English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, we turn now to a group of amendments that all relate to the exercise of delegated powers to amend future legislation—Henry VIII powers. They are powers by way of statutory instrument to amend primary legislation in the future. The relevant document—if noble Lords are interested to read it in detail—is the 45th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported on this Bill and drew the attention of the House to the Henry VIII powers.

Before I turn to precisely what it said, it did not note, but I have, that in Clause 88 there is a general power for making consequential and incidental provision relating to future legislation. Clause 88 says:

“Regulations … may amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.


My amendments do not affect that.

My Amendments 180A, 184A, 196F and 235DA in this group relate to Henry VIII powers to amend future legislation, which was the subject of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. It said:

“It is reasonably common for Henry VIII powers to allow for consequential amendments to amend future Acts of Parliament passed in the same session as the Bill in which they appear … the Government and Parliament are capable of passing Bills in future sessions consistent with preceding legislation”.


It says in the next paragraph that in November last year the parliamentary counsel noted to the Constitution Committee that

“the power to amend consequentially Acts in future sessions is rare and normally specifically justified in the delegated powers [memorandum] … The Bill includes numerous instances of this type of power and the Memorandum”—

that is, the Government’s delegated powers memorandum—

“does not provide justification for any of them”.

It says, in the recommendations in paragraph 23 of the report:

“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71 … Schedule 24 and … Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.


I have tabled four amendments to do precisely that. In each case, they would take out the words “whenever passed”, meaning whenever passed in the future, and insert precisely the same words as those the Government themselves used in the drafting of Clause 88—that is, that they would amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament

“passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.

I think there is a small, technical problem with my amendment in relation to Schedule 26. Since it relates to an insertion to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the reference to “this Act” might be inaccurate. However, we will not worry about that, because we can deal with it on Report as necessary.

The purpose of these four amendments relates to a number of places. It relates to Clause 54, which we are dealing with presently, which modifies the functions of mayors and strategic authorities; Clause 71, which concerns the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles; Schedule 24, which we have just been discussing, which concerns licensing powers for the Mayor of London; and Schedule 26, which relates to local government reorganisation powers. The subject matter of those powers is almost unimportant; the point is that, in each case, the Government have used the same language to give themselves the power, by statutory instrument, to amend future Acts of Parliament beyond this Session. In the same way as Clause 88, each of my amendments would limit that power to amend Acts passed or made up to the end of this parliamentary Session.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has tabled Amendment 184. As I say, I have tabled Amendment 184A, because it does the same thing as the others, whereas Amendment 184 would remove the regulation-making power entirely. I submit that that would go too far, since there is often a need to make consequential or incidental provision.

The essential point that I come back to is that there is no basis for justifying taking a power to amend future Acts of Parliament in future Sessions, because those Bills, when they are introduced to this place, can take account of, and make their own provision for, what the future shape of legislation should look like. It is not a question of saving parliamentary time; they can be dealt with in those Acts when the time comes. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the previous debates on this Bill due to the pressure of work. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has spoken eloquently to his amendments, and I agree with nearly everything he has said. I will speak to Amendment 184 in my name, as I am extremely concerned about the long-term implications of Clause 54(3).

Clause 54 begins with subsection (1):

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision for the purposes of”—


it then it goes into the detail. My concern is with subsection (3), which, for the benefit of the doubt, I will read:

“Regulations under this section may (in particular) amend any Act of Parliament (whenever passed), including by amending this Act”.


This is an amazing power to hand to the Secretary of State in the future, whoever he or she might be. The ability to amend any Act of Parliament, which may not even be a twinkle in the eye of any future government at this stage, is breathtaking.

Until the end of January, I had the privilege to sit on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The council that advises the DPRRC was extremely concerned about the number of delegated powers in the Bill that we are currently debating. There are 92 delegated powers, and a further 42 not covered in the memorandum, due to the fact that the Bill is likely to interact with existing enactments.

Similar powers were brought forward in 2015, at which point the committee felt that the powers were too broad. However, we now have a new Government and a new philosophy. I can understand that the Government want to be able to change past and current legislation in future, but they are asking for the power to change legislation that is yet to be drafted—a power that bypasses the role of Parliament completely.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke at length on his amendments, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s concerns about the Bill. He set out his arguments extremely clearly and referred to the committee’s 45th report, which was published on 16 January. That report details the committee’s concerns; it is extensive and raises significant issues around the way in which the Henry VIII powers will be executed. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already ready out the committee’s recommendation concerning this particular power, which is as follows:

“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71, and those in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 24 and paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.


I apologise for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said word for word, but it is really important to stress this point.

Considering this strong recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee, as well as the concerns raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment and amend the Bill accordingly. This is an unjustifiable abuse of power, bypassing Parliament to seek to amend future Acts of Parliament and legislation that is not even in the initial stages of being drafted.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to repeat what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

The issue is quite simple. This is supposed to be a devolution Bill about local empowerment; it is not supposed to be about giving the Secretary of State huge powers, in particular to amend things that have not even been thought of yet. On restricting things in the way that has been suggested, there are some flexibilities in this Bill, historical Bills and Bills for the current Session, but having the power to amend something that is not even a twinkle in the eye of a new Minister— whoever they may be—is just going too far. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also said this.

This matter needs very deep thought on the part of the Government. We will come back to it if the Government do not seek to address this issue of a Secretary of State having the ability to amend something that has not been thought of yet. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you would want to amend a law you have not written yet, because you could always bring in powers that are relevant to that law as part of any legislation you then bring forward.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include rural affairs as an area of competence of strategic authorities.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Bill is extensive, covering many areas of local government, and aims for the improved delivery of services by local and strategic authorities. The areas of competence for strategic authorities covered by the Bill are listed in Clause 2; mindful of the Whip’s instructions at the beginning, I will not list them, but all are extremely important. I propose adding rural affairs to that list.

Over the years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have often promoted the need for rural affairs to take a more prominent place in government thinking. The previous Government brought forward strategies for industry, business, cities, et cetera, but nothing for rural areas. Why do those who live in rural communities get such short shrift? The funding of rural school education is inadequate compared with that received by urban schools. The buses are infrequent, GP surgeries are in larger villages, the pub has closed, the local shop exists on a knife edge, the roads are repaired irregularly, and top dressing appears to be a thing of the past.

Those who live in rural areas are not living a life of luxury in idyllic countryside. Having to travel miles to a supermarket or by bus for a GP or dentist appointment or to get their hair cut can be a real problem for the elderly, the infirm and young families. Many families may not have a car, or perhaps the one car they have is taken by the breadwinner to get to work. A trip to the GP by bus could well take half a day. In areas where there are two buses a day, one going into town in the morning and the other coming back late afternoon, it could take all day.

The relevant local, parish or town council will be aware of the problems of service delivery in isolated areas. Likewise, the district council, when there was one, had brilliant knowledge of the problems of its community. Where the village shop has been threatened, in some cases the community has come together to run it with volunteers. Some pubs have been run by community volunteers on the same basis. Communities themselves know who would welcome a lift to town to keep important appointments. Larger strategic authorities are unlikely to have this knowledge at their fingertips, so they will need a strategy to support rural areas.

Children and young people are particularly disadvantaged by living in rural areas. The school bus picks them up in the morning and drops them off in the afternoon, but there is nothing to take them to a friend’s house three miles away for a chat on a Friday evening. There is no youth club in their hamlet or village where they can relax with those of a similar age. The village bus stop, where there is one, is often the congregation point for young people in the early evenings—they know they will not be disturbed because no bus will stop there. Mum and dad, where they have a car, will often provide the essential transport for young people to meet up with their friends.

Living in a rural area does not mean that you wish to give up your independence. Moving to larger, more strategic local government delivery could be a lifesaver for some communities, but it could also mean that deep rural areas will be overlooked. Population numbers matter when allocating finance. Everyone understands that the limited resources must cover the greatest number of people, but that should not be an excuse to ignore rural deprivation and poverty. I will not go into detail on the complicated issue of rural housing, where larger four- or five-bedroom homes are often built when what is required are smaller starter homes to rent and to buy, as others who have amendments in this group will do this more eloquently than I.

The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the delivery of services via local government on a quite different level. Now is the time for rural areas to have full consideration in the context of housing and strategic planning, health, well-being and public service reform and the other services listed in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences is a must. Rural communities are not a “nice to have” requirement, they are a “must”. This group of amendments is essential for rural communities. I welcome the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to ensure that rural communities are treated on a par with their urban counterparts. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I am sure she understands the strength of support for rural affairs to be recognised on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their amendments, for the many discussions that we have had and for their engagement on rural issues in the Bill.

Before I comment on the individual amendments, let me say that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. This body, which had primary responsibility for rural-proofing, was formally abolished in 2013, a decision taken by the coalition Government in the bonfire of the quangos. I mention this just in case anyone was left with the impression that it was this Government that had abolished it.

On Amendment 5, I have noted previously that strategic authorities will operate across a wide range of geographies in England, encompassing both highly urbanised regions and more rural areas. The Bill is therefore intended to equip mayors and strategic authorities with the powers that they need to support communities across their entire areas. That is why the areas of competence are deliberately broad. This allows a wide range of activity to fall within scope. In this way, rural issues are already reflected in, for example,

“transport and local infrastructure; … housing and strategic planning”,

and

“the environment and climate change”.

Already we are seeing strategic authorities support rural communities. The East Midlands Combined County Authority has set out a programme of rural affairs and farming projects. These include examining the potential to promote microgeneration and energy independence for farmers and small businesses and committing to convene rural partners to discuss solutions for flood prevention.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his welcome for the Government’s recent move to recognise the very sharp increases to fuel costs faced by rural communities because of the current conflicts in the Middle East. I welcome that too.

I turn now to Amendments 52 and 61. The Government have introduced amendments to increase the number of commissioners a mayor may appoint. This will increase flexibility by allowing multiple commissioners to operate in a single area of competence and ensure commissioners can operate in one or more aspects of an area rather than the area as a whole. Doing so will enable mayors to appoint commissioners with local cross-cutting briefs and allow them to enlist additional support within a given area. This could mean, for example, two commissioners operating within transport and local infrastructure, with one focused on rural connectivity and the other on active travel.

However, commissioners are intended to be an optional appointment for mayors, whereas the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would mandate the appointment of a rural commissioner, removing the mayor’s right to choose. There is already considerable scope for a mayor to appoint a commissioner and provide them with a bespoke brief and title—for example, to position them as an advocate on rural matters within the combined authority or the combined county authority area. The areas of competence are intended to capture broad thematic priorities affecting all communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban.

The challenges faced by rural communities are addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary place by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. In fact, to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, you could have had a party in the bus stops in my area until very recently when, thanks to some active campaigning, we did get evening buses, but only a couple of years ago there were no buses after 7 pm at all.

Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities. This includes housing, where local authorities in local plans and mayors in strategic plans must consider the needs of rural housing and it will be mayors who set the strategic priorities for their area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the powers of the mayor and the land use framework. Of course, mayors, like all other planning authorities, will have to take account of relevant documents including the land use framework, which sets out clearly the need for land for food production.

I turn to Amendment 310. Supporting rural communities is a priority for this Government. We want rural areas to feel the benefits of devolution just as strongly as our major towns and cities. The Bill already equips strategic authorities and mayors with powers that can be used to respond to rural priorities, including in areas such as transport, housing delivery, economic growth and skills. We can already see how mayors and strategic authorities are using these powers to deliver for rural residents. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, may not like strategic authorities very much, but York and North Yorkshire is trialling new affordable housing models for rural communities and the North East Combined Authority has established a dedicated coastal and rural task force to ensure rural and coastal communities have a clear voice in investment decisions.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 326. The Government should not assume they have a better understanding of rural needs and opportunities within strategic authority areas than those areas themselves. Strategic authorities working closely with their constituent councils and communities are best placed to assess local rural circumstances. This amendment would add bureaucracy without improving outcomes. Therefore, I respectfully invite the noble Baronesses not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her considered comments and thank all those Peers who have taken part in this debate. Between us, we have managed to cover nearly every aspect of the disadvantage of living in rural communities.

I was very disappointed to be reminded about rural-proofing, because we were championing that years ago—and here we are today, trying to get it back again. It is so important that those who live in rural areas have tailored approaches to those areas, as has already been said. We need to think about agriculture, food production and housing. Housing is so important, along with jobs.

I hear the Minister’s reassurance that rural areas are covered in all the other competences. I have not been here for as long as some people, but I have been here nearly 13 years. I have heard that phrase so many times, but it never happens for rural areas. I feel that it is really important that rural affairs are given the weight they deserve by being in the Bill as a competence. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.”

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. The Commons have disagreed with our amendment, which was carried 285 to 156: a majority of 129 and a pretty convincing endorsement of the strength of feeling in the Chamber for rural affairs to get the recognition they deserve. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter and offer for rural affairs to be included in non-statutory guidance.

The reasons given by the Commons were that rural affairs are covered by the other competences in Clause 2 of the Bill, as the Minister has already referred to. Just as rural-proofing was considered an essential element of any service delivery, infrastructure project or change to local government, it should have been an essential element of the planning all through the process. The question should continually be asked, “How will what is being proposed affect rural areas?”

Rural England covers the largest geographical area of England but has the smallest proportion of population. The large towns and cities, due to the ease of connectivity, attract business of every description and provide jobs and economic prosperity. Ever since the Industrial Revolution of the early 1800s, this has been the case—but even Arkwright built his mills in rural Derbyshire.

This morning, I have been contacted by Richard Hebditch of the Better Planning Coalition, who emphasised how important rural areas are. If I may, I will quote from his email, in which he states:

“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure, and the Government is clear that it sees its cities and larger towns as the focus for both economic growth and infrastructure investment. We are concerned that there is a strong risk that rural areas will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up SDSs as well as in the other strategies and plans. We therefore welcome current Lords Amendment 2, which inserts rural affairs as a competency for strategic authorities”.


I am grateful to Richard Hebditch for his information this morning.

Those who live in rural areas want the same benefits as those who live in highly populated areas. We want the strategic authorities and the mayors to consider how their future plans will affect those in rural areas. The benefits of a thriving economy, good infrastructure, a buoyant jobs market, decent homes and good connectivity, especially digital as we enter the AI-dominated era, should be the right of those in rural areas. The town and parish councils are likely to be overlooked if care is not taken.

I recently returned from a short stay in rural Norfolk, where my mobile phone coverage was very patchy. Even at home in Hampshire, where I live on the outskirts of a village but only 200 yards from the secondary college which services a large area, bringing students in on double-decker buses, I have difficulty with my mobile reception. If I want to make a phone call or answer an incoming call, I have to go into the lounge at the front of my home to get sufficient signal to be able to have anything like a decent conversation.

The majority of 129 on the amendment on 24 March was one of the largest majorities, if not the largest majority, on this Bill, and demonstrates the strength of feeling in the Chamber on the importance of rural affairs. I remain convinced that rural England will get the recognition it deserves only if it is in the Bill and is covered in statutory guidance, not relegated to non-statutory guidance, which is not sufficient. Every policy and strategy brought forward by mayors and strategic authorities should have been through a process whereby the question has been asked and considered, “How will this affect those living in rural areas?” How will this affect their safety, environment, access to decent affordable housing and travel arrangements? Asking commissioners to consider rural affairs if they wish, I am afraid, does not cut it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank those taking part in this short debate, and I also thank the Minister for her comments. However, I disagree that leaving the consideration of rural affairs to the discretion of strategic authorities and mayors and not including it specifically on the face of the Bill, nor in statutory guidance, is sufficient. Non-statutory guidance can be easily set aside. Now is an opportunity to recognise the importance of rural affairs. I wish to test the opinion of the House.