English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 222A just picks up the Government on the disappearance of the funds that the last Government made available to support the community right to buy. I very much hope that the Government will in time reverse that decision, because it made a huge difference to the effectiveness of this provision. It was not that the Government paid the whole of it, but it made the base from which the community could raise the money, particularly if the community was not one of the richest in the world. It was a really important initiative and an important part of what to my mind is a really important clause underpinning the relationship between the community and the space that it occupies. I very much hope that in time the Government will come back to the position as we used to have it. I have seen it do an awful lot of good.

I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 235ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because she is unable to be here. First, Amendment 235 essentially says that the planning uplift should be ignored. That is a really important part of the relationship here. If you do not ignore the value uplift that comes with hope value, you make it absolutely impossible for the community to purchase the land. A charity, beyond anything else, is not allowed to buy land above its value, and the value to the charity is the land without hope, so that closes off a substantial route for buying assets of community value.

Secondly, the hope value belongs to the community. It is not something that is generated by the owner; it is something that is generated by the community, which might wish to give at some future time permission to do something else on that land. It is not appropriate that that should be appropriated by the owner. We need the value at which these transactions are done to be the value without hope value.

Thirdly, we need to do something to make it possible to deal with sporting fields. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the trials that Udney Park has dealt with over the last 10 years, with a succession of developers blocking the continued use of that space as a sporting facility and its transfer into community ownership. It would be really helpful under those circumstances if it was possible for the local authority to intervene and use its compulsory acquisition powers to ensure transfer. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group relating to assets of cultural value and I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg.

Between them, the amendments do just two things. First, Amendment 233 tells us more precisely what cultural interests are by giving specific examples of assets such as music venues, theatres, rehearsal spaces and so on. I take on board the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressed in the previous debate, about the use of “culture” or “cultural”, and indeed the phrase “cultural interest” could on the face of it mean a number of different things. I suggest that there are three ways of addressing this. You can strictly define the term; you can use associated words to help lock down the meaning of the term, such as in the phrase “arts, culture and heritage”; or you can give specific examples, which is what I have done here.

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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

100: Clause 22, page 25, line 38, after “social” insert “, cultural”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is, broadly speaking, about collaboration in its various forms—not just between mayors but between mayors of other parties, as well as other forms of collaboration.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as that of my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar, for my Amendment 100. It would add “cultural” to the other categories of well-being, alongside “economic” and “social”, for mayors of neighbouring authorities who would like to collaborate with each other over areas of competence; in this context, I interpret “well-being” in a very general sense. I believe it to be logical that this amendment should be accepted if the arts, culture and heritage were to be added as areas of competence.

I support the other amendments in this group. Collaboration across boundaries should be encouraged, both within and outside the strategic authorities. I have added my name to Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I look forward, too, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has to say about citizens’ assemblies.

In support of this amendment, I want to mention something that I probably did not emphasise enough in our debate last week on Amendment 6 and areas of competence but which is particularly relevant to this debate nevertheless: the importance of the arts and the creative industries as a generally well-functioning ecosystem. I say that despite the large and damaging cuts to the arts that we have seen in the past 15 years.

In some ways, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is often said that you tamper with this ecosystem at your peril because of the co-dependence of one part on another. There is considerable crossover in media and skills, as the Minister will appreciate—theatre, film and TV exemplify that—but there is also co-dependence geographically. The grass-roots arts, which are often subsidised, are traditionally where the most interesting, innovative work takes place and influence both what is taking place in London and what goes into London—for instance, into theatres in West End.

This is still true, to a large extent, but London is increasingly not the be-all and end-all of the arts. The way in which the regions negotiate the changes that are taking place—for example, with the new creative hubs—has to be done collaboratively. This is particularly true with such a significant shared cultural asset as Production Park in Wakefield, where “Adolescence”, the hit Netflix drama, was filmed.

It is also important for the regions that the new hubs are not simply colonial outposts of the big entertainment companies. The West and South Yorkshire mayoralties already have a long-standing relationship, which includes a common strategy for developing the skills that are needed to work in the many areas of the creative industries and for doing this regionally, in Yorkshire. This is something that is being fostered at Production Park, which, significantly, has its own educational facilities. There is a growing sense that work can be made in the regions—by local, original creators—that will have national, or even international, exposure. This is very exciting, but it does require mayors to come together.

Other areas of necessary collaboration across strategic authorities include cities of culture. Different regions may be rivals, but there will be much to be learned from previous experience. There are the big events, of course, including music festivals and national cultural events. Mayors should be sharing best practice for every level of cultural activity, from the provision of cultural services and access to the arts by local authorities to commercial opportunities, employment concerns, issues around trade and concerns around touring, including touring abroad. There is also the tourist levy; mayors should certainly be talking to each other about how that will be administered and how the money will be spent.

In some of these suggestions, I am talking about communication between different regions as much as I am about more formal collaboration between authorities that pass the “neighbour test”. The Minister may say that mayors are already collaborating in this area, but it is important to recognise the reality; indeed, where mayors are not talking to each other, talking absolutely needs to be encouraged. There is a real, practical use in treating culture in this context—for all the reasons I am setting out—as a separate, integral and identifiable area. I beg to move.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support. This flows on nicely from what we talked about on smaller-scale collaboration in the previous group. This is all about collaboration across larger geographies. I go back to something that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying in a debate back in 2024 on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions) Bill, as it was at that time. He said that devolution was something that all noble Lords could get behind and support. We would perhaps differ on the means of achieving that but it is, as a principle, something that we should all agree on.

However, by undertaking devolution, as this Bill does, we are creating joins and barriers that were not there before. We therefore need a way in which to create a holistic approach that ensures collaboration across those boundaries. This drives us to more of a pan-regional collaboration, looking at larger geographies such as the north or the Midlands. I give a few examples of why this is important. On inward investment, for example, we have vast pools of capital across the world that are mobile and can invest anywhere in the world. Selling a region and its opportunities is an excellent way in which to focus on bigger opportunities, rather than leaving it to smaller geographies to help bring in that capital and investment. Also, on large-scale infrastructure, transport is a great example. Large-scale rail projects that impact across many strategic authorities need to be considered on a pan-regional basis. I have later amendments on thematic areas such as social mobility policy but one of the key findings from the recent special inquiry committee was that there needed to be bespoke regional approaches to this long-standing problem to fit with the circumstances of each area, and there needs to be better regional co-ordination and collaboration on these approaches.

In the last Parliament, we had pan-regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and Northern Powerhouse that aimed to undertake this collaborative approach across regions. I worked extensively with the Midlands Engine. I founded the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group and led a number of work packages with the organisation, such as chairing the task force, which led to the Midlands Engine Energy Security White Paper. The Midlands Engine operated right across the Midlands region, from the Welsh border to Lincolnshire. It covered all local governments and the 11 million people in that geography, with the explicit aim of closing the gap in economic performance between the Midlands and the rest of the UK.

The economic argument sits at the foundation of all this. There is a persistent economic gap between the regions and the metropolis. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, highlighted this also. You could almost consider the UK as two countries in economic terms. We have a prosperous enclave in London and the south-east, with the rest of the country lagging far behind. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the Government need to focus on catch-up growth in the regions to meet their overall growth ambitions for the UK. I saw at first hand the benefits in the initiatives to join up the work of local authorities and combined authorities for the economic benefits of the Midlands region. So much great work was done, including setting the foundations of the Midlands Rail Hub, which has been taken forward today, large infrastructure investments such as fusion, and investment funds for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I also saw some of the political difficulties in trying to do that with the pan-regional partnership approach. There were challenges in a separate organisation, with the remit it was given, in getting political buy-in on initiatives from a broad range of stakeholders.

In reading the devolution White Paper, I was encouraged by that aspect of the Government’s plans in that they intend to keep pan-regional collaboration going but focus it more around partnerships between mayoral authorities, which could help to resolve some of the difficulties in those separate bodies. I was surprised to see no mention of this approach in the Bill, and to perhaps pre-empt what the Minister will say—I thank her for the meeting we had and the engagement on this amendment—there is of course nothing to stop mayors and authorities creating these convening bodies. There is some progress here already in the Great North partnership, for example. However, the Government do need to play a role in making this happen.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, many public service providers will be commissioned and contract-managed by local authorities. Superimposing a parallel mayoral duty would blur lines of accountability, cut across established commissioning arrangements, and risk duplication, confusion and delays. With these explanations, I hope the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and will be very brief. I thank noble Lords for their support for my amendment.

The point about the word “cultural” is that it has an important integrity. If we do not have it then something significant will be lost, because what it embraces will get shared out among other things.

Finally, the great theme in this debate has been a plea for greater flexibility and collaboration. I agree with so much of what your Lordships have said in that regard. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of spatial development strategies in the new devolution framework.

Amendment 45 would require strategic planning authorities to identify the policies in their spatial development strategies that are of strategic importance to address the local growth priorities identified in local growth plans. I very much agree with the need for spatial development strategies properly to address the priorities identified in local growth plans where they are of strategic importance to the area, such as the issues that the noble Lord mentioned around skills and infrastructure. There is an expectation in the revised NPPF that that is exactly what will happen.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act, to which the noble Lord also referred—we recently sat through many hours of debate on it—requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy they have published. This would include a local growth plan. In the draft revised NPPF, which was published just before Christmas, we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans, and that would include all of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We also set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should be tested against national policy when they are examined; that will include the industrial strategy, for example, and will shine a light on whether they are meeting the expectations we have of the SDS.

A number of Peers spoke to Amendment 46. I say to my noble friend Lady Young that I found her extrapolation of this through to losing lots of elections in May and then having a whole reshuffle a bit depressing. I hope that will not happen, and I also hope that my noble friend will have a wander through one of her new forests and cheer herself up a bit. Amendment 46 would require a strategic planning authority to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan and the land use framework for England while preparing a spatial development strategy.

I absolutely agree with noble Lords on the importance of these national documents relating to land use and the environment. The provisions detailing the required content of spatial development strategies and the factors to be taken into account in their preparation were introduced less than two months ago in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, following very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary to revisit or amend these requirements before they have even had a chance to be tested in practice. The documents in question are expected to inform the drafting of national planning policies, and strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with the current policy.

For example, if we found that the land use framework or the environmental improvement plan were being ignored in strategic development strategies, we would keep that under review. Should any gaps or misalignments emerge between strategic development strategies and these documents, we can consider future changes to the National Planning Policy Framework or planning practice guidance, or even secondary legislation to ensure that they are taken into account in preparing an SDS.

A number of noble Lords asked questions on the publication of the land use framework, which I know is eagerly awaited. The Government consulted on land use in England from January to April last year. The responses, as well as the feedback from supporting workshops that have been held since, are being analysed. The responses will inform the preparation of the land use framework. I cannot give noble Lords an exact publication date today, I am afraid, but I know that my colleagues in Defra want to publish it as quickly as possible.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about regional plans, I used to be on the regional assembly, so I sat thought the entire process of the east of England regional plan; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, did so as well, I believe. There were a lot of lessons to be learned from those regional plans, particularly around the co-ordination of data and so on, and I know that officials in the department have taken into consideration how that was done. We need to reflect carefully on those experiences and how they fit in with what we are about to do with strategic development strategies.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about London. The London plan sits outside this Bill, I think, but there is an expectation on London boroughs that this will be done. Indeed, my own borough is quite a way outside London—well, 28 miles; we are in Hertfordshire, so not that far—and we were consulted on the London plan as part of the Ring Around London consultation.

On my noble friend Lady Young’s question about the local nature recovery strategies, it is a requirement that SDSs take account of those; indeed, the London plan has to take account of local nature recovery strategies as well.

Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would require mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set out in their local growth plan what is needed in spatial and infrastructure terms to realise the economic growth opportunities presented in the plan. As with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying these needs. Local growth plans will be required to set out an economic overview of their area, shared priorities agreed with the Government, and a pipeline of investment opportunities. Where infra- structure or development presents a relevant investment opportunity, we would expect it to be included in that pipeline. We are clear that local growth plans should provide an overarching framework for growth, identifying actions and investment that can drive economic growth and productivity.

But, when it comes to addressing the spatial implications of local growth plans and identifying the development and infrastructure needs for realising growth, the right vehicle is the spatial development strategy. That is why we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans when we published our proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we will come to local growth plans and culture. Can the Minister confirm that the spatial development strategies will include cultural growth as something to look at?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said before, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Before I speak to my Amendment 221, I will discuss this group more broadly. As my noble friend the Minister has demonstrated, local government is better placed than Whitehall to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; place-based regeneration that is owned and directed by local people; effective skills training for local high-GDP jobs in emerging local industries; industry relevance coupled with creative thinking; and creativity, which is the linking of ideas to technique. As my noble friend said, what is important is politics being done with communities, not to them. Every child should have access to quality green space, clean air and a creative education. Who can plan better the walking pram distance to a school than a local parent or carer?

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on spatial planning, my years as chair of economic development in Liverpool City Council came flooding back. I know that Liverpool City Region is looking forward to the opportunities of tourism tax, and indeed we should consider whether this will work and how it can go further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, advocated so convincingly last week, devolution done well should and can build social cohesion and inclusion. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that culture may be considered as a competence.

Having represented combined local authorities in the European Parliament, I have had the pleasure of witnessing how devolved strategic government can mobilise regeneration, growth and job creation, and provide better access to public services, including affordable and—I hope—accessible green transport. The only way forward with hydrogen is green. I firmly believe that no city, town or rural community should be left behind, as has sadly been the case so far. We must afford these opportunities of well-audited devolution further and create an exchange of practice between regions and sub-regions to share learning, both on what is good and on where to avoid mistakes.

Amendment 221 is technical but also practical, widening the pool from which an elected mayor can appoint a deputy mayor. Current rules tightly limit who a regional mayor can appoint as deputy: only members of their cabinet, except for exceptional circumstances—that is, the leaders of the constituent local authorities. This new clause would amend Section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority’s members of the combined or strategic authority, thus widening the pool both of choice, and, as others have said, expertise. Among the wide opportunities afforded by the Bill, I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be quite brief and will make a point of principle to start with. If something is important enough to be an additional area of competence, it should have a dedicated commissioner to go with it, which is in line with what the Government have done so far. I say that at the outset.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given us an intriguing, rather creative amendment in terms of flexibility, but I have a couple of concerns. I know that the noble Lord is an enlightened individual arts-wise, who I am sure would like to see—like me—the arts, culture and heritage thrive in the new strategic areas. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I pointed out last week in the debate on my Amendment 6, not all councils are quite so enlightened. Even if every mayor was conscientious enough today to ensure that their strategic authority did everything it could for the arts, culture and heritage—I say this simply as an example of an area of concern rather than competence—there is no guarantee that those who follow would have the same commitment unless there was a statutory commitment. This is very much in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, was saying earlier. I very much support Amendment 51A in her name, and the other amendments that she proposed as well.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly support the amendments in this group that seek to remove the cap on the number of commissioners and the appointment of special advisers. In doing so, I restate my support for Amendments 6, 10 and 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to add the arts and culture as an area of competence, which would allow a modest increase in the number of commissioners from seven to eight.

I fully recognise that the Government wish to maintain a coherent and settled devolution framework, to limit additional costs that such appointments would incur and to exercise caution around unelected roles. Here I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those numerous and very important questions.

I also accept the argument that further powers may be pursued within the existing areas of competence. That said, the question here is one of governance rather than architecture. A small degree of flexibility in the commissional model, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, have argued for, would allow mayors to organise their leadership teams and their advisers in ways that reflect local priorities and circumstances without altering the framework itself.

Different regions face very different challenges: a dense metropolitan authority and a largely rural combined county authority may reasonably require different internal arrangements. For those reasons, I generally support these amendments and the flexibility they seek to introduce.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence for strategic authorities.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 6 would rectify what is, at present, a significant omission from the list of areas of competence: cultural concerns. Amendment 51 is intended to ensure that this area has its own commissioner. I share Amendment 52 with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on a related subject; they both wish to change 7 persons to 8 persons.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for their support. I welcome the discussions I have had with Culture Commons. I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing and its support for this amendment. I support my noble friend Lady Prashar’s amendment, which has very similar intentions to my own, and look forward to her contributions as well as those of others.

I have given some thought about how this area of competence should be titled. I believe that certain cultural concerns need to be specified at this level in the Bill to know more precisely what it is we are discussing. In this, I have taken my cue from the Government, who, in talking about education, for instance, refer directly to “skills and employment support” as an area of competence, as currently listed in paragraph (b) of Clause 2.

The arts, including our theatres, art centres and more, and cultural services, including museums, libraries and more, provide what is termed the local cultural infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that, traditionally, local authorities have funded in significant part without a great deal of thought about commercial return, even though we know from countless Arts Council studies how much such investment is repaid many times over. It is therefore about funding—the funding that has survived—for the social good and the provision of a civic necessity. This is an infrastructure that, between 2009 and 2024, according to a report produced by the University of Warwick for the Campaign for the Arts, has suffered over 50% in cuts, as the Minister is well aware.

It could be argued that, without the statutory provision afforded by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the losses would have been even worse. This is specifically an aspect over which the mayor should have oversight because of the importance not just of economic growth but of cultural growth to a region—of course, one informs the other. Some of our councils, such as the one in Birmingham, are in dire straits in that respect. The first thing that needs to happen, irrespective of this legislation, is for this sector of the arts and cultural services to be properly funded again.

It is also true that there are a minority of councils where arts funding is virtually zero, and where councils have unforgivably said, “If you want the arts, take the train into London and go and watch a play in the West End”. The arts need to be supported—and in every local area, because local areas make up regions. That is why local growth plans, and the mapping of our arts and cultural ecosystem, are important. Despite the cuts, local authorities—and indeed district councils—are still hugely important as a mechanism for funding, not least because they have the local knowledge.

The arts are also slightly different from the more commercialised end of the creative industries. As I say, all regions should be seeking to support the arts, but not necessarily all the more commercialised creative industries, since certain localities or regions will or should be developing their own industries, such as in film or TV, gaming, digital and tech. The Local Government Association briefing helpfully points to the creative places growth fund and the Tees Valley creative investment zone as examples of these specifically industrial concerns and sources of funding, which of course are important in their own right—as is tourism, in relation to our arts and heritage. I support what my noble friend Lord Freyberg said on the previous group about the use of what will be large sums from the tourism levy for cultural purposes. If the moneys are used in this way, they will return to hospitality through making our cultural attractions even more attractive.

But tourism and cultural concerns are separate issues. Tourism drags in a lot of other things, including transport, for instance. It is important then to make the distinctions that I have made in this amendment between the arts, the creative industries, cultural services and heritage, for quite practical reasons because of the strong subtext of the Bill—one might almost say supertext —which is economic growth. There is the danger that, in the drive for growth through the creative industries, we lose sight of the importance of our basic cultural infrastructure and the importance of a region’s cultural as well as economic growth. The mayor should be as concerned about that existing infrastructure as having an effective creative industry strategy. Both of course are important and will feed into each other.

From this area of competence other things flow, whether or not they are formalised legislatively. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the treatment of cultural assets and local growth plans, in connection with amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and myself. As I said, I have tabled Culture Commons’s recommendation of a cultural ecosystem map, which would be hugely helpful. I have mentioned art centres and theatres already, but increasingly assets such as artists’ studios, grass-roots music venues and recording studios, some of which used to be able to thrive commercially, are under threat and require state intervention if we want to hold on to them. Where there are real concerns and gaps, mayors should be able to appeal formally to central government.

Finally, this should be an area of competence because every strategic authority should have these concerns. Not every mayor will have the experience or natural inclination of a Tracy Brabin, of course, but they should have the framework in which to act. I have two questions for the Minister. Does she believe that such cultural concerns should be an area of competence? I do not believe that it overlaps with any other area of competence. Secondly, if so, what does she understand as the responsibilities of a strategic authority in this respect? I have presented my argument, but I am open to other opinions. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I am grateful for all the support across the Committee that my noble friend Lady Prashar and I have had for our amendments. I am disappointed by the Minister’s initial response. I am very happy to meet her; it is essential that we do so between now and Report.

I will pick up on a couple of points. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, mentioned education, which is so important. We are basically saying that we have an area of competence that has its own identity; it is not covered by anything else. I am not sure whether, for “local infrastructure”—which is the competence in paragraph (a)—the first thing that people will think about are the arts. There is a massive danger that local arts will get forgotten in favour of the commercialised end of the creative industries. That worries me more than anything else.

My noble friend Lady Prashar spoke about social cohesion, which is an important part of this. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, talked out the transformation of cities. This amendment would have a huge effect on cities. Having this as its own area of competence would make a massive difference; it would be a game-changer in how strategic local authorities and the public look at the legislation when it becomes an Act. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Business Improvement Districts: Town Centre Renewal

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have provided a great deal of support for small businesses, including those on our high streets. The Chancellor announced some steps in relation to business rates in the Budget recently. There are a number of steps in our small business plan to support those small businesses which operate on our high streets, including helping them to address their costs and constraints, creating a licensing regime that supports the growth of hospitality and night-time economies, and enabling them with local collaboration and capacity building, as well as addressing crime and anti-social behaviour on our high streets, which we know is a blight on those small businesses.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge how important culture in the round is in this context? Has she seen the report Improving Places, produced by the Mayor of London, the Arts Council and King’s College London, which details, through case studies, everything from supporting artists’ studios to wider community events? This is so important for energising our cities and towns, and being an essential part of their social fabric.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl. I have not seen the report he refers to, but I will take a look at it. I am sure, as we discuss the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, that we will have lots of discussion about how to support communities as they promote arts and culture in their areas. As the noble Earl is aware, in the Bill we are extending the powers for local groups to register assets of community value and giving them a longer time to take the necessary steps to empower them with a community right to buy. We are taking those steps, and we understand the importance of those cultural assets on our high streets and in our towns. As we discuss this in the Bill, I am sure the noble Earl will work with us to develop it further.

Fair Funding Review

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, local authorities remain the biggest funders of arts and cultural services. These are important for growth and employment growth, yet since 2010, spending on these areas, alongside heritage, tourism and libraries, has decreased by more than 50%. While recognising that there are many important pressures on local authorities, will the fair funding review allow for proper reinvestment in this significant area?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much agree. I have seen on the front line how cuts to local government funding have affected so much the provision of social activities, culture and leisure in our communities. It is very important that local government has the ability to make provision for local communities in those areas. What happened was that the harder it was for a local council to raise funds, the more they seemed to be penalised through the system. The more deprived a community was, the less likely they were to have the headroom to deliver the kinds of services the noble Earl speaks about. We need to change that, and we are working on reversing that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

102: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendments to the Localism Act 2011: assets of cultural value(1) The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 87 (list of assets of community value)—(a) in subsection (1), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(b) in subsection (2), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(c) in subsection (3), after “community” insert “and cultural”,(d) in subsection (5), after “community” insert “and cultural”, and(e) in subsection (6), after “community” insert “and cultural”.(3) After section 88 (land of community value), insert—“88A Land of cultural value(1) For the purposes of this Chapter but subject to regulations under subsection (2), a building or other land in a local authority's area is land of cultural value if in the opinion of the authority the primary use of that building or land—(a) substantially furthers the cultural well-being or cultural interests of a local community or the nation, or(b) provides a necessary venue for the furthering of specialist cultural skills, including (but not limited to) music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces, visual artists’ studios and other creative spaces.(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations—(a) provide that a building or other land is not land of cultural value if the building or other land is specified in the regulations or is of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provide that a building or other land in a local authority's area is not land of cultural value if the local authority or some other person specified in the regulations considers that the building or other land is of a description specified in the regulations.(3) A description specified under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to such matters as the appropriate authority considers appropriate.(4) In relation to any land, those matters include (in particular)—(a) the owner of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(b) any occupier of any of the land or of other land;(c) the nature of any estate or interest in any of the land or in other land;(d) any use to which any of the land or other land has been, is being or could be put;(e) statutory provisions, or things done under statutory provisions, that have effect (or do not have effect) in relation to—(i) any of the land or other land, or(ii) any of the matters within paragraphs (a) to (d);(f) any price, or value for any purpose, of any of the land or other land.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the existing assets of community value scheme to also include assets of cultural value.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 102 would add cultural assets to the existing scheme of assets of community value. We addressed that scheme earlier in Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg. I am grateful too for the supportive correspondence on this from UK Music and the Music Venue Trust. I declare an interest as an officer for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Visual Arts and Artists.

I have made a significant change to this amendment since Committee. Instead of running a separate and parallel scheme, as I previously proposed, cultural assets are more simply added to the community asset scheme, so that it becomes a scheme of assets of community and cultural value. This is then a more modest amendment in terms of cost and administration, but would nevertheless still achieve the intended outcome: to help protect the spaces or buildings where our arts take place and which are so important to local people and the locality, as much as to the country as a whole.

These are also spaces which are presently so much under threat for a variety of reasons. Such spaces include grassroots music venues, 125 of which—16% of England’s total—closed in 2023. We are also talking about rehearsal spaces, recording studios suffering under the pressures of energy costs and business rates, theatres, arts centres and visual artists’ studios, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable to artists at the beginning of their careers.

It can be argued, of course, that “community assets” might include cultural assets. But while there is clearly overlap, cultural spaces are not what the community asset scheme was primarily set up for. There is then a strong argument that the addition of cultural assets to the scheme would considerably strengthen the protection of these spaces, if such spaces are in reality considered to be as much part of the local community fabric as community spaces in the narrower sense.

Of course, needs change for both community and cultural spaces. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that the existing community asset scheme is not a forever scheme. A timescale and flexibility is built into it. The importance of the scheme lies in two things: first, the power to local people that the scheme enables and, secondly, the chance to say, “Hold on, we continue to need this space”. It is the chance to protect something that is in danger of being lost without being replaced, and that chance ought to be demonstrably afforded to cultural spaces as much as to a pub or community hall. Also, the specific addition of cultural assets to the scheme would inevitably draw on other parts of the local community, who would otherwise not be engaged with the powers that the scheme enables. That, surely, is what localism is all about.

Many of your Lordships will have heard the Prime Minister talk yesterday on “Private Passions” on Radio 3 about his love of music and support for the arts, although the action required to protect and develop the arts does not yet match the rhetoric we have now been hearing for some while. In some cases—for instance, with the cuts to DCMS funding—we seem to be going in the opposite direction. The creative industries themselves are identified by this Government as a growth area, and growth is what the Bill is all about. What I propose in this amendment is not a silver bullet but another test of the Government’s commitment— specifically here, to the arts at the local level. It would therefore be a significant step in the right direction. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

For now, I hope the noble Earl will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that actually very interesting reply. I would be very grateful if she could write to me about the scheme she mentioned. I re-emphasise that this is about community assets; it is not about cultural assets as such. The whole intention of my amendment was to put them on an equal footing.

I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and for the support for my amendment. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which seem eminently sensible.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support, too. I say to her that I do not consider my amendment to be a substitute for the proper funding of our local authorities; I think of them as occupying two completely different parts of the brain, if you like. It is important to re-fund our local authorities, and I hope that this Government will do that in earnest, including funding our regional arts. Our local authorities are our most important funder of the arts in this country, but their funding has been diminished hugely—and not just in recent times.

The hour is late, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 87A and 87D in this group. Amendment 87D is a bit of an outlier, so I will come to that later in my contribution. In essence, Amendment 87A is supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the Government in achieving the outcome that they are intending, whereas the Government’s Amendment 64 really is a huge overreach. I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft Amendment 87A.

Government Amendment 64 would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations such as failing EDPs, water shortages and insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. In the press release that was put out, although it did not directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation that could be found was:

“Ministers will be able to issue ‘holding directions’ to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their ‘call-in’ powers. Under existing rules, they can only issue these holds when councils are set to approve applications”.


The suggestion is that this amendment would allow the Government properly to use their call-in powers.

It is possible that this explanation is a red herring and does not match the much broader powers contained in Amendment 64. At the moment, Written Ministerial Statements can govern the procedure for call-in; there is no need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I have suggested an alternative to the Government through Amendment 87A. Planning authorities are allowed to refuse planning permission only when there are justified grounds to do so. If that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary of State can call in that appeal, known as recovering the appeal. Therefore, the Government’s stated concern around obstructive or hair-trigger refusal is a fairly minor one to legislate for.

The challenge here is that we need to try to make sure that we improve other parts of the Bill. To give a bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities refusing to grant planning permission, for example where there is insufficient water supply or the like. Up until now, development orders have been used only to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively grant consent. This amendment turns that around for the first time and allows the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission.

Development orders have to be made by statutory instrument—although I believe it is through the negative procedure—but there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local, real-world, on-the-ground constraints to development, and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented.

On the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country and I am very concerned that, given that this clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued. Amendment 87A—by the good help of Alexa Culver, as I say—would not have entire overreach but would potentially help the Minister achieve their aim.

Amendment 87D is on something very close to my heart: considering local communities. They go to a lot of effort to register assets of community value, but at the moment the regulations are such that there are very few examples of buildings being protected from demolition under existing permitted development rights. Those are a pub and, I think, two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example. I have seen this at first hand when a community came together. Registering an asset of community value is not the most straightforward of processes, but they did. When the owner of said community assets was starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not even allowing the local community the chance to buy those assets from the developer.

I am conscious that the Government will have legislation later this year about local communities. I really do not want to have to return at that stage to press the case; I want to get these changes made now. When we bring in legislation to empower communities, which happened in the Localism Act and which I know the Government say they support, let us not continue to have legislation where the rug can be pulled away from those local communities. In the particular case it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished and both used in marketing for housebuilding in that area and as reasons for people to move there. We are talking about all these new communities. Unfortunately, those things could be built and within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses—exactly what happened in that community in Suffolk. It may be the only example. I have not investigated right around the country, but I feel so strongly about it and this Bill has been my first opportunity to try to rectify what I genuinely believe is a wrong. I hope that the House will support that later tonight.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the outlier Amendment 87D from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I have Amendment 102, likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets of community value scheme to include cultural assets, so I have a particular interest in how the scheme as it stands at present does and should work.

The noble Baroness’s amendment and mine were considered in the same group in Committee; she pointed out that, as she said just now, some if not all cultural buildings had already been added to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This has been a move in the right direction, but I certainly agree that assets of community value should be added. Strangely, we have a situation where, through the 2015 order, certain cultural venues such as concert halls and theatres are protected but community assets as such are not, which feels incredibly inconsistent, certainly in relation to the community asset scheme as it stands now.

I find what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has described today, and in considerable detail in Committee —about how a new owner can ride roughshod over a community—not just wrong but, frankly, outrageous. Legislation is not always the right thing, as the Minister points out quite a lot, but I think this is a perfect instance of where a gap in the law ought to be plugged and ought to be addressed in the community’s interest. I will certainly vote for Amendment 87D if the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, takes it to a vote.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 has been packaged in the media, and even in the Marshalled List, as augmenting the Secretary of State’s power to call in an application, but, as the Minister made clear in opening, in fact it does not do that. It leaves Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the call-in power, unchanged. What it actually does is augment the holding power, under Section 74 of the 1990 Act, so that the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal of planning permission to facilitate consideration of the call-in power. In that context, I seek some clarification from the Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law.

Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called-in planning applications: there is a statutory safeguard in Section 77(5), which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. That, plainly, will not be changed, because there is no proposal to amend Section 77, but the obligation for the Secretary of State to cause a hearing to be heard is also the subject of a policy that exists in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance on call-in proceedings. The policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right of a local authority or an applicant to be heard under Section 77(5) is to be exercised by means of the inquiry procedure. The public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater scrutiny of the evidence and greater public participation than a mere one-day informal hearing.

Is the Minister prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate’s published policy and that the right of a local planning authority to insist on an inquiry and to exercise its statutory right to be heard through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and will remain?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.

First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.

My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law

“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]

In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:

“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.


The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.

I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.

Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

Why will the Government not make it statutory? This is a very simple question.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have explained several times during the course of the Bill that I do not think it is correct to say that the National Planning Policy Framework is a statutory framework in itself: it is not. It sits within the statutory framework of planning. We need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, so it can change as times change. When we bring in these policies, they will not be coming through as pieces of law. They will be planning policies, so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as it changes. That is a very important part of planning. The National Planning Policy Framework must maintain that degree of flexibility: otherwise, every time we want to change it, we will have to come back through Parliament. That would not be agile enough to deal with the changing situation.