we should do this. I wish to bring this back on Report and would welcome a meeting with the Minister and others who are concerned by this before that time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 141 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for leading this group; I entirely agree with what he says. I hope that we may be able to achieve a further step forward on this when we get to Report. He said many things, but I shall just draw out one of them. In all these changes, we have to avoid decision-making becoming more remote from people. He has a solution, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock had one in a previous group, so I hope that the Government will be willing to explore this further. As I say, we will look at this issue again on Report.

In this group, I have Amendment 241C, which is a probing amendment. I would like the Government to comment on the general power of competence that is being given to English national parks authorities in Clause 73. My amendment would require those authorities to consult communities surrounded by or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact those communities. The need for this review is because the national parks have separate planning powers. Areas bordering or surrounded by a national park need to be given the reassurance that, where there may be an impact on them as a result of a national park’s decision, they have a right to be formally consulted on it. In the context of a new general power of competence, will the consultation actually happen? I think that it must happen, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised about decision-making becoming remote.

Strategic authorities are going to be very large. Many existing local authorities are also very large. The more we have unitary councils, the more that trend will be increased. The right to be consulted matters more than it may have mattered hitherto. As a consequence of that, where a general power of competence is being given to a national park authority in Clause 73, that should be accompanied by a requirement to consult those communities surrounded or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact on those communities. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are prepared to look at this issue further.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.

I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.

I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to whom I am grateful.

Parish councils are the most local level of government. They were based on one of the most ancient forms of local administration in England, namely the parish system, which is still rightly maintained by the established Church of this country. Any Bill that wants to reflect the movement towards localism and protect local geographical identity must, in our opinion, have provisions to empower parishes. Parish councils are often the best places to truly understand local views on issues that face local people, providing insights on planning and enhancing both community well-being and quality of life, with the protection of things such as green spaces, playing fields and allotments. They can pay attention to the little things that matter but from which larger bodies are too distant—or in which they are disinterested.

The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am a vice-president, has highlighted that town and parish councils raise more than £900 million in precepts each year and invest more than £2 billion in communities. I thank all of the approximately 10,000 of these councils in England for the volunteering that they do, their time and their energy; indeed, they put some 14 million hours a year into serving their communities. They deserve more of a place in this Bill. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government are not protecting and strengthening such councils’ roles in this Bill?

On Amendment 241C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising this issue. Clearly, there is a problem, in that some communities that border or surround the national parks have less of a say because they are currently not consulted on matters that affect them. However, I remain somewhat hesitant about how this amendment might work in practice. I will talk to the noble Lord because I would like some further clarification on, for example, how a consultation taking place for the communities in the Peak District might have to involve, say, the city of Sheffield. How large or close would a community have to be in order to be consulted, in other words?

In addition, we would also like to understand, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned, the implications on any authority’s resources and capacity. I am interested in the views of the Minister on that amendment as well. We strongly support giving local people more of a voice, which is what this Bill says it should be doing. But we strongly believe in the role of town and parish councils as a way to get really local voices into local services delivery. I urge the Government to look further at the role of town and parish councils in the new local government model for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

For all these reasons, this is a modest but important change. It would not impose new duties or costs but recognises the reality that culture is already central to place-making, growth and well-being. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment and allow culture to sit properly within the collaborative framework of the Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 100. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for their knowledge in this sphere. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referencing West and South Yorkshire in this regard. I place on record how impressive Screen Yorkshire is, as well as the Rural Arts Centre in Thirsk that I mentioned previously. I am all in favour of collaboration in the areas of competence, arts and culture; they have a tremendous role to play for young people coming on to the scene.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I fully support what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said. To some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on the issue that I wanted to raise about a broader meaning of the word culture. Culture is used to bring people together and bring social cohesion. It is a deliberate action taken by people to build and deepen democratic behaviours and citizenship. I want to register that much broader meaning of the word culture, because if we can use culture as a vehicle for bringing people together, that good practice can be used across regions, which will be beneficial. I elaborated the reasons for that in my previous comments.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I shall also speak to my amendment, which is simpler. As I go through my remarks, noble Lords will see the rationale for my amendment. It is clear that the Bill strengthens the architecture for economic growth. It stops short of embedding cultural and heritage ecosystems within this framework and it does not provide a clear mechanism through which MHCLG, DCMS and DSIT and their arm’s-length bodies can work collaboratively with strategic authorities. It leaves the very sectors, culture and heritage, which are the lifeblood of civic life, which encourage engagement by communities and which are a crucial part of the creative industries’ ecosystem, outside the formal machinery of devolution.

Cultural heritage, in my view, needs to be part of the core toolkit for mayors, since devolution is more than just economic growth. If this new architecture is to work, civic and cultural capabilities, which are the connective tissue of local life, have to thrive, so we need to create spaces where intercultural dialogue can take place.

Intercultural dialogue is not just a slogan but a bridge builder, where an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference to sustain social cohesion prevails for people to meet across boundaries, build trust, shape a shared sense of purpose and see themselves as part of a common story. Culture can be a powerful lever, used properly, to avoid the balkanisation of communities and arrest the intensification of difference in an era where identity politics are rife.

As we begin to develop a more robust regional tier of governance, we must ensure that the aims of fostering understanding and strengthening social bonds are woven into the strategic functions and that this change is seen as an opportunity for genuinely building social inclusion, not social division. I would argue that social cohesion matters for our national security, because we need to ensure that local devolution will help to harness national cohesion. This amendment will, in my view, go a long way in helping to ensure that there is deliberate engagement to coalesce around common issues that deepen what are called democratic behaviours and citizenship.

This amendment will not impose any fiscal or bureaucratic burdens but will ensure that culture and heritage sit alongside other competences. We need national economic renewal, but we also need social renewal. These measures as a whole will build trust and a sense of belonging. I am aware that culture and heritage are often characterised as cross-cutting issues, but the same could be said of other competences. It is because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should not be left to discretionary treatment but should be integrated purposefully into the remit of this Bill.

This amendment is not just an adornment but is foundational and will give human meaning to structural changes. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is not prescriptive about scale, timing or configuration, because it will be rightly worked through by mayors with central government. I hope that the amendment will be looked at sympathetically and I thank Culture Commons for the support that it has provided.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am in favour of all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 6, which I have co-signed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing the amendment today and so eloquently expressing why it is so important to every strand of British life. Sitting next to a Lancastrian, it gives me great pleasure to extol the virtues of Yorkshire arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage. I pause to give my best wishes, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and wish her a speedy return to this place. Having broken my ankle, I know how irritating it is to be immobile, but you have to let nature take its course.

As the MP at the time, I was delighted to be patron of Thirsk Museum. Many noble Lords may not know that Thomas Lord came from Thirsk, so when you go to Lord’s, think of Thirsk. James Herriot was also a son of Thirsk and I pay tribute to his son and daughter, who are keeping his memory alive. The James Herriot museum is one of the most visited museums in Thirsk and North Yorkshire. We are also very lucky to have the more recent Rural Arts centre, which is very active and a great contribution to local culture and the local economy.

Will the Minister say whether it was an oversight that arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage were omitted? Will she look favourably on this amendment to ensure that they are covered in the context of this Bill? This group of amendments is entirely complementary to later amendments that come in my name, and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I support these amendments this afternoon.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill. I also wish my noble friend the Minister a happy birthday for yesterday. I was delighted to hear her cite examples of good practice from my old region, Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region, especially on clean energy. As a city councillor I represented the poorest ward in Liverpool, and as an MEP I had the privilege of representing over 40 north-west local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for what he said in his earlier remarks.

The English devolution White Paper, published last year, set out the Government’s intentions for this Bill, including the exploration of

“a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making”.

The specific reference to “rural communities” is key, given that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not have a single reference to “rural”, “landscape” or “farming” in all its 371 pages. With the national focus on meeting housing targets, delivering large-scale infrastructure and supporting the Government’s growth mission, it is essential that rural areas are not forgotten and that rural communities feel that they have a genuine say in the decisions affecting them. It is important to note that 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural, with around 17% of the country’s population living in those areas. Rural areas have context-specific needs and challenges, and we should take this opportunity to ensure that these communities get the fair representation, strategic investment and support that they need to thrive.

Amendment 7 seeks to add “rural affairs” as an area of competence in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences would, in turn, allow mayors to appoint a specific rural affairs commissioner, if they so wish. As it stands, each competence in Clause 2 can be applied differently in rural and urban settings. There is a concern that in strategic authorities that contain both rural and urban communities, the strategic focus for commissioners covering these competences will lead towards the urban, with rural communities being treated as an afterthought.

Adding rural affairs as an area of competence would ensure that a specific rural affairs commissioner can be appointed to cover the range of needs of rural communities. It would also, incidentally, enable mayors to convene meetings with local partners, as set out in Clause 21, on rural affairs, and enable rural affairs to be one of the thematic areas on which neighbouring mayors can request collaboration, as set out in Clause 22. While Amendments 56 and 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have a similar aim of ensuring the appointment of a commissioner with responsibility for rural affairs, my amendment, in keeping with the objectives of the Bill, seeks to enable this to be an option available where necessary, with the decision on whether to appoint one ultimately being made locally. My amendment would also allow rural affairs to become a thematic area to which other functions in the Bill can refer, in addition to the clause on commissioner appointments.

As this Bill draws many provisions from the Greater London Act, there is a need to safeguard and ensure that measures being brought forward are not purely urban-centric in their approach and that different contexts are being considered across strategic areas, including those with significant rural populations. Amendment 128 would provide that method of safeguarding. This proposed new clause would place a duty on strategic authorities and their mayors to have regard to the needs of rural communities when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions. As a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network noted:

“Bill amendments that place a duty on combined authorities to consider the needs of rural communities would help ensure that rural housing is not overlooked in favour of urban-focused strategies and investment plans, and that accountability mechanisms are available to rural communities and advocates”.


I welcome Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would add public and active transport provision to the areas to which strategic authorities and their mayors must have regard. These would be vital inclusions to the duty relating to the needs of rural communities. I further welcome Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

Rural areas are important economic drivers for farming, food production and other local businesses, as well as tourism. According to the House of Lords Library, in 2022 predominantly rural areas of England contributed an estimated £315 billion in gross value added to England’s economy, representing 16.2% of England’s total GVA. Historically, investment has been focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire inward investment from the private sector and meet essential needs in food production, health and well-being. With their rich ecology and large landscapes, rural areas also present an opportunity to target investment towards significant gains around nature recovery and climate resilience. We cannot miss this opportunity to recognise the value of our rural communities.

Along with well-respected organisations supporting rural communities, including the Rural Housing Network, the Country Land and Business Association and the Rural Services Network, and as was highlighted in briefings by the Royal Town Planning Institute, I believe this Bill should be strengthened through the strategic focus on rural growth in these amendments. Their inclusion would help identify the enabling infrastructure needed to support rural communities and ensure that their needs are considered in recent and upcoming planning reform, as well as this devolution programme. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and thank her for introducing this group of amendments. I will speak to Amendments 52, 56, 60 and 260 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his support for all of them and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for signing Amendment 52.

The noble Baroness has fulfilled the first part of what the Royal Town Planning Institute—I do not think it is any relation to her good self—said in seeking a duty to consider the needs of rural communities. My amendments propose the second thing it asked for: the establishment of rural commissioners where appropriate. This answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Lansley about where in the Bill there is a legal basis to create other commissioners, so my amendments dovetail entirely with those in her name.

It is important to recognise that in the old days, in the first Labour Government to which I was elected— I was not elected; I was elected to the Official Opposition, let me get the facts right, my memory is playing tricks with me—one of their early proposals was to create regional development agencies, I think they were called. The beef or the grief I had with that was that, on paper, North Yorkshire, probably one of the most deeply rural, sparsely populated counties in the country, represented 11% of the population of the RDA. One would hope that one might get 11% of the funding, but we never got anywhere remotely near that.

Also, there used to be a policy of rural proofing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, chaired a committee that looked into rural issues and focused quite a lot on rural proofing. That policy is still reflected on the Defra website, and there have been updates: the most recent one on this page was 2 December 2022. Rural proofing had a very special role to play. It ensured that every policymaker and legislator, like ourselves —so the Library note would have reflected this, presumably, on earlier Bills—would look at, assess and take into account the effects of proposed policies on rural areas.

Why is this important? Look at delivering a health service. My father was a rural GP; it is very difficult to access GP surgeries. It is even more difficult to access hospitals in rural areas. It was a 50-mile round trip from where I was brought up to the big hospital. Ambulances obviously have further to go. Look at delivering social care. Carers are not paid for the time they spend on the road, which is often not factored in. That is terrible and should be addressed. On education, we have had a terrible problem with school buses since this Government got rid of the rural deprivation grant, I think it was called. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is getting the blame for having to revisit the provision of school buses and the taxi service to get children to schools which are more than three miles away from where they live. This policy has taken away the funding by scrapping that grant.

There used to be a rural commission in Defra which looked at all this rural proofing. I have mentioned some of the policy areas, but there are many others. Some 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural and 17% of the country’s population live in these rural areas, yet so often, particularly at local government level where there is an urban/rural mix, this is not reflected. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I had common cause—she will not disagree with me because it is on the record and I am not quoting her because she is not here—as we both opposed the orders for a metro mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that she, like me, also opposed the combined authority for North Yorkshire.

I believe that a metro mayor in areas such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester—I am being nice to north- west people at the moment—works where there is a concentrated landmass with a big population in that area. It is perfectly justified for those who wish it, but I do not think it works in rural areas. It certainly has not worked politically, because all the rural voters stayed at home and we have ended up with a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, which is not so excellent for those of us who live there. There is a lesson there.

I also believe that districts and boroughs were closer to the people. People knew exactly where the councillors lived and exactly what they were responsible for and felt that they were more accountable. We have also lost overall control. We have a majority of one now on the combined authority. Again, there was a political lesson that I tried to warn my Government about at the time, but it did not go quite as well as I would have expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I take the point. That project is being supported by the Food Strategy Advisory Board, including extensive engagement across government. I will take back the point that that should include all tiers of local government, as the noble Baroness makes a fair point.

Through rail reform, mayoral strategic authorities will have a statutory role in the design of local rail services and all tiers of local government will benefit under the new Great British Railways business unit model, taking local priorities into account. The noble Baroness also referred to cycleways. I am very proud of where I live because my town was built with 45 kilometres of built-in cycle infrastructure. This is an important opportunity for our new towns as we develop the work of the taskforce. I know the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, will again be interviewing our Secretary of State in the Select Committee tomorrow on these and other matters. Gilston, which is a garden village near Harlow, made provision for a cycleway. We have to think about that. While we agree on the importance of these issues, the amendment is unnecessary because this Bill and other government activities will already enable authorities to secure improvements to rural transport without imposing an additional legal duty.

Finally, Amendment 260 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on rural areas before any regulations could be made using the powers in this Bill. Ahead of the introduction of the Bill, my department assessed the impacts of regulatory policies within it on businesses and households, urban and rural. This impact assessment was given a green rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee, indicating that it is fit for purpose. It would not be proportionate to complete another impact assessment solely for rural areas, given that our original assessment applies to those as well.

May I just refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron? He referred to the importance of the rural voice being heard across government. I completely agree. The mainstreaming of rural affairs across competences is vital, as is the freedom for mayors to address their local issues in the best way to tackle their local challenges.

In talking about bus services, the noble Lord reminded me of when I did a review of the universal credit system a while back. I was sent to Blandford Forum in Dorset. Some of the people who were working on their skills with the jobcentre had to visit the jobcentre every day. The problem with that was that the bus fare was £9 and there was only a bus to get there, with no bus to get home again; you may have wanted to improve your skills but it was very tricky to do so because, although you could get there, you could not get back home again. That was one of the big flaws in the universal credit system. Of course we want to keep track of people who are trying to develop skills, but there are difficult issues around that in rural areas.

When we discussed London-style bus services across the country—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will remember it well from the then levelling-up Bill—it raised the eyebrows of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. My noble friend lives in Cumbria, so London-style bus services are quite a long way from the service she gets in her local area. I understand the issues, but I think that enabling mayors —and their commissioners, if they choose to do it in that way—to address their local issues is the best way to tackle local challenges in these areas. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She referred to an impact assessment. We used to use the tried-and-tested method of tabling an amendment to ask for an impact assessment to be prepared. If the department has prepared an impact assessment, would it be possible for the Minister to publish it while this Bill is going through? That would be immensely helpful.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Let me just check with my civil servants so that I do not say something I should not say. I believe that it has been published; I will send the noble Baroness a link to where she can access it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for accepting the substance of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment —an important step that these Benches strongly support. We now look forward to scrutinising in full the regulations establishing a national scheme for the delegation of planning decisions through the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on accepting such a sensible amendment. She was kind enough to write to me about non-hazardous reservoirs. She said in that letter that the regulations and guidance will be kept under review. I urge her to use her good offices to ensure that both Houses will be able to review that. I once again record my huge disappointment that the non-hazardous reservoirs legislation will not come into effect before 2028, which is far too late, given the impact. Reservoirs are operating below capacity already, and the deficit we will face in Yorkshire over the next year especially is deeply regrettable.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. The question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is possibly out of scope of the Motion before us, but I am always happy to meet with her and discuss this further. She has a detailed letter from me today explaining the Government’s position.

I will very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is vital that, in exercising democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible—as I know she knows only too well—by not revisiting the same decisions and focusing on applications which require member input. The Government want to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses, and that our planning professionals are fully supported in their role, with their skills and experience put to best use. I know she will be more than familiar with all those issues.

This will be my final time at the Dispatch Box speaking on this Bill. I am not going to say “thank goodness”, but we have had some very long discussions and sittings. I once again place on record my thanks to all noble Lords who have engaged with the Bill and the department through the Bill’s passage. The open and robust nature of our debates has undoubtedly strengthened the Bill.

In particular, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Roborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the time they have given to engaging so thoughtfully on this critical legislation. I also thank all the civil servants and the staff of the House, who have sometimes had to work very late on the Bill. I very much look forward to working with noble Lords as we take forward the implementation of the Bill, which will be a major step in the Government’s reform programme. The House should be under no doubt that we intend to move quickly over the coming months so that we can realise the full benefits of this legislation.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill and I welcome the Minister to her place. Just when she thought she was going to have a quiet life, another Bill comes along.

We heard earlier that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Whitehall by giving local leaders the tools to deliver growth, fix the foundations of local government and empower communities. How precisely will this work in rural communities?

I spoke against the orders for the combined authority and the mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that my concerns have been proven right. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I shared similar views at the time. The population of North Yorkshire and York combined is 768,000. The area is too big geographically but not big enough numerically to make this worthwhile. For the last five years, I was in the most rural part of the constituency that I represented. If I drove 200 miles in one day, I would barely touch the sides of the constituency. How a mayor is expected to get round, meet people and represent that area is a challenge for anybody and I wish him well.

[A noble Lord]

Or her.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is a him.

I believe that democracy is grass-roots, certainly in rural areas. The building blocks are parish councils, districts, boroughs and counties. It is very confusing. I was three times subject to Boundary Commission reviews in my parliamentary career—once as a European MP and twice as an MP. When we keep meddling and making more mysteries to local government, as we are doing in this Bill, it discourages people from going out to vote, because they do not know which area of government or which authority they are living in. We were promised that, if we got rid of the districts and boroughs in North Yorkshire, we would save money. We then had a metro mayor imposed on us, and most of the rural dwellers stayed at home. Politically, it was not a riotous success for us in North Yorkshire. We lost our overall majority. So it is going to be a challenge as successive elections take place. The lowest turnout was for the police commissioner election—something that was imported from the States. It might work well there, but it certainly did not work well in rural parts of North Yorkshire.

I share common cause with noble Lords who have spoken in favour of rural commissioners. There is a great case for saying that in deeply rural areas we must have a rural commissioner in place. Better still, could we go back to having rural-proofing of all policy across the piece? That would help very much. I look forward to working with the Minister and others in the House when we move to Committee to make the Bill work in this regard.

When it comes to funding, if I have understood correctly, there is going to be a levy for transport. How are the Government going to square the extra responsibilities on combined authorities, particularly when it comes to solar farms and battery storage plants, both of which are highly flammable? If the fire service has to attend to these, it will put an extra call and extra resource implications on them. I would be interested to know how the Government expect to fund this if it cannot be met out of general funding at this time.

There are areas which I support. I support the provisions on out-of-area services. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, did the House and the country a great service by showing how that was part of how grooming gangs were able to target their victims. It is not just in Wolverhampton and Manchester. There are problems right across North Yorkshire and the north-east. I think there are still problems with Uber and it is right and proper that these services should be brought under the Bill.

I am grateful to Guide Dogs for its briefing. There is still the issue that about 58% of guide dog owners are reportedly turned away by taxi or private hire vehicles, despite this being a criminal offence. Will the Government address this as part of the Bill to make sure that there is a better understanding? I am very proud that it was a Conservative Government under my noble friend Lord Hague who introduced what became the Disability Discrimination Act, which made enormous strides in this field. I hope this issue can be addressed as part of this Bill.

The Bill sounds excellent in theory. How it will be delivered in practice, particularly in rural areas, will be a real challenge. I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. There is a key issue to be addressed of funding drainage boards where they do exist to make sure that they have the means to do their excellent work in keeping us all safe from floods.

I welcome the Bill as it stands but hope to improve it and to reintroduce the agent of change principle, this time successfully.

NHS Industrial Action

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I have the figures in front of me. The data we have received reported an average of 17,200 resident doctors absent from work in each of the November rounds, which is slightly higher than the 16,200 average during the last set of strikes in July. Resident doctors make up about 50% of the workforce of around 150,000 NHS doctors in England. I think that gives a pretty clear sense. Of course, our sympathies go to all the other doctors, medical staff and other staff in hospitals who performed so admirably during those strikes. We will continue to support them and make sure that they can deliver for the patients in their care.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord is right that communication and talking are critical. That is why the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that the door is open to have those conversations, recognising the challenges that doctors have faced, whether that is bottlenecks in training or money being taken out by compulsory payments for joining the Royal College of Physicians, and all those things. As we have heard, our absolute priority is to reduce waiting lists, putting the patient at the centre of the NHS. That is the mission we are on, and we are determined to deliver it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As the Minister will be aware, pay is only one part of what I understand the resident doctors are looking for. As I understand it, they are actually quite senior doctors—registrars, one step below consultants—often in their late 20s or early 30s, looking to form relationships, start families and put down roots. Yet they are given security of tenure of only something like six to 10 months in each posting. That is not acceptable to give them a sense of permanency and value. The Government need to look at this as a matter of urgency. Will they?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I have discussed this in another forum in this House. It is critical that we work with those doctors to find out what their priorities are and how we can work with them to give them more security and to make sure that the training posts are available. I am pleased to say that consultation is on offer around all these points. We have to move forward; the door is open, and we want to discuss how we can make improvements to the contracts.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Are those “further commitments” what she has just said from the Dispatch Box about taking away the water sections of the NSIP system? If so, it would be helpful if she could set out a bit more about the timeframe. Is she intending to do that before the Bill gets Royal Assent? If not, when might we see the outcome of her deliberations? It would be helpful to have that. I am grateful to her for looking at this further and for the recognition that she has given about the irreplaceability of our heritage if it is submerged underwater.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.

The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.

I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?

Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.

In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.

These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not

“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.

I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 32.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, expressed concern, in that non-hazardous reservoirs are specifically small reservoirs. Can the Minister write to me on this point? I understand that we still need legislation. This evening would be the opportunity to explain the de minimis rules and how non-hazardous small reservoirs can be built on farms—something that farmers are hoping will happen now. I regret that there is probably not enough support in the House to put the Motion to a vote this evening, but I will return to this issue another time, because I do not believe we have seen any evidence of urgency. I thank the Minister for the concessions she has given, but I do not believe there is the sense of urgency that farmers are crying out for.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

When is that classification coming in?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.

Water and Sewerage Companies: Statutory Consultees

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make water and sewerage companies and undertakings statutory consultees on major new housing developments and nationally significant infrastructure projects.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as an officer of the All-Party Water Group.

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

My Lords, water companies must by law provide new water and sewerage connections to housing through drainage and wastewater management plans. As relevant statutory undertakers in the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, they must be consulted on relevant applications for development consent. The Government’s forthcoming guidance will promote early engagement with them. The Government have paused creating new statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. As part of a wider review, a consultation on streamlining this system is under way, with decisions to follow.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It begs the question how the Government plan to build major housing developments of 300,000 a year, many of them on flood plains with no sustainable drains, with the additional demands of the new data centres and mindful of the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, giving the acute warning of a deficit of water of 5 billion litres by 2050. Do the Government agree that we need to end the automatic right to connect, so that where water companies say there is simply no capacity, the development will not go ahead?