English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

I conclude by saying that, while the agent of change principle is there, it is as guidance only. The Minister is aware that there are a host of departments involved—the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and the planning responsibilities under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I know that there is a licensing reform programme under way in her department. The nudge I am hoping that will push at this open door is that the Government and her department are minded to co-ordinate efforts to maximise efficacy and efficiency leading to the much-vaunted growth agenda that the Government are trying to progress. So these are actually very helpful amendments, in particular Amendment 222. With those few remarks, I beg leave to move Amendment 141.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be fairly brief, because last week we had a considerable discussion on cultural concerns. I support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

The noble Baroness rightly points to cultural infrastructure. I would go further than venues. We should also be thinking about rehearsal spaces, artists’ studios, recording studios and ways of developing opportunities for the artists themselves, technicians and arts organisations, such as theatre companies, bands, orchestras and so on. There should be a consideration of public access to cultural services, such as museums and libraries. Indeed, every area of arts, culture and heritage should be considered to the extent that a separate cultural plan should be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan, and my Amendment 147 would put that in place.

As with the local growth plan, there are clearly different ways in which an area can develop its own arts and culture. No area is going to be the same. Every area will have its own individual plan, as it should do.

I am grateful for the discussions I have had with Culture Commons about this. I am also very grateful to the Minister for the very constructive discussions some of us had with her about this area yesterday.

Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is on the agent of change principle. We have had extensive discussions about this during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment.

The grass roots music venues are very grateful for the 15% reduction in business rates, but this is not an either/or. A venue that is doing well can fold because the agent of change principle is not being properly or effectively applied.

The guidance alone is not working, as the Music Venue Trust is so clear about. As I said in the discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it points to the significant difference between Scotland, which has a statutory requirement and where the system works well, and England, which does not have a statutory requirement and where it does not work well at all. The Music Venue Trust has intimate knowledge of this, because it deals with cases.

I believe the amendment would make a significant difference. I fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I also support Amendments 141, 146 and 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name.

Taken together, these amendments recognise that culture does not operate in isolation but as an interconnected ecosystem with different parts depending on one another, as the noble Earl has said. That is why Amendments 141 and 146 would strengthen the place of culture in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 147 rightly promotes a more systemic approach across the culture sector.

While I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I made at length during the passage of the planning Bill on the agent of change principle—this is another recycled amendment from that Bill—I want to underline the central point here and echo much of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, namely that the agent of change principle is now widely accepted. Few would argue that new residential or commercial developments should be able to externalise their impacts on existing cultural venues, forcing those venues to absorb the cost of mitigation or, too often, close altogether. The Government have acknowledged this and announced their intention to implement agent of change through policy. However, the difficulty is that policy alone, whether in planning guidance or licensing frameworks, has consistently proved insufficient. Non-statutory approaches are applied unevenly, interpreted narrowly and too easily overridden when competing pressures arise. Guidance can be ignored, policy can be diluted, and, without a clear, legislative footing, enforcement becomes discretionary rather than expected. For cultural venues operating on tight margins, that uncertainty is, in itself, deeply damaging.

If the Government accept that the agent of change is necessary at all, and their own statements suggest that they do, it surely follows that it must be implemented in a form that is effective, durable and legally robust. That is precisely what Amendment 222 seeks to do. It would not create a new principle but give statutory force to an existing one, moving us from aspiration to assurance. For that reason, and for the coherence it brings alongside Amendments 141, 146 and 147, I strongly support Amendment 222 and urge the Government to look favourably upon it.