English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be the opening speaker on the first day of Report on the English devolution Bill. I begin by acknowledging the Government’s significant new amendment, Amendment 2, which adds “culture” to the list of “areas of competence”. This is a hugely important and very welcome step forward, and I thank the Government for addressing what has been a clear gap in the Bill. In doing so, I also want to recognise the work of my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the Minister herself, her officials and others across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Griffin and Lady Prashar, whose efforts have helped bring this change about, and without whom this omission might well have remained.

The Minister will know that we would ideally have preferred a wording in Amendment 3. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to explain the importance of the inclusion of the arts in this context, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, to speak to the significance of heritage in his amendment. In supporting Amendment 2, I also support the Government’s Amendment 42, which increases the number of commissioners that a mayor may appoint from seven to 10. I also support the related Amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment. This change is sensible and proportionate. If we are recognising additional areas of competence, it follows that mayors should have sufficient flexibility in their leadership structures to reflect those responsibilities, provide subject matter focus where needed, and ensure that new competencies are not merely symbolic but can be exercised effectively.

I turn now to my own amendment. I have brought Amendment 1 back on Report as I am seeking further clarity following the Minister’s answer in Committee, and because the Government’s new Amendment 2 raises related questions about how the framework of completeness will operate in practice. I am therefore grateful to the Local Government Association for its briefing and for its support of this amendment.

My amendment is narrow and practical. It simply clarifies that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it on the ground. The Local Government Association has been clear that, within the structure of the Bill, the most coherent statutory home for tourism is economic development and regeneration where it aligns with the visitor economy, place-making and local growth.

The Bill recognises this to some extent. Clause 41 extends powers to strategic authorities to encourage and promote visitors. As the Minister explained in Committee, combined authorities and combined county authorities may use these powers to support the visitor economy, host events and attract people to their areas. However, as the LGA has pointed out, that clause reflects a relatively narrow understanding of how tourism policy works in practice. In reality, the visitor economy is closely connected to transport, to regeneration and to wider economic strategy. Therefore, greater clarity in the competence framework would help authorities make full and confident use of their powers.

This is why I was somewhat surprised by the Government’s Amendment 128, which moves Clause 41 to a later part of the Bill. That change risks creating the impression that tourism is being treated as part of culture, rather than as a core element of economic development. Without explicit inclusion, tourism risks falling between stools: assumed but not fully recognised.

That matters in practice. Tourism is a major economic driver, as we know, and the Government’s decision to introduce powers for an overnight visitor levy reflects the importance of the visitor economy to local growth, regeneration and place-making. It also illustrates why tourism sits most naturally within economic development. The success of the visitor economy depends on the strength of the wider offer, including cultural and heritage assets, which attract people to the place in the first instance.

As these new levy powers develop, I hope that some of the funds raised will be used to sustain and improve that offer, since visitors are unlikely to come to theatres, museums, arts centres and historic sites if there has been no investment in them. All this underlines that tourism policy does not stand alone but must be planned alongside regeneration, transport, culture and local growth. Ensuring that tourism clearly sits within economic development would therefore help strategic authorities take that joined-up approach.

Against that background, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking. In particular, do they intend tourism to be understood primarily as part of economic development and regeneration, as local authorities currently treat it, or do they envisage it sitting alongside culture, following the restructuring in the Bill? Given the breadth of the competence framework, will the Government consider issuing non-statutory guidance after enactment, developed with local government and the sector, to clarify how these boundaries are intended to operate in practice?

My amendment does not seek to change the architecture of the Bill; it simply reflects how local government already works on the ground. For that reason, I hope the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on this point. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing their Amendment 2, adding culture to the list of areas of competence, and say at the outset that I have no intention of taking my own amendment to a vote. The Minister has listened to many of our arguments in Committee and I think this will make a big difference. It is what much of the arts has been asking for. The glass then is considerably more than half full.

However, although I support Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would add “heritage” to the wording, ideally, I would have preferred the wording in my Amendment 4:

“the arts, culture and heritage”.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for that amendment. The word “culture” on its own is nebulous so, as the Local Government Association recommends, to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities can engage with the breadth and diversity of culture in their area, including the arts, heritage and creative industries, non-statutory guidance should be co-produced with the sector and published post-enactment to better define this area of competence. Will the Government produce such guidance and, if so, what will the detail be and are they seeking input into that? The Minister used “arts, heritage and creative industries” as being included in “culture” in the all-Peers letter of 17 March, so what is the basis for that assertion?

It is the subsidised arts sector, alongside cultural services such as museums and libraries, which I most worry about being overlooked. New research by Equity shows that council arts funding in England fell by 61% between 2010 and 2024, so there is a huge amount of ground to be made up. There is the added concern, as the arts professional, Steve Mannix, CEO of the Mercury Theatre in Colchester, pointed out back in January, that:

“As councils merge, a new narrative could take hold: ‘We only need one theatre/museum/gallery in the new area.’ This may be efficient on paper, but it is culturally and economically short-sighted”.


I hope that the Government’s amendment will help to counter that, but ultimately, of course, we need significantly more council funding of the arts.

It also worth pointing out that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, who led the Arts Council England review, said in relation to the Bill on 17 March at a Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting:

“It is a recommendation that”


for councils

“there should be a statutory duty to produce a cultural and art strategy”.

Later in the Bill, we will again discuss local growth plans, and I have retabled my amendment for cultural ecosystem plans. I mention that now only because, if we are talking about guidance for culture as an area of competence, it would also be useful to know what might be in the guidance in relation to the requirement for a strategy or a plan—although of course the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, used the word statutory.

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said about tourism. Culture is not tourism. Spending on culture should be spending on the arts, and not on access roads leading to a cultural attraction, for instance.

As in Committee, my Amendments 43 and 47 are designed to provide a commissioner for arts, culture and heritage, but the Minister has rather leapfrogged over us by increasing the number of commissioners from seven to 10. The Minister’s Amendment 46 is in a later group, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what her expectations are for a commissioner for culture for each of the authorities.

I am grateful for the discussions a number of us have had with Culture Commons and for the support of the Local Government Association. In summary, I am very pleased that the Government have made culture an area of competence and look forward to hearing more of the detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 307 would require every local planning authority and every strategic authority, separately or jointly, to appoint a qualified and experienced person to act as chief planner, as a number have done already. This amendment has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has been steadfast in his commitment to this reform, which he has maintained would accelerate housing delivery and growth. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who in Committee stressed the value of a high level of professional planning input for mayors and strategic authorities.

The proposal for a chief planner has been gathering momentum from the time of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It has been promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute with support from the Better Planning Coalition, which represents some 40 organisations in this sector. Just last week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment recommended this approach to drive the professionalism and responsibility in decision-making that is required to unlock planning delays and command the level of respect needed when negotiating and liaising with senior local authority members.

The relationship between council members and their officers is changing. The Government’s policy for deregulation of planning decision-making means that decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by planning officers alone will be determined by the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This procedure underlines the need for a senior figure to be identified with the status to assume this responsibility. It has also been suggested that the chief planner might have a formal role in ongoing training for council members with planning duties, a role that requires a person of seniority who commands respect.

Having a named chief planner who is fully qualified and experienced with the corresponding status attaching to the role provides, in the words of the chief planner for Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority, the strategic direction and strong professional leadership that a planning authority needs. It creates a clear and trusted voice for our communities, our elected members and our developers. She concluded:

“Making this role statutory would strengthen our profession and inspire the next generation to aspire to be chief planners themselves”.


Meanwhile, the experience of taking this approach in Scotland has demonstrated its value there, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. It is worth noting that the amendment would enable authorities to choose to share a chief planner with one or more other authorities, if they so wish.

Here is a chance to help reverse the decline in the position of planning, raise morale and support the profession without costs to the Government. Planning departments have been starved of resources over recent decades, yet planning is set to be hugely important in the work of new mayoral and other strategic authorities. The RTPI’s latest survey of the state of the profession lists the recruitment and retention challenges. Local planning departments are short of up to a third of their staff. Two-thirds of them are using agency staff to fill gaps. Shortages of suitably qualified people mean delays that undermine new development and less proactive engagement before and during a planning application, leading to worse outcomes. The profession needs boosting, bolstering, encouraging and promoting, as well as very welcome additional government funding. This means changing perceptions and enhancing the status of a vital profession. Appointment of the key officer as chief planner would do much to achieve this.

In Committee the Minister said she would continue to keep this matter under review but would want

“to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 593.]

I hope that she has now been able to satisfy herself that this is a worthwhile initiative and that she is able to accept the amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 186, which would allow a separate cultural ecosystem plan to be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan. I was very heartened by the support for this amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He said this amendment

“really matters … because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what”.

Furthermore, he drew attention to

“the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 619.]

I could not have put it better myself.

Our cultural assets are an ecosystem that crosses boundaries as well as being hugely important at the local level, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasises. We talked at some length about culture on the first group today, but I ask the Minister once again whether cultural ecosystem plans might be considered for the guidelines at the very least.

I have also put my name to Amendments 124, 127 and 246 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which she fully explained. Her agent of change amendment is hugely important. I will not repeat the arguments I gave in Committee except to say that the Music Venue Trust points out the significant difference between how the system works in England, where it is non-statutory and unsatisfactory, and in Scotland, where there is a statutory requirement and it works well. If the noble Baroness wishes to take this to a vote when the time comes, I will certainly support her in the Lobby.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken on Report, I remind the House that I am chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I provide advice to the Norfolk and Suffolk, Thames Valley and greater Cheshire development forums as well. I apologise to the House in advance, as I know that I cannot be here for days two and three on Report, which is one reason why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for leading the amendment relating to the statutory position of a chief planner.

In the spirit of the Whips’ rendition of the Companion, I will not repeat either the points so splendidly made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, or the speeches I made in Committee and on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I know that his amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my own Front Bench, appears to have a great deal of support not only in the country but in the House. I hope that when the time comes, if that is on day three, the noble Lord, Lord Best, will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House to show that support. We have not previously imposed that provision on the Government but, if necessary, the House should impose it in this Bill.

I also thank warmly my noble friend on the Front Bench for speaking to Amendments 122, 123, 125 and 126. As he said, they are all about making the local growth plan consistent with the spatial development strategy. I will not go through that in some detail, but we have now seen the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework. While it says, for example, that the spatial development strategy should give spatial expression to the strategic elements of the local growth plan, that plan, as set out in the Bill, does not make it clear that it should identify which employment, commercial, industrial and logistical projects are integral to the growth projections for a strategic authority area. It needs to do that so that those strategic elements will necessarily be reflected into the spatial development strategy; exactly the same is true for infrastructure as well. That is why those two additions to the content of the local growth plan are so important in being reflected into what then, in due course, should be incorporated in the spatial development strategy, which is already legislated for.

I finish merely by saying to the Minister that I hope she and her colleagues will look carefully at the draft revision of the National Planning Policy Framework, in so far as it relates to the spatial development strategies. It should say more by way of the content of a spatial development strategy, along the lines of what we have already discussed. Many noble Lords will recall that we debated at length whether the spatial development strategy and the Planning and Infrastructure Act should deal with both the amount and distribution of housing and, specifically, the amount and distribution of affordable housing, but the National Planning Policy Framework does not refer to the latter.

It is really important that the NPPF, to which the equivalent of statutory weight is to be given in planning policy decisions, should reflect the statutory requirements mandated in legislation by this House. I very much support my noble friend’s amendments, which would have that effect.