English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.

I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.

This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.

Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?

However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.

Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.

On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:

“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.


That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.

It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.

In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.

Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,

“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]

It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.

There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.

That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I wanted to speak to Conservative Motion C1. As I was in the Chamber when that was addressed, I was told I could speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for meeting us this week and for meeting the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

The Minister in the other place told us that the agent of change principle is “already firmly embedded” in national planning policy since 2018, yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grass-roots music venues from closure. If that is what “firmly embedded” looks like, one shudders to think what neglect would produce.

The Minister’s answer is more guidance—updated, strengthened, consistent. But that is precisely what was promised when the principle entered the NPPF in 2018, and again in every consultation since. The guidance says the right thing—it always has. The problem is that guidance is only guidance. Developers know it. They test it, challenge it and too often circumvent it, because they do not have to comply. No amount of strengthened wording changes that; only statute changes that calculus.

The Minister speaks of flexibility for local decision-makers, but flexibility cuts both ways. It means inconsistency: one authority holds the line while another folds under developer pressure. It means venues exhausting their reserves on legal fees to enforce what policy already supposedly guarantees, and it means that venues without access to specialist support do not achieve a remarkable success rate. They simply close—quietly, invisibly and without appearing in any dataset as a planning casualty.

Even the Government’s own Back-Benchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his constituency, where flats remain unbuilt precisely because developers lack the clarity that only statute can provide. The Minister offered him a meeting. One can only hope that the music venue at risk survives long enough to hold it.

Scotland did not offer meetings or updated guidance; Scotland legislated. Disputes there are vanishingly rare because the law is unambiguous and developers comply from the outset. There is no costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect venues, and no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. The Government have had seven years to make guidance work; it has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle—the Government themselves have endorsed that principle repeatedly—it simply gives it the legal force it has always lacked so that decision-makers have a firm statutory footing, and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. I support Motion G1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.

The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.

Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.

The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.

Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.

Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.

As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.

I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.

On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.

Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.

Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.

Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.

Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.

In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to support the Government’s amendment in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Shipley]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s statement a moment ago. We have debated this issue several times. I still believe that the case I have been making, with colleagues, remains the right one.

I was interested in the fact that the Minister cited in evidence a moment ago research done by CIPFA on a mayoral cabinet system, but of course what that research did not mention was that local people might have a view about it and wish to change the system. The problems have arisen in places where there has been a cabinet model that has worked badly, and where local people have wanted to change the model back to a committee system. That is the issue, and what is happening under this Bill is that they will no longer have the power to do so.

I read carefully what the Minister said in the other place when it debated our amendments on Tuesday. She said that the Bill

“sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 238.]

If that is what the Government believe, why does that not extend to the governance structure under which decisions are being made on communities’ behalf? They do, of course, pay the bills. I just find that the Government say one thing but are simply entering now the straitjacket of a single governance structure, giving no power to local people to affect change in their area where that does not work well.

I feel strongly that, even at this late stage of the Bill, we must safeguard local consent for local government changes. We need to promote parish governance for unparished areas and prevent the compulsory imposition of the executive model on all local councils. I have never understood why central government can claim that this Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, at the same time as forcing Clause 59 upon us, which does precisely the opposite of what the Government are seeking to do, and this very simple issue stays in place. There is still time for the Government to change their mind.

Throughout this Bill, my amendments have been to produce a more transparent system that the public can understand and thereby support. It would extend democratic engagement by all councillors across all parties and groupings and really help to improve the quality of decision-making at the point a decision is made. I have found this overcentralisation of power, which is the reality, very worrying in a Bill that masquerades as being about devolution in England and community empowerment, because in some respects, that is true, but in most respects, it is not. Therefore, I beg to move my Motion E1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.

Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.

The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.

Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.

Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.

Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.

We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.

I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.

At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.

Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.