English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

318B: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and (b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each body specified in Part 1 of this Act and such other bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(b) publish an invitation for other interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, Governments since 2008 have been committed to undertaking post-legislative scrutiny of Acts three to five years after enactment. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, reminded the Committee that she was a member of the Government who accepted the recommendation for such scrutiny to be the norm and she reiterated the Government’s commitment to it. She noted her role in promoting the case for such scrutiny to Parliaments elsewhere.

Not only is there a government commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, but some departments have gone above and beyond by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of a Bill. During the passage of the Football Governance Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, took the initiative in bringing forward a detailed amendment to provide for a review of the Act within five years of its enactment. On the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, introduced an amendment providing for a review within three to seven years. The Minister said that she had listened carefully to the concerns of noble Lords and that her amendment would

“ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations”.—[Official Report, 3/3/26; col. 1202.]

Both departments—DCMS and health—are to be commended for their commitment and for their willingness to engage on the issue. They recognise the value of post-legislative review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for Amendment 318B and I welcome the spirit in which it has been tabled. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are already required in law to publish an annual report on English devolution and to lay it before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament already has an annual report against which it can hold the Government to account for delivering on the objectives set out in the English devolution White Paper and this Bill. We have also committed to evaluating the outcomes of devolution as more evidence becomes available. For example, the Government will evaluate the impact of integrated settlements, and this will include various activities to understand whether they are achieving their aims, including an evaluation of integrated settlements as a funding model.

The amendment as set out would be overly burdensome and somewhat duplicative, as it would require the Secretary of State to publish an additional report on the progress of English devolution within five years, despite already being committed in law to publishing annual reports. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, good law is a public good. It is essential that Acts deliver what they are expected to deliver, and not all do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was touching upon. They may be misinterpreted or misunderstood, simply have no effect or have unintended consequences. That is why post-legislative review is essential, and why I stress “review” rather than reports. Putting provision for review in a major measure such as this is a means of ensuring that it is checked to ensure that it is having the intended effect.

I therefore regret that the Minister has not followed her colleagues in recognising the value of doing that by putting provision for it in the Bill. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister reiterated the commitment to at least report, which involves some element of review, although it is not really an overall assessment of the effect, nor does it subject the Act to independent scrutiny to see whether it is delivering in the way that Parliament has actually intended. It is important that we monitor to ensure that the department delivers on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 318B withdrawn.