English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

251: 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 publish an invitation for interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Government Whip may be pleased to know that my mother used to say that I spoke far too quickly. This amendment complements other amendments, which have been discussed, seeking reviews of one form or another. It is distinct in its scope and its timeframe. It would provide for post-legislative review within five years of the measure being enacted.

The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny. The problem is in delivering it. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. The law may be implemented in a way that does not deliver on what Parliament intended. Some law may never be commenced; this is what I have termed “law but not law” and is covered in Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Some law may be misinterpreted or poorly understood. We cannot properly know that without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, completing a legislative feedback loop.

As I said on our first day in Committee, success for the Government should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—this is how Ministers have tended to see it—but, rather, as delivering what it is intended to achieve. The answer is to ensure that there is post-legislative scrutiny. The Government are commitment to such scrutiny, at least in principle, and have been since 2008, when they accepted the recommendation for Acts to be subject to review three to five years after enactment. Giving effect to this is, in practice, more sporadic.

Some departments are good at such scrutiny, but not all are. The reviews are sent to the appropriate departmental Select Committees in the other place, but the committees have several tasks to undertake and following up on post-legislative reviews is not necessarily a priority. In our House, we usually appoint a special inquiry committee chair to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or Acts covering a particular subject, but we are—necessarily—highly selective. We are not able to compensate fully for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny in the Commons.

During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I argued the case for putting in provisions for post-legislative scrutiny where a Bill is large or complex; makes substantial changes to the law; is contested; and has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. This would have ensured that the Bill will be reviewed. Knowing that it will be reviewed serves as useful discipline for the Government. As I touched on in our discussion of Amendment 1, proposed by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, there is merit in adumbrating clearly the purposes of the Bill, providing, in effect, the criteria against which the Act may been assessed once it is in force.

This Bill clearly qualifies under the terms I have outlined. It is demonstrably large—the term “heavyweight Bill” would certainly apply—and complex. It makes substantial changes to the law; that is clear from the numbers of Acts that are amended by its provisions. It is contested, and it has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Norton and Lord Wallace, for their amendments in this group.

Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not specify how the objectives of the Bill are to be identified and, as such, it is not clear from the amendment what the Government would be required to report on. The Government already produce the annual report on English devolution, which covers many of the key elements of this Bill, including the establishment of new strategic authorities, and the functions and funding devolved to strategic authorities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 256, and I appreciate his desire to see primary legislation which passes through both Houses commenced following Royal Assent. I commend his desire to tidy up the statute book—I am a bit of a tidy-upper myself, so I appreciate that. However, it is my view that the Government should not prioritise parliamentary time and resource for the repeal of uncommenced provisions in existing Acts which have no impact on the effective running of local government.

Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that legislation which passes through both Houses is then commenced after Royal Assent, this amendment would not be appropriate and risks unintended consequences. Most provisions in the Bill will be commenced either at the point of Royal Assent or two months after it. However, some provisions will need to be commenced by Ministers after Royal Assent using commencement regulations, and some of these provisions will require secondary legislation or guidance to be published before the provisions can come into effect.

The automatic commencement of all provisions in the Bill risks unintended consequences, especially if powers are devolved to strategic authorities and communities without the necessary guardrails in place. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set an arbitrary date at which all provisions need to have been commenced. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to delivering on all the reforms in this Bill, so I ask that he does not move his amendment.

Amendments 257, 258 and 259 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Taken together, they would introduce definitions of the terms “community”, “local” and “neighbourhood” into Clause 86. The Bill already provides definitions where they are needed to interpret provisions effectively. Through regulations, we will define what a neighbourhood area is and set out the criteria for these arrangements. However, we recognise that there are differences between places and communities across England and we want to ensure that regulations include an element of local choice. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord not to move these amendments.

Turning to the government amendments, Amendments 261 and 262 remove the subsections on the publication of councillors’ addresses and the extension of the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority from Clause 92(4), which would commence them upon Royal Assent, and insert them into Clause 92(6), so they will commence two months after Royal Assent, as was the original intention for these measures.

Amendments 265 and 267 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 265 changes a reference from “regulations” to “secondary legislation” to ensure that order-making powers are also covered by the commencement provision and to be consistent with references elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 267 changes the Long Title of the Bill to replace reference to “local councils” with “local authorities”. This reflects the Bill’s application to authorities other than just “local councils” following an amendment made in the other place to extend the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I am sure that will be a great comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect.

I will move the government amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in Committee. We have had some great discussions, and I have really appreciated the contributions that have been made.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but extraordinarily worrying. It suggests that the Government do not know what they are committed to. All I am seeking is to put in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do anyway. By the sound of it, the Minister is reflecting a view that does not fully understand what the Government have themselves agreed to do. It sounds as if departments are acting in silos, because the response today is very different from the response of the Minister in Tuesday’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was very constructive and welcome. I was simply replicating more or less the provision that the Government accepted to that other Bill. As I say, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but very worrying in what it conveys. It reflects very badly on the department and is therefore something I shall most certainly come back to.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have to take issue with what the noble Lord is saying. I pointed out quite clearly that we already produce an annual report on devolution. Most of this Bill relates to the provisions that we are putting in place for the devolution agenda, so they will be covered in the annual report on devolution. It is not that the department thinks that we do not need to report on what is being done; it is that we already have a provision to report on an annual basis on the devolution agenda.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, there is a difference between reporting what is happening and actually reviewing an Act in its totality and—as my noble friend mentioned when we started this Bill, and as she referred to today—identifying what it is designed to achieve, its objectives, and therefore something against which it can be measured. That is why I think it is so important, and certainly something to which we will return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 251 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in favour of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson.

From the outset, the Title of the Bill is quite wrong and misleading. The Bill is not about devolution; it is about centralisation. The number of directed powers it awards to the Secretary of State to instruct combined authorities is alarming. The purpose clause proposed by my noble friends reinvigorates the Bill to achieve what matters most to local government now and the issues most likely to be of concern in the future—namely, sustainable council finances and keeping the “local” in local government through locally led decision-making.

Putting aside the tax-raising powers for mayors enshrined in the Bill, it does nothing to address the serious concerns the sector has about putting the finances of our councils back on to a sustainable footing, or on the ever-increasing DSG deficits or the seismic pressures placed on upper-tier authorities in the delivery of their SEND responsibilities. However, what we had before Christmas was the Government’s unfair funding announcement, which left many councils worse off than before following the withdrawal of the remoteness adjustments metric, which in turn has left councils such as Buckinghamshire £44 million worse off.

We then come to the part of this purpose clause on local decision-making, which my noble friends are correct to underpin. At the start of my contribution, I referenced centralisation. It is astonishing that a devolution-facing Bill will essentially award mass powers to the Secretary of State to impose LGR and strategic authorities without any say from local authorities and groups in those areas. If devolution is to work, it needs to be locally led by local leaders and the community, not forced on communities by Whitehall. Over recent years, we have seen that local government reorganisation and the creation of combined authorities can be agreed by a consensus in local communities and without the imposition of Whitehall. Just look at Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire—two examples of unitarisation which have gone to plan. I welcome the addition in this purpose clause of ensuring that reorganisation and the creation of strategic authorities are locally led.

The Government’s approach to this has already been fairly shambolic. County council leaders who had elections postponed were of the clear understanding that mayoral elections, shadow unitary authority elections or a combination of both would happen in May 2026. Instead, we have had further delay as a result of Whitehall not working closely with local leaders. This is why the point in the proposed new clause about locally enshrined decision-making is worthy. I hope the Government will accept this amendment so that the purpose clause sits in the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare, other than that I want legislation to be as good as it can be. I very much welcome my noble friend’s amendment because it provides the foundation for my Amendment 251 that would provide for post-legislative scrutiny, which we will come to much later. Too often, Ministers see legislative success in terms of getting a measure on to the statute book. The real measure of success is when the Act delivers what Parliament intended to deliver. To check whether it has done that, post-legislative scrutiny is necessary some years after it has passed.

To assess whether the Act has achieved what it intended, one needs to know clearly what its purpose is—in other words, the basis on which you are undertaking the measurement. This amendment has the great virtue that it stipulates the five purposes that the Bill is intended to deliver. That would provide the measure against which a body set up to engage in post-legislative scrutiny could examine whether it has actually delivered. That is the great value of this amendment and, for that reason, the Government should have the confidence to accept it, as it would show they believe that the Act will deliver what it is designed to do. If they will not accept the amendment, will they bring forward a purpose clause of their own to demonstrate what they believe are the key purposes against which success can be measured?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have no interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I am an academic and am interested in clear language, among other things. I was horrified when I first read the Bill by the looseness of its language. Devolution has already been mentioned. The PACAC report some three years ago on the governance of England noted that

“we … refer to what is currently taking place in England as ‘decentralisation’”

rather than devolution, but it is not really effective devolution. This Bill carries on what its predecessor under the Conservative Government was doing in providing a mayoral strategic structure throughout England.

“Local”, “community” and “neighbourhood” are used extremely loosely throughout the Bill. The use of “strategic” implies something that is not local and has to be seen separately from it. Incidentally, in talking about strategic authorities, we enter into the structure of government in the United Kingdom and are talking about constitutional matters—although, with the odd absence of constitution that we have in this country, Governments can muck about with local government in a way that no other constitutional democracy that I am aware of can.

I regard community as very local. In France, the commune is the village, and each commune has a mayor. I think about the ward represented by my colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton; she has five or six separate communities within the one ward. Neighbourhoods are parts of towns or cities, and a neighbourhood is somewhere you can walk around, but the Bill uses those terms to cover much larger areas. That raises questions about its relationship with central government, in setting up a network of strategic authorities.

I have submitted a later amendment that refers to a mayoral council for England; that indeed has been set up by prime ministerial fiat, but is only a pale shadow of the structure for the Council of the Nations and Regions and the mayoral council associated with it, which Gordon Brown usefully proposed some years ago. If we are to have real devolution, there will have to be some mechanism for negotiation between strategic authorities and central government. That is why the absence of any reference to the fiscal issue here also indicates that we are not really dealing with devolution.

The last thing I want to say is that, according to all the opinion polls, we are in a situation in which public trust in national government is remarkably—horrifyingly —low. Public opinion polls also say that public trust in local government is less bad than it is in central government. Strong local government, with councillors whom your average voter might actually know, is one of the ways that one holds democracy together. Colleagues like the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, find themselves trying to represent 15,000 people per ward in a district like Bradford; that is not really effective local democracy. It is very hard for the councillor to know all the electors, let alone for the electors to know the councillors. When we come to the question of town and parish councils, and devolution from strategic authorities to the levels below, we will wish to emphasise that.

I signal that, as we talk about the context of the Bill and strategic authorities, we must first be clear how those strategic authorities relate to central government and, on the other side, how they relate to the single tier of effective local government and to the town and parish councils in which we hope your ordinary voter will find some sense of identity and participation.

United Kingdom: The Union

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on securing this important debate. Stresses now exist in all four nations of the United Kingdom. My purpose is not to examine the specific stresses, but rather to focus on what needs to be done in response. There are four points I wish to make. In so doing, I will be reinforcing conclusions drawn by the Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his excellent opening speech.

First, the challenges created in each nation require bespoke responses that are considered and evidence-based. There is a danger of rushing in with a policy that does not meet people’s needs or expectations. A clear example of this was seen during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. When an opinion poll showed a slight lead for independence, all three main party leaders rushed to Scotland to promise more devolution if Scotland voted to remain in the union. That was clearly premised on the assumption that that was what those who may vote to stay in the union wanted. Survey evidence suggests several different reasons for voting against independence, but that of favouring more devolution hardly figured. The biggest influence was the economic consequence of leaving the union.

Secondly, a reactive approach to the challenges in each nation must be complemented by a proactive UK-wide approach stressing the value of the union. As the Constitution Committee noted in its 2016 report, The Union and Devolution, the Government’s ad hoc approach to devolution had not been matched by any counterbalancing steps to protect the union. The four nations are stronger together. Each one benefits from being part of the kingdom. As the committee emphasised:

“The Union has brought stability, peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom”.


It is vital that the Government stop being on the back foot in dealing with stresses on the union. It must address them but, most importantly of all, if the union is to hold together, the Government must make the case for the union and the benefits it brings to all within it.

Thirdly, picking up on a point that has been stressed already, there needs to be complementarity, or rather comity, in relations between Whitehall and the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a tendency for Whitehall to act in what has been termed a “grace and favour” way, rather than in one of mutual esteem and participation. As Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told the Constitution Committee, Whitehall tends to see UK issues from an English perspective. There has always been a problem in communicating and in resolving any differences.

When I chaired the Constitution Committee in 2003, we produced a report on inter-institutional relations in the United Kingdom. We argued the case for ensuring that the mechanisms for resolving disputes, not least through the Joint Ministerial Council, remained in working order. Unfortunately, our recommendations were not acted on.

Fortunately, following the Dunlop report, there has now been progress in the form of the review of intergovernmental relations. Reform, though, must extend beyond structures to attitudes. What is needed is encapsulated in the Constitution Committee’s report of this January—to which we have already had reference—appropriately titled Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. As the report says at paragraph 279:

“To deal effectively with and respond to the challenges of governing the United Kingdom in the 21st century, significant culture change is required in Whitehall, including the end of its top-down mindset.”


There needs to be much earlier and more constructive engagement. There needs to be comity.

Fourthly, although the stresses in the four nations require bespoke responses, those responses need to be co-ordinated by a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the union. As it is, having a Secretary of State for each of the three nations lends itself to seeing their departments as occupying silos—the Constitution Committee has expressed concern at the Government’s tendency to “devolve and forget”—and at times it may not always be clear what the purpose of each department is. I appreciate that there is now a Cabinet committee, the Union Strategy Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister. The fact that he chairs it signifies its importance, but the Prime Minister has many other responsibilities, including chairing eight other Cabinet committees. I appreciate that the Union Policy Implementation Committee is chaired by the Levelling Up Secretary, but he too has other responsibilities. The Dunlop review recommended a Secretary of State for intergovernmental and constitutional affairs. Such a Secretary of State would ensure that a holistic approach was taken to the union and that the needs of the union were heard in Cabinet. The more senior the Minister in the pecking order, the clearer it would be that the Prime Minister is committed to the union.

The stresses facing the union are considerable. By tackling some, there is the danger of creating others. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, emphasised, we have now to address the English question as much as the Scottish one. To tackle the stresses, we need to be on the front foot to take the lead in making the case for the union. We need to be proactive and confident, not reactive and defensive. These are all points made in various reports of the Constitution Committee. The Government should act on them. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will explain in more than broad aspirational terms the Government’s plan to make the case for the union and how leadership will be provided in government, ideally by a Secretary of State for the constitution.

There are obviously other challenges facing the Government, but they cannot afford to take their eye off ensuring that the union of the United Kingdom remains exactly that.

Devolution in England

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot pre-empt the White Paper on that point, but there has been full consultation that will take in the lessons learned from the pandemic.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]]

Does my noble friend agree that while we do not necessarily need rigid uniformity in the distribution of power to areas throughout England, there does need to be some degree of equity, so that the more rural and smaller areas are not the losers relative to new and larger regional or metropolitan authorities? What is his strategy for achieving that, and will it be addressed in the White Paper?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for putting the case for rural communities. Our current mayoral combined authority model is successful in delivering both for major cities such as Manchester and areas such as North of Tyne, which have significant rural areas.

Devolution: England

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in 1996, the CPC national policy group on the constitution, of which I was a member, argued that local government should live up to its name with power driven as far down to localities as possible—the more local, the better—and responsive to local demand. Does my noble friend agree with the argument we advanced that doing so would engage the commitment of citizens by giving them a greater say as well as being an equitable, UK-wide policy and not simply an English solution?

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My noble friend is right that decisions that affect local people should be made at a local level. As the Prime Minister recently said, now is the moment to strengthen the incredible partnership between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The White Paper will detail how the UK Government will partner with places across the UK to build a sustainable economic recovery.