English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clancarty and Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lady Prashar. I have spoken to a number of people in local government and become convinced that the new strategic authorities could benefit their regions if they had competence over the heritage and cultural sector.

Noble Lords have only to look at the catastrophic situation in the arts and cultural sector in the West Midlands to understand their importance. Birmingham has reduced the funding of arts in the city from £10 million in 2010 to a mere £1.1 million in 2024-26. In 2015, when the first big cuts were announced, they were in part because the political dysfunction of the city council persuaded the Arts Council to redirect funds, with a terrible effect on the city’s cultural and heritage life. Since then, the crisis has continued. The result of this long decline in funding was that in 2024 the city council signed off 100% reductions to funding for some of the most internationally recognised city institutions—the CBSO, Birmingham Rep, the Birmingham Royal Ballet, the Ikon Gallery, Fabric dance and dozens of community cultural organisations; the list goes on.

Some of these cuts have led to entrepreneurial responses by the city’s cultural sector. For instance, John Crabtree at the Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre has put on a more commercial and popular offer that has helped to stabilise the Birmingham Royal Ballet, which is also housed there. The Mayor of the West Midlands, who has strategic authority over the region but does not have legal competence for the cultural sector, has been able to direct some financial support through the regional authority’s cultural leadership board. It has managed to use money left over from the underspend on the Commonwealth Games and wider devolution funding to channel money to at least some of the most important cultural bodies in the city.

However, all these payments are one-off and do not replace longer-term core funding. They are not able to reach many smaller community cultural bodies, which have subsequently closed. In a city where there is huge concern about youth crime, that seems to be a retrograde and regrettable step. Imagine how much more effective the authority could have been if it had a statutory board to oversee and direct more extensive funds to the cultural sector across the region. I would hope that the establishment of a statutory heritage board in the West Midlands Combined Authority, with constituent authorities as members, would bring stability and greater funding to the sector across the region. In the process, that would allow local and national funding bodies to release money to the region and attract private philanthropy.

The acceptance of Amendment 6 would allow this competence and support for the cultural sector and the creative industries. As many other noble Lords have said, the heritage sector is so important for bringing together communities in a region, for giving them a sense of identity and for attracting tourism into the area. I ask the Minister, with her impressive career in local government, to appreciate how important such an additional competency could be in boosting regional development and cohesion.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendments 6 and 10. I would have added my name to them, but the slots were already gone on Amendment 6. I am agnostic about the difference in wording between Amendments 6 and 10. Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I am keen to use this opportunity to discuss the best form of wording, but it is important that these areas of life are added to the competences for the strategic authorities, simply because they are the things that make life worth living. I had the privilege of being the Arts Minister as we were bouncing back from the pandemic—a time when people were cut off from the arts, creativity and heritage—and saw the natural yearning in us all to enjoy these things. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others, they are also the things that forge communities, bring people together across all their differences and help boost a sense of pride in place and a sense of belonging.

It is tempting often to think of them as a drain on resources but, as Amendment 6 does, that mixes things that might be parts of the subsidised creative sector and the creative industries, which are huge engines of growth, with massive employers, often some of the biggest employers in the strategic authority areas that we are talking about. That is one of the reasons why the creative industries were one of five priority areas for the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and are one of the eight priority areas for the Government now. We all agree about the huge importance of these industries to our economy overall.

The arts, whether subsidised or run commercially, are vital for the skills pipeline that drives all this, and heritage is the infrastructure that underpins them. Our historic houses, churches, heritage railways and more are not just the filming locations for so many of our brilliant TV and film productions; they are places where people can gain skills that they take into other areas of the economy. The Minister knows well Knebworth, which has been the site of many rock concerts from the time of the Rolling Stones to Robbie Williams. These locations are places for literary festivals that draw people in for so much more.

In discussions with local authority leaders when I was in government, I also saw how enlightened local authority leaders could see that, if they invested in the arts, they could save in other areas. If you could get people engaged in arts and creativity, you could save money in your education budget or health budget. They saw the boost in well-being. In so many of the other strategic competences that have been set out, it is important that we think about the arts, heritage and creativity.

It was also clear for me in my time in government that some local authorities get it more than others. I had the privilege of meeting all four shortlisted places for the most recent UK City of Culture competition. It was clear that the four had excellent chief executives and often the local authority leader had previously held the culture portfolio and could see the power of this to galvanise local businesses, employers, universities and more to leverage the opportunities and investments. We have seen from Hull, Coventry and most recently the brilliant Year of Culture in Bradford the inward investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. I see my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—Hull University carried out a good study into the economic impact of Hull’s year as City of Culture, which continues to bring great benefit to that city and wider region.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in the previous group mentioned his role in One North East. I have seen throughout my life the power of the arts and arts-led regeneration across Tyneside, from the Baltic Gallery to what is now the Glasshouse International Centre for Music, rippling up the Tyne to the Mouth of the Tyne Festival and regeneration in Whitley Bay.

But it is also clear that some local authorities do not get it. We have heard about those that have sadly not invested as much. I found myself as a Minister critical of a number of local authorities, including some controlled by my own party. It was not a party-political issue. I found myself criticising Suffolk County Council, the Conservative council, when it slashed its arts budget, the Greens in Bristol City Council and Labour in Nottingham City Council. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, pointed out, I followed closely the travails of Birmingham City Council after that city, the largest local authority in Europe, was bankrupted. There were frantic discussions between DCMS and the commissioners who were appointed. They were tempted to sell off some of what they could see as assets, the art collection and the historic buildings in that city. We are not going for those easy wins. These are collections that have taken generations to build up but can be lost in an instant.

If there is not this statutory message, the issue is not always viewed as a priority and certainly not the priority that it ought to be. Even with devolution and trusting strong local leaders, it is important that we give that encouragement and that nudge, particularly if the authorities are to have the powers that we have heard of in relation to the tourism levy. There is a mixture of opinions out in the country about what that will mean for heritage, tourism and local arts. Some are enthusiastic, while some are more sceptical about whether they will see the benefits or whether they will be diverted into some of the other areas that are already set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I would like to make a point of clarification, if I may, on the Ipswich cuts. The Greens were protesting the cuts, not doing them.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I said Bristol.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I became leader of Brighton council in 1987. One of the first things that we did was triple our spending on the Brighton Festival. At the time it seemed like a fairly minor thing, but it triggered a lot of inward investment through leverage. It demonstrated to me the importance and the value of public sector investment in the arts. Since then, the Brighton Festival has grown; it is now one of the largest arts festivals in the country. But you have to make that important statement to attract extra funding and inward investment.

I currently chair a seafront regeneration board for Brighton and Hove City Council. One of the things I am quite determined to do is to bring a new major art gallery to our city, because it is one of the missing elements. Those things have a long-term strategic benefit and that is why I think adding this as an area of competence to strategic authorities is very important.

After all, it is one of the Government’s missions. We often talk about the £128 billion value to the UK economy of the arts. If we can embed that statutorily, we can grow and develop our reputation. We are one of the arts growth leaders in the world economy. It would greatly help our growth mission and our economic and industrial mission if we were to place this as an important strategic responsibility.

Without that, as others have said, it is not there—it is voluntary and it is very much up to the localities to determine, as they rightly should, what their priorities are. But it is an encouragement, and that long-term commitment and encouragement will make a very significant difference to the development of arts and cultural services across the UK.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

202: Schedule 27, page 286, line 16, leave out paragraph 6

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lady Stowell of Beeston, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for their support on this amendment. My noble friend Lady Stowell will unfortunately be unable to speak as she is in a meeting of another committee of your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 202 would leave out paragraph 6 of Schedule 27, which amends the Local Government Act 2000. In so doing, it would protect existing requirements for local authorities to publish the resolutions that they make in local newspapers as public notices.

Local newspapers remain a crucial source of information for people across our country. Indeed, the local news sector reaches approximately 42 million people. For many residents, these publications are not simply a preferred medium but their primary and most trusted means of receiving local news and democratic information. In many cases, were it not for these local newspapers, the information would simply not be accessible.

For the Government to cut people off from this information, particularly at a time when they seek to reorganise local government in so many swathes of our country, would leave many local residents in the dark. As councils undergo significant structural change, the Government should surely be encouraging local authorities to go to even greater lengths to inform people of changes to governance structures and much more.

There is a misconception that these dry technical notices are tucked away in the back of the paper. Far from it; they are often accompanied with news articles and commentary by journalists, encouraging further scrutiny of local decisions. In an age of social media and clickbait, where what news we read is determined by foreign technology platforms and their obscure algorithms, local journalism acts as an increasingly important safeguard against misinformation and general ignorance.

Independent research suggests that 80% of adults in the UK trust the news and information that they see in their local newspapers far higher than the figure for most national and international media. This level of trust is not easily replicated and should not be taken for granted. Local democracy and local journalism operate in a symbiotic relationship, which I think we would be wise to maintain.

Whereas the current requirements ensure consistency across the country, making the change that the Government have proposed in this Bill—that is, allowing local authorities to publicise governance changes in a “manner they think appropriate”—will allow some decisions to be publicised less than others and receive less public scrutiny. It will mean that residents in one local authority area may be kept more informed than those in another, creating an inequality of access to information based purely on geography.

Local authorities should not be allowed to shy away from local residents and voters. At a time when the Government are permitting many of them to hide away from the ballot box, it is even more important that they be held to account in the public forum.

Furthermore, the Government are already committed to reviewing statutory notices in their forthcoming local media strategy. To legislate on public notices now, before we have the findings of that review, would surely be premature. I think it would be irresponsible of the Government to have us consider these proposals before we are all equipped with the facts.

I urge the Minister to reconsider the approach that the Government are taking in this way, at least until we have the further evidence to inform the best way forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to which I have added my name. I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate. This is a very important issue for our local media and I am most grateful to my noble friend for bringing it forward for debate. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the News Media Association. My noble friend powerfully made the arguments in favour of the case for removing these provisions of the Bill, so I want to emphasise only a few points.

Inevitably, the first concerns the financial sustainability of the local press. Whenever we debate media issues there is consistently strong support across the House for our local media and appreciation of the vital role that it plays in local democracy, scrutinising those in positions of power in local authorities and holding local politicians to account. But investigative local journalism of this sort is expensive, and it is becoming harder and harder for local publishers to support it, not just because of the structural changes in the media market but because of the continuing encroachment of the BBC into local news.

Revenues and, therefore, investment are under huge pressure. The publication of public notices is, in a highly visible way in local newspapers, aided by the Public Notice Portal as a one-stop shop—a digital database for all public notices. It is one of the remaining and vital sources of revenues for the local press, and it is crucial that it is preserved. Removing the obligation will place a massive question mark over the sustainability of local news. The Government and, indeed, Parliament cannot will the ends of a free press and local democratic scrutiny without also willing the means.

Secondly, it must be of great concern to us all that, as my noble friend has set out, at a time of significant structural change in local government—the biggest in a generation—which we have heard so much about this afternoon, we should have maximum transparency about the activities of local authorities and those in charge of them. Giving local authorities the power to flag important issues simply as they see fit hands them a wide-ranging ability to keep decisions secret, in many cases, by shielding them from large swathes of the public who still rely on published local media for information.

Local media has a vital role to play in ensuring that public notices are translated into lay language by local journalists writing about them in a way that is accessible and easily understood by local electors. As my noble friend said, if you remove the obligation to publish notices in print, you remove the incentive and ability of reporters to help the public understand and scrutinise them. That cannot be right at a time of such upheaval in local government.

Finally, although the vast majority of noble Lords in this place are able to access news online, we must recognise that not all citizens are equipped with digital access or knowledge. Age UK estimates that there are around 2.4 million digitally-excluded older people—that is nearly one in five of that section of society—who have very limited use of the internet, many using it less than once a month if at all. Yet local services and the decisions of local authorities are hugely important to them, perhaps more so than any other group in the population. They rely on their printed local paper for such news and information, and we should not be excluding them from that ability to have a say in the democratic process.

The Prime Minister says that his Government

“will always be on the side of pensioners”.

Let him prove it in deeds as well as words. I hope that the Grand Committee will support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Black mentioned the disproportionate impact that this will have on older residents. Of course, age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and I wonder whether the Government have carried out a public sector equality duty impact assessment on this proposed change.

My noble friend and others mentioned the challenging business environment in which many local news organisations operate. The Minister is right that local government is not directly responsible for that, but it will be responsible if, through this Bill, the symbiotic relationship between local councils and local newspapers is severed in the way that is proposed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the constructive suggestions that she put forward. I hope the Minister will look at them in a cool light after Committee and see whether there is a way of allowing local authorities to choose a variety of ways to publicise these decisions while also supporting these vital organs, which, as my noble friend said, are often the only independent eyes and ears in the public gallery scrutinising local authorities on behalf of the people who are being served.

The Minister was right that a cost would be necessarily incurred in this proposal, but the Government are looking at a media literacy programme and citizenship education, particularly for the new teenage voters whom they want to enfranchise, and we have here a tried, tested and truly independent way in which to shed light on democratic decisions that are taken. I hope the Minister will consider this further as we move to Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 202 withdrawn.