English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion E1, as an amendment to Motion E. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard, has said this evening. But I am disappointed that the other place continues to disagree with our amendment—in its view, because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

It would be helpful at the outset to understand what the agent of change principle is. For example, say the Minister operates a successful business, possibly a nightclub or a music venue, then I come along, as a developer of a block of flats or a housing project. I am then the agent of change. At the time that I seek planning permission, I should ensure at that point that any mitigation measures required are considered at that stage and that the costs be absorbed into the cost of the development.

Most mitigation measures relate to noise, but there could be other forms of nuisance too. The previous amendment reflected the situation that currently exists in that regard in England and broadened the concept of nuisance. Amendments 94F and 94G narrow this down to noise. In each case, this represents the position in Scotland, where a statutory provision came into force seven years ago and is seen to be working well. It gives a clear legal basis in statute for planning authorities and businesses to follow. All we seek to do is to put English law on the agent of change on the same statutory footing as exists successfully in Scotland.

The current situation is policy based on the National Policy Planning Framework, and guidance has no legal effect, delays planning decisions on houses and flats, which are so dear to the Government’s agenda, and causes a barrier to the Government’s growth strategy. The Government propose to review the NPPF and guidance and add a letter for local authorities to refer to—how nice. This will lead to a downward trajectory of business closures, predominantly but not exclusively music venues, to continue unabated.

Unless the Minister is able to give us a clear undertaking for a review of the current position in one year, with a commitment to introducing a statutory provision, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support the more focused amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the agent of change that deal only with the noise issue, primarily as it might and does affect grass-roots music venues.

A number of amendments to Bills that have been going through ping-pong recently have had guidance as their theme and the concern that guidance is or will not be enough. The amendment is perhaps a little unusual in that there are two sets of evidence: one that shows that, over a period of years, the existing guidance has not worked; and the other that shows that, over a period of seven years, a statutory solution—the Scottish solution—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, does work. Taken together, that is a powerful body of evidence as a whole.

I want to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, who is in his place, said last week. He said that

“putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen”.—[Official Report, 23/4/26; col. 792.]

Of course, the noble Lord led the fan-led review of live and electronic music for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This amendment is so important for our music venues and the music industry, which in turn is such an important part of the industrial growth strategy. I will certainly support this amendment if the noble Baroness takes it to a vote.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion E1. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has explained the agent of change principle with characteristic clarity. I would have preferred the broader amendment that we passed on Report, which reflected the full range of ways in which new development can harm existing businesses, but I accept that the narrow amendment before us, focused on noise and closely modelled on Scotland’s statutory provision, is, as has been argued, the right next step.

As we have heard, the Government’s answer is a strengthened NPPF, updated guidance and a letter to local authorities. A letter has no legal effect, nor does guidance, and the result of years of policy without statute is plain to see: hundreds of Music Venue Trust interventions every year and a continuing downward trajectory of venue closures that show no signs of abating.

Scotland legislated seven years ago. In her previous speech the Minister pointed to a handful of ministerial call-ins as evidence that disputes persist. But a small number of orderly, legally grounded call-ins over seven years is not a system failing; it is a system working. Compare that with England, where hundreds of interventions are needed annually, simply to make guidance bite. The Music Venue Trust, the fan-led review, and people such as my colleague have reached the same conclusion. Scotland’s statute has brought clarity, compliance and fewer disputes. That is not a cautionary tale, it is a model.

Whatever the outcome today, I urge the Minister not to let this issue fade. If the interventions and the closures continue, please will she review this? When she does, will she take the statutory route seriously? In the meantime, should the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wish to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.