English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Freyberg Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Freyberg]

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert “, including through tourism”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment adds tourism to the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence for strategic authorities.

[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 I also support the related Amendments 43 and 47, which have now been superseded by that government amendment.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 ---

In response to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the framework for new mayoral authorities, I think we have set out very clearly in the competences what the role of mayors is and how we expect them to work strategically to benefit the areas over which they have a democratic mandate. I hope that, with all these explanations, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments and to support the Government’s approach to adding culture as an area of competence.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very important debate. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, whose expertise in and commitment to this area continue to illuminate our discussions and have brought us to this point of having a new area of competence.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; his point that not all local authorities are similar is worth repeating. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who spoke with such clarity on the importance of place-making and culture as an area of competence. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made an excellent point about how culture can help growth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that it already exists in existing local authorities and that we should not forget that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised an important point about the commissioners: their roles and what they are doing really needs to be ironed out so that we have clear oversight of what is happening. Lastly, I thank the Minister warmly for her reply, which I found genuinely helpful and which I know will be welcomed across the House and further afield.

On the broader question of what we mean by culture, I continue to believe that clear and detailed guidance will be essential if the competence is to be exercised with clarity for local leaders and the cultural sector generally. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others have so ably argued, both today and in Committee, there is a meaningful and practical distinction between the arts, cultural services, creative industries, heritage and tourism. Without greater definitional clarity, strategic authorities may struggle to know where their responsibilities begin and end. None the less, I hear what the Minister said on these and other points, and I welcome her commitment to ensuring that the framework is workable in practice. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 124 and 127 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and Amendment 246, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to all of which I have added my name. A common thread runs through all four.

Culture, as we have heard, does not function in isolation. It depends on an ecosystem of different venues and activities that sustain one another. Amendments 124 and 127 would ensure that cultural considerations are genuinely embedded in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 186 asks authorities to consider the cultural sector as an interconnected whole, rather than a collection of separate parts.