English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Commons Reasons and Amendments

Motion A

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2C.

2C: Line 2, after “affairs” insert “and coastal communities”

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E, E1, F and F1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.

On Motion A, relating to Amendment 2, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke so clearly on the importance of rural affairs during our last debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her contributions. As your Lordships will know, the Government’s position has been that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we have heard the concerns put forward by noble Lords that rural affairs may be marginalised or ignored. We recognise that, as devolution is extended beyond the predominantly urban areas of England, it will be necessary for strategic authorities to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wider range of geographies, including rural and coastal areas. The Government have therefore accepted the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I hope that, on this basis, your Lordships will feel that their concerns have been addressed and that we can proceed in a spirit of consensus on this matter.

On Motions F and F1, relating to the amendments regarding the ministerial powers of direction, the Government have been clear that we will work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. To that end, we have already committed not to commence powers to direct the establishment of a combined authority or a combined county authority for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have listened and responded to concerns from noble Lords in this House about the scope of backstop powers set out in Schedule 1. We recognise that it will be important that non-mayoral authorities will have the opportunity to build capacity, capability and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For this reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. I hope that noble Lords can see that the Government have listened to concerns.

On Motions B and B1, regarding Amendments 89B and 89C, the Government fully agree on the importance of prioritising brownfield land for development. Although concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of existing policy, I have made it clear that it is too early to judge the impact of recent and proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework. The amendment made by noble Lords is unworkable, as it would undermine effective plan-making, restrict proper consideration of local circumstances, and introduce inconsistent requirements between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities. Policy remains the most appropriate place to ensure the prioritisation of brownfield, and the Government are confident that our recent and proposed changes to national planning policy will deliver the outcome we all wish to see. Given this, I politely invite noble Lords not to press their amendment.

I turn to Motions E and E1 on Lords Amendments 41, 94, 94B, 94C, 94F and 94G, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Although I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the agent of change principle, I remain of the view that the most effective way to ensure that the principle is being properly applied is by strengthening the existing policy framework, rather than by introducing a new statutory provision. National planning policy is neither marginal nor discretionary; it carries substantial weight in the planning system. We are already undertaking a major reform programme aimed at streamlining and improving the consent process, reducing ambiguity and lengthy legal disputes to ensure that decisions are made fairly and quickly.

I acknowledge noble friends’ concerns that existing practice is not always effectively protecting existing businesses, such as music venues. That is why we are proposing targeted updates to national planning policy, including clear requirements for applicants to consider both current and permitted levels of activity within existing uses, and to have early discussions with businesses in their vicinity. We will review the accompanying guidance to spread best practice and write to local authorities to reinforce the importance of the issue. I believe that these steps we are taking will genuinely improve the way things are done on the ground and make primary legislation unnecessary and duplicative.

Motions C and C1, relating to Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155, would remove from the Bill provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government retain a strong preference for executive models and believe that the leader and cabinet model provides a more effective framework for decision-making in local government. I will not repeat the examples and arguments that have been debated extensively in this House and the other place. However, we continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance by encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England’s local authorities while respecting recent local democratic mandates and decisions where a committee-run council has adopted its governance model more recently. I have set out previously the flexibility that the leader and cabinet model provides, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall leader and cabinet model.

Finally, as your Lordships will have seen, the Government have taken this opportunity to make a small but important change to the publication of local authority governance changes. The Government recognise that it is important for local residents to be made aware of any governance changes in their area. To that end, we will require all councils that need to change governance model as a result of the Bill to publish notice of that change in one or more newspapers circulating in their area, ensuring a consistent approach across the Local Government Act 2000. This amendment aligns the Bill’s provisions with the existing approach to publication of governance changes while allowing a wider DCMS-led review into statutory notices to decide the best long-term approach, as part of its local media strategy.

I turn to neighbourhood governance and Motion D and Lords Amendments 37 and 91. I recognise the strength of feeling among noble Lords about the role of parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The Government have considered Lords Amendments 37 and 91 carefully. We cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principle of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide based on their communities’ needs, and central government should not interfere with that.

However, we have listened and have proposed a further concession, which builds on our previous one. This makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Alongside our commitments to review and update community governance review guidance and publish a neighbourhood governance framework, this strikes the right balance. We will work with local authorities and the parish council sector to promote this refreshed guidance. We will begin engagement for this work before the Summer Recess and update the guidance as soon as possible thereafter.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords not to insist on Lords Amendments 37 and 91 and to support the Government’s amendments in lieu. I beg to move.

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.

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.

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.