English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C, C1, H and H1. 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 thank all noble Lords who engaged extensively in the brief period we had between Report and ping-pong. I also thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments agreed by your Lordships during earlier stages of the Bill. As she outlined, the Government’s central aim with this Bill is to devolve power and money from central government to those with skin in the game, building a different type of state where communities with local knowledge are given the power to shape their areas.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Scott and Lady Pidgeon, for the first group of amendments today. Lords Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, seeks to add rural affairs as a distinct area of competence to Clause 2. While I very much appreciate the good intention behind it, I do not believe this change would address the underlying concerns that noble Lords have raised. I have reflected on the points made on Report, and the central issue is not whether rural affairs appear as a separate area of competence, since rural affairs are already within the scope of the other competences. Rather, it is about how strategic authorities and their mayors exercise their functions, taking proper account of the needs of rural communities.

To address that, the Government propose to issue non-statutory guidance to strategic authorities to ensure that they consider the needs of those who live and work in rural areas when exercising their powers and functions. Separately, we are providing mayors with the ability to appoint up to 10 commissioners, which will give the flexibility to assign multiple commissioners to a particular area of competence. This approach enables commissioners to focus on specific aspects within those areas, such as rural affairs, should they wish to do so. With these points in mind, I ask the noble Baroness not to insist on her amendment.

Lords Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process and that the criteria and process for appointments are published, as well as commissioners’ remuneration. Through the passage of this Bill I have been emphatic about the Government’s focus on accountability in local government, and commissioners are no exception to that. I trust that the statutory guidance published by the Government on 16 April, which covers important issues raised in this House, provides confidence to noble Lords in that regard. Members in the other place raised concerns about appointments being based on merit. I am pleased to confirm that the guidance explicitly states that appointments should be based on merit and fair and open competition, and that details of a commissioner’s role, once they are appointed, must also be published on the website of the combined authority or the combined county authority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, queried directly with me how adherence to the guidance is monitored and enforced. As the guidance is statutory, relevant authorities must have regard to it unless they have a good reason to depart from it and can explain that reason. If the guidance is not properly considered, decisions may be unlawful and therefore open to challenge through a judicial review. Failure properly to consider the guidance will also be a relevant consideration for government in assessing whether an authority is meeting its statutory responsibilities, including compliance with the best value duty, and would form part of MHCLG’s assessment of governance and improvement.

Lords Amendments 13 and 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would enable the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s budget with a simple majority. The Government will simplify and ensure consistency in the voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities, including London. A general principle in that simplification is that the voting arrangements for exercising functions should match those for agreeing the budget that funds those functions. In mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, most functions will now be decided by the default arrangement of a simple majority of authority members, which must include the mayor, but some functions—strategic planning, bus franchising, mayoral development corporations and fire—are exercised solely by the mayor. For that reason, these authorities have two budgets, one for functions exercised by the authority as a whole and one for functions exercised solely by the mayor.

The Bill streamlines the process for setting and agreeing the budget for functions exercised by the authority as a whole. They will now be subject to a simple majority, including the mayor. However, mayoral budgets will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend, as set out in existing secondary legislation. It is right that we empower democratically elected mayors to set the budget for functions exercised solely by the mayor, with the appropriate checks and balances that the two-thirds majority provides. The GLA’s budget and governance are fundamentally different from those of combined authorities. All functions are exercised by the mayor, so there is a single consolidated mayoral budget for the GLA. The assembly’s role is to scrutinise the mayor’s budget and exercise the functions, not make decisions on them. It is therefore appropriate that the threshold for amending the final draft of the Mayor of London’s consolidated budget remains a two-thirds majority, as is the case for mayoral budgets in other mayoral strategic authorities.

That is why it is the Government’s view that this House should not insist on these amendments, as they would put the scrutiny of the mayoral budget in London out of step with those in combined authorities and combined county authorities. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for raising it and for providing a helpful opportunity for the Government to clarify the position. I am happy to confirm that the Government will update the guidance and explainers setting out voting arrangements across mayoral strategic authorities to ensure that this principle can be easily understood.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that there are a very few exceptions to that, and I will detail why that is the case. Those differences exist for technical reasons—for example, in the east Midlands, given the Nottingham tram contract, or where the number of constituent authorities within a CCA does not allow for a neat two-thirds split. The Tees Valley has five constituent authorities, and therefore a three-fifths voting threshold is the closest equivalent to two-thirds that is possible with that number of constituents. As I said, the Government will publish guidance setting out voting arrangements.

On Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu, the explanation that I have given clearly sets out that a review of voting arrangements for the London Assembly’s ability to determine the Mayor of London’s budget is unnecessary. I hope that this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords, and that they will agree to the Motion from the other place not to insist. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, not to press her amendments in lieu.

Finally, Lords Amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, collectively seek to remove the powers for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or a combined county authority, or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government do not support these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that devolution can play a central role in boosting regional growth, attracting investment and improving outcomes for communities, with decisions taken closer to the people they affect.

The powers in the Bill are intended to ensure that progress towards those aims is not stalled indefinitely where there is a clear potential for devolution but, importantly, where no workable proposal has come forward locally—because that is what we all want to happen, ideally. They provide a backstop power to be used only where necessary and appropriate, and with clear statutory safeguards. In practice, our approach continues to be one of collaboration with local partners.

That commitment to partnership has been reinforced by the assurances given by the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities in the other place, where, as your Lordships will know, the Government made clear that for a period of two years following Royal Assent they will not commence the powers enabling the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities or the expansion of existing strategic authorities without local consent. They have further committed that for a period of four years following Royal Assent they will not use these powers to provide for a mayor without local consent. These commitments provide a clear and proportionate backstop power while preserving the legislation’s ability to support devolution over the long term. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments to Schedule 1.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.

I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.

This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.

Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?

However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.

Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.

On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:

“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.


That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.

It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.

In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.

Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,

“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]

It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.

There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.

That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will refer first to the amendments on rural affairs and the areas of competence. The issue here is not the areas of competence; the lack of an area of competence for rural affairs will not impede strategic authorities or disadvantage those who live and work in rural areas. The Bill is not prescriptive. The use of functions sits at the discretion of the relevant strategic authority or mayor. Where an authority has a significant rural population, it can and should consider the challenges and opportunities affecting those communities when exercising its powers.

As noble Lords will be aware, many existing strategic authorities and their mayors are taking the matter of rural affairs very seriously. In Devon and Torbay, for example, the combined county authority has published its working plan, which outlines the authority’s long-term goals for the next 10 years. Many of these goals focus on resolving the issues faced by the region’s rural communities, from poor transport links to digital isolation. I know our mayors have taken up the very important issue that noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised—the digital exclusion arising from poor broadband in many of our rural areas.

In York and North Yorkshire, the combined authority is rolling out DNA marking kits to reduce rural crime and thefts. The North East Combined Authority is investing £17 million into the rural economy, supporting farming businesses and rural tourism. The existing areas of competence and their associated functions empower authorities to engage in rural affairs, and that is why the Government view publishing guidance as the most effective means of ensuring rural matters are considered in strategic authority thinking.

To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the culture competence—why that has been made a competence and rural affairs have not—the areas of competence are intended to capture broad, thematic priorities affecting communities irrespective of whether they are rural or urban. The challenges faced by rural communities are already addressed within the existing eight areas. Not all strategic authorities have substantial rural populations; some are predominantly urban. A stand-alone competence for rural affairs risks implying that the challenges faced by rural communities are unique to those settings alone. While the specific factors affecting communities will vary by place, many, such as poor transport connectivity, are shared across rural and non-rural areas alike. Where there is a significant rural population, strategic authorities should be considering the particular challenges and opportunities affecting those communities, as in the examples I set out.

On Report, noble Lords outlined many of the issues that rural communities face. One example was public transport and the infrequency of bus services. As we are all aware, the Bill provides for an area of competence for transport and local infrastructure. It confers upon strategic authorities, via Clause 32, functions over local transport planning, including securing public passenger transport services and bus franchising. This shows that the Bill gives strategic authorities the tools and the means to address the issues that noble Lords have raised. However, it does not highlight the challenges faced by rural communities or assist strategic authorities in recognising and effectively responding to these issues. That is why the Government view the issuing of non-statutory guidance on the consideration of rural needs as the most effective way of ensuring that rural affairs are not overlooked.

Turning to the issue of commissioners, I welcome the debate we have had surrounding the new commissioner role throughout consideration of the Bill. Noble Lords and Members in the other place have consistently raised questions about the number of appointments, their selection and their ability to be held accountable. It is important that the increase in appointments be viewed in the context of improving operational flexibility for combined authorities and combined county authorities. The amendments we have made mean that mayors will have the ability to appoint a commissioner to the new culture area of competence, as well as allowing more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence. They also ensure that commissioners can work or exercise functions in any aspect of an area of competence, rather than needing to work on the whole area.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their comments about the guidance. I was really pleased that the guidance is thorough and deals with many of the issues your Lordships have discussed during the progress of the Bill. There are also clear arrangements around the remit of local scrutiny committees and commissioners when they are introduced to an authority. Commissioners will be subject to sanctions, including removal from post for failing to attend six consecutive meetings of a local scrutiny committee, and financial penalties if they fail to answer questions or provide information or mislead a local scrutiny committee. With the new guidance that has been published, I hope we have dealt with many of the issues that were raised during our discussions on the Bill.

On voting arrangements, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Lady, Baroness Pidgeon, for her very collegial engagement on Lords Amendments 13 and 87 concerning the London Assembly. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that it is important that we remember that we are not debating whether there should be a review of voting arrangements in London. The Government believe that London’s devolution model has been successful over the last 25 years, but we will continue to work with the Mayor of London and London Assembly members to ensure that the model is fit to support the capital’s continued growth.

On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I have set out, these amendments would bring scrutiny to the Mayor of London’s budget. If the amendments were passed, they would bring him out of line with his counterparts in the rest of England. As such, I ask that the House does not insist. For the same reason, I also ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her Amendments 87B and 87C.

Lastly, on ministerial powers of direction, noble Lords will be aware that, without a backstop power, there is a risk that some areas will get left behind. I have been very clear that these powers will only be used as a last resort when all other options have failed. However, notwithstanding the safeguards in the Bill, I have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords. That is why my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, made the commitment that we will not commence the powers to establish a non-mayoral strategic authority or expand an existing authority without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent, nor will we commence the power to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

12:38

Division 1

Motion A1 agreed.

Ayes: 220

---

Conservative: 138
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 16
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1

Noes: 143

---

Labour: 125
Crossbench: 15
Non-affiliated: 3

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because it is not necessary to legislate for the process of appointing commissioners.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 13 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A and 87A.

13A: Because it would be inappropriate for changes to a proposed GLA budget to be subject to a simple majority decision by the London Assembly.

87A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 13 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu—

87B: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the voting arrangements for determining the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the situation of the Authority in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities in other regions, and make recommendations on whether there is a case for reducing the majority required for the Greater London Authority.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within one year of the passing of this Act.”

87C: Clause 92, page 86, line 34, at end insert—
“(ia) section (Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement) (review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement);””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1 in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

12:49

Division 2

Motion C1 disagreed.

Ayes: 152

---

Conservative: 138
Crossbench: 5
Non-affiliated: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Labour: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 207

---

Labour: 128
Liberal Democrat: 51
Crossbench: 22
Non-affiliated: 6

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 89, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 26A and 89A.

26A: Because national planning policy already ensures that brownfield land is prioritised for development.

89A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 26 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion D, I will also speak to Motions G and G1. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, for their amendments in this group. Turning first to Amendments 26 and 89, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their engagement on this issue. As I have previously said to this House, the Government fully support a “brownfield first” approach to development. The NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework is a material consideration in planning decisions, and all strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, it is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

I appreciate that there is a feeling among noble Lords that the NPPF has not had the full effect that is desired. However, conclusions on the effectiveness of brownfield policy are premature and cannot fully be seen at this stage. The nature of plan making means that there is often a lag between changes made to national policy and seeing impacts on the ground. Also, we have yet to publish our revised NPPF, so the full effects of our wider “brownfield first” policy interventions are yet to be seen. Prescriptive changes in primary legislation are therefore not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that would not support effective delivery or allow local circumstances to be taken into account. It would also undermine wider government objectives to deliver the homes this country needs, including new towns. We therefore must resist the temptation to do this.

However, we understand the concerns from noble Lords, and to further stress the importance of prioritising brownfield land over greenfield land the Government are committing today to prescribing in secondary legislation that when preparing their spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayors and strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.

On Lords Amendments 89B and 89C specifically, spatial development strategies do not allocate or designate specific sites or land. That is a role exclusively for local plans. Instead, SDSs are there to set a spatial framework and to identify broad locations for development. It is likely that some of those broad locations will contain both greenfield and brownfield land, and it is for the local planning authority to work out which land should be allocated for specific purposes. We intend SDSs to be high-level documents that are relatively quick to produce, and introducing what amounts to a series of legal tests would serve to slow that process and open up potential avenues for legal challenge. This would have a drag effect on setting the framework for the development that the country needs. For these reasons I respectfully ask the House to agree with the Motion not to insist from the other place, and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not press her amendments in lieu.

I turn now to Amendments 41 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the noble Baroness, as well as my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Keeley, Lord Spellar and Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their insight and very constructive engagement on this issue. I am also pleased to have met the Music Venue Trust yesterday to discuss this amendment and to further understand its concerns. While the Government do not consider that primary legislation is the appropriate mechanism, we fully share the objective of ensuring that new developments do not unduly impact existing businesses. That is why my colleague in the other place confirmed on Tuesday that guidance will be updated to set clearer national expectations and promote best practice across local authorities. In parallel, we will write to local authorities highlighting the importance of this policy. This commitment will support national planning policy, which already carries significant weight within the planning system, while allowing decision-makers the necessary flexibility to apply it in the light of the specific circumstances of each development proposal, including a proportionate assessment of impacts and mitigation. Updated guidance will complement the steps we are already taking to strengthen the effectiveness of the agent of change principle.

As part of our most substantial revision to planning policy in a decade, we have recently consulted on setting out more clearly what information decision-makers should take into account in the National Planning Policy Framework. A policy approach is more agile than primary legislation, and we can continue to refine it based on feedback on how it is working in practice. This is exactly what we have done through our recent consultation. We sought views on whether our proposed policy is sufficiently clear, and we are currently in the process of analysing responses. I believe we have had 20,000 responses to the NPPF consultation.

Furthermore, as part of the NPPF consultation, the Government have been clear that the decision not to designate statutory national development management policies at this time will be kept under review, and we will return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcomes of supporting more effective decisions. Therefore, I am not persuaded that primary legislation is going to be effective or necessary. Taken together, our changes to policy and guidance will help to ensure that businesses and cultural venues are robustly protected from the effects of new development within their vicinity. This is what we all want to happen, and that was certainly echoed by the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

For the reasons I have set out, I hope the House will agree to the Motion not to insist from the other place. I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not press her amendments in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name has not been attached to either of these issues to date, but I give our support to both of them. They are both extremely important and I find myself convinced, having listened to the debate so far on both matters, that the case is sufficient for us to send both matters back to the other place. The issue is primarily about whether guidance is enough or whether one needs to place one’s intentions on a firm statutory footing. We need to put them on to a firm statutory footing—there is so much evidence that things are not working properly in either case and that the Government should think again. In either case, if there is a wish to test the opinion of the House, we would be supportive of it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the importance of prioritising brownfield land. The Government fully support the “brownfield first” approach, and we have set this clearly in national policy. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen this, including higher densities in sustainable locations and greater intensification of urban and suburban sites. However, to reinforce the importance of prioritising brownfield over greenfield land, the Government are willing to commit to prescribing in secondary legislation that, when preparing spatial development strategies, strategic planning authorities, including mayoral and other strategic authorities, must have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. Our intention is for the regulations to come into force this year. I hope this will further demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to a “brownfield first” approach. I assure noble Lords that this issue is being taken seriously. and I hope they will not insist on this amendment.

The agent of change principle lends itself to a policy approach, and I am concerned that setting it out in legislation would not provide decision-makers with sufficient flexibility to weigh up different factors in the planning balance. National planning policy, as it stands, already carries considerable weight in the planning system; it is certainly not “light and fluffy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described it. The National Planning Policy Framework is a powerful, material consideration in planning decisions and must be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Our consultation on a revised framework, which closed on 10 March, proposes the most significant rewrite since its introduction over a decade ago, with clearer, more rules-based policies designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler plans.

Through this consultation, we propose strengthening the existing agent of change policy, setting out more clearly the matters to be considered, including the need to identify the nature of potential impacts and to engage early on with existing uses. The policy would be explicit that both current and permitted levels of operation of existing activities should be considered, which would include licences for music venues.

The Government have also considered introducing statutory national development management policies and have decided not to at this stage, given the impact that we expect the proposals in the consultation will have. We will keep this decision under review and return to it if the proposed policies do not have the desired outcome of supporting more effective decisions. We are currently analysing all the feedback we have received and will publish our response in due course.

Furthermore, planning practice guidance is clear that a range of measures should be considered to mitigate impacts from existing uses. This includes using good design, incorporating noise barriers and optimising noise insulation.

--- Later in debate ---

13:33

Division 3

Motion D1 agreed.

Ayes: 209

---

Conservative: 130
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 14
Non-affiliated: 4
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 145

---

Labour: 130
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 5

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36 and 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 36A and 90A, do not insist on its Amendment 155 and do agree with Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F.

36A: Because it is appropriate for the Leader and Cabinet Executive to be the principal type of executive arrangements for local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

155F: Schedule 27, page 286, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3)

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions F and F1. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments in this group.

Lords Amendments 36, 90 and 155 would remove from the Bill the provisions relating to local authority governance and executive arrangements. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the clearest accountability and lead to more effective decision-making in local government.

As I have said before, these provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance in England. Your Lordships will recall my previous reference on Report to my own experience as an LGA peer reviewer and the examples that I gave highlighting the difficulties with co-ordination, decision-making and clear lines of accountability that can arise in councils operating the committee system. The Government have listened carefully to concerns raised in both this House and the other House and have responded constructively.

I will comment on the CIPFA governance review. In 2025, CIPFA led a sector-wide governance review and issued a framework, Delivering Good Governance in Local Government, which emphasised the importance of clear executive leadership, defined responsibility for decision-making and the ability to maintain a single coherent strategic overview. The review highlights the risks that can arise where accountability is diffuse or decision-making is spread across multiple committees. Executive models of governance are better suited to meeting these principles than committee systems, where responsibility and oversight are more dispersed, and leadership, responsibility and accountability can be less clear.

On Report in the Commons, the Government brought forward their own amendments to ensure that councils that have more recently adopted the committee system, whether by council resolution or by local referendum, will be able to continue with those arrangements for the remainder of their moratorium period and, where agreed locally, beyond that point. We continue to believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance and respecting more recent local democratic mandates, while avoiding unnecessary disruption for councils that have only recently changed their arrangements. In addition, the Government have responded to concerns about changes to statutory notice requirements and their potential impact on local media by retaining the existing requirement for councils to publish notice of governance changes in at least one local newspaper.

Lastly, I emphasise that the leader and cabinet model is not a uniform structure. As the independent Centre for Governance and Scrutiny has highlighted, there are many variations in the way the leader and cabinet model can operate, allowing councils to adopt an approach to decision-making that best suits their needs within the overall model. The Government stand ready to support any council required to change its governance model to ensure that it is able to operate a version of the system best suited to its local needs. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords to agree the Motion that this House do not insist on these amendments.

Amendments 37 and 91 would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. We have heard noble Lords’ valid arguments about the important role that town and parish councils can play in delivering local services and representing their communities, and we agree with those comments. We have therefore proposed an amendment in lieu that helps to clarify the role that we intend parish and town councils to have within neighbourhood governance arrangements. The amendment adds an explicit provision to the clause that allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures.

Our intention here, which we will also set out when we publish our neighbourhood governance framework later this year, is that neighbourhood governance structures should include representation from town and parish councils where they exist in an area. The amendment gets the balance right. Some local authorities have hundreds of town and parish councils, so mandating the inclusion of each individual parish within structures would be impractical and inappropriate. Instead, we should ensure that we set a clear expectation of representation that retains the appropriate flexibility for places to develop the mechanisms that will work best for their communities.

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the creation of new town and parish councils. While it is right that decisions on the creation of new town and parish councils are and should remain local decisions taken by local authorities in consultation with communities through community governance reviews, we will commit to reviewing and updating the statutory guidance that supports this process. That has not been updated since 2010, so it is time for it to be refreshed with examples of good practice for establishing new town and parish councils.

Clause 60 aims to complement the work of town and parish councils where they exist and to ensure that all communities, whether or not they have a town and parish council, have effective ways to address local issues. We will be setting all this out in non-statutory guidance alongside the regulations. In addition, I can confirm that we will be publishing further principles of our neighbourhood governance framework later this year. It should be evident to your Lordships that we, too, value the role of town and parish councils, and see them as important contributors to effective neighbourhood governance.

In summary, there are three points here. First, our amendment in lieu allows for regulations to provide for representatives of town and parish councils to be included as members on neighbourhood governance structures. It is right that they should be included. Secondly, we have committed to review and update the statutory guidance on community governance reviews to better reflect good practice around establishing new parish councils. Thirdly, we have committed to setting out our overall intentions for how neighbourhood governance arrangements should interact with existing groups and institutions in a framework to be published later this year, ahead of laying regulations.

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 amendment in lieu. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Shipley]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F to the words so restored to the Bill.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just said, and I will add a couple of points. One is that in a committee system, every single member of the council has a role to play, has a function and is a part of the system. It is a really good way of encouraging good people to stand as councillors. In a cabinet system, nine-tenths of the council has nothing to do and you just get total disinterest in wanting to sign up for that, particularly if you are likely to be in opposition. We need good people in councils—we might even apply the same to Parliament. Having a system where only a few people have a real role to play is a big disincentive to seriously talented people joining an assembly of any variety.

Secondly, on Motion F1, as has been said I am a resident of Eastbourne, and we will have nothing that represents Eastbourne except a committee of a unitary authority, which may well have a completely different political make-up from the councillors elected in Eastbourne. There will be no way of expressing our voice as a community; we will just be waiting to be trampled on by other people’s ambitions. That is not the right way to run a local community. Yes, we need to improve on what we have at the moment—having one big town council with a runaway precept with no limits on it is not much fun either—so we need to think through what we should do at the parish level. But to have nothing—no initiative or sense that this is important—is a big hole in the Government’s thinking.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward his Motion on the cabinet model. In doing so, he raises a question about how best local authorities should be governed and where the balance should lie between consistency and local discretion.

I support this Motion to leave out Clause 59. The removal of the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure would allow local authorities the freedom to determine governance models that best reflect their local circumstances, as we have heard so strongly about in Sheffield. That flexibility is not only sensible but at times necessary. Local government is at its most effective when it is responsive to the communities it serves. Imposing a single governance model risks overlooking the diversity of those communities and the different ways in which effective leadership and accountability can be achieved. Allowing councils to make these decisions for themselves is a recognition of their democratic mandate and their capacity to govern in the best interests of their residents.

That principle of local discretion and trust in local leadership brings me directly to my Motions on town and parish governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have quite rightly championed the voices of town and parish councils. These communities represent the most immediate and tangible layer of local democracy, rooted in the everyday lives of the people they serve. I and many others have been very disappointed with the lack of strong support from the Government in this Bill for parish and town councils as part of our true local government. Town and parish councils are the custodians of local identity, the stewards of community assets and often the first point of contact for residents seeking to shape the places in which they live. For this reason, Clause 60 must go further.

This Motion is modest yet important. It would enable parish council representation within neighbourhood governance structures—not just maybe in them. We are not imposing a rigid requirement, but we are encouraging inclusion where it is appropriate. This is a matter of democratic coherence. If neighbourhood structures are to speak credibly for their areas, they must reflect the full spectrum of local government within them. Excluding parish councils, bodies with a direct democratic mandate, with the word “may” in the government amendment would risk creating a disconnect between decision-making and those who know their communities best. Such inclusion would strengthen collaboration rather than complicate it. We should champion and encourage this important layer of local democracy, and this amendment reflects and respects its role.

In short, this amendment reinforces a principle that has underpinned much of our debate: that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people they affect and that those already entrusted with local representation should not be overlooked. That is about empowering local communities. I therefore urge noble Lords to support both the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the Motion in my name as sensible, constructive steps towards more inclusive and effective local governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have championed localism and the voice of communities. It is therefore right that we now test the opinion of the House on these important issues.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to local authority governance arrangements. The Government have been clear and consistent in their view that executive models of governance, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide clearer accountability, stronger leadership and speedy and more effective decision-making for local government. That remains our firm view, and that is why we cannot accept these amendments.

However, as I set out earlier, this is not a rigid or prescriptive approach. The Government have listened carefully to points raised throughout the passage of this Bill and have responded. Councils that have only recently adopted the committee system will not be required to change immediately but may continue for the remainder of their moratorium period, after which they will undertake and publish a review of their governance arrangements. Meanwhile, the existing statutory notice requirements are being retained. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the executive forms of governance and the leader and cabinet model are also not rigid or prescriptive, but in fact leave room for flexibility in how they are implemented. While formally operating within the leader and cabinet framework, councils already employ a wide range of approaches to delegation, decision-making and scrutiny.

I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about most of the council doing nothing. I think that is completely wrong and denigrates the role that local councillors hold. Local councillors perform many important roles in councils, including scrutiny, licensing, planning and many other functions, as well as their very important role as ward councillors and, in the future, in the neighbourhood governance arrangements we are introducing. Some councils operate highly collective cabinets while others centralise decision-making. Some may choose to adopt a hybrid model, any of which can and should be employed best to reflect local needs. As I said, under the Government’s plans, councils that more recently adopted the committee system will retain this model.

In terms of evidence to justify moving away from the committee system, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. Decisions can be slower. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meetings were intensive, with six policy committees and nine subcommittees involving 78 out of 82 councillors. It can be much harder for councils to keep a single strategic view. Co-ordination across individual committees can be a persistent challenge. That same peer challenge flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments contributing to challenges in service delivery and communication.

Moving into and out of the committee system absorbs time and attention and increases administrative costs. Several councils that adopted the committee system later reverted to the leader and cabinet model, such as Brighton and Hove in 2024, and Newark & Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, both in 2022.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister is making the case in her answer that local discretion is required to move from one model to the other depending on local circumstance, rather than being centrally prescribed by Westminster.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am making the case that moving backwards and forwards between different models does not serve the public we serve.

Accountability can feel diffuse and unclear, with some councils judging the leader and cabinet model to be more transparent, agile and accountable. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge.

The Government are not seeking total uniformity of internal process but clarity and effectiveness at the point of accountability and delivery. Residents should be able to see who is responsible, and scrutiny should be able to operate against clearly identifiable decision-makers. That is where executive models, and in particular, the leader and cabinet model, add the most value.

Councils can and should adopt a version of the leader and cabinet model that best suits their individual needs. When we were in opposition, Hertfordshire County Council had a set of cabinet panels that were very good at both pre-scrutiny and post-scrutiny of decisions. Councils should learn lessons from operating a committee model and then move forward with arrangements that deliver against local priorities, while strengthening accountability, effectiveness and clarity. I therefore urge noble Lords to support the Commons’ position and allow the Bill to proceed.

Clause 60 is about community empowerment, giving people a stronger voice in shaping local priorities, while allowing local authorities to build on what already works locally. Our amendment in lieu strikes that balance, recognising the valuable role of town and parish councils, where they exist, and setting out explicitly that regulations can provide for membership of neighbourhood governance structures to include representatives from town and parish councils. Our intention is that neighbourhood governance structures should include town and parish council representatives, where they exist.

Some places have hundreds of town and parish councils, ranging from very small hamlets to larger towns, so we want to retain the flexibility for local places to work out the right arrangements for parish council membership within governance structures.

We will set out expectations of town and parish involvement in neighbourhood governance arrangements in a framework on neighbourhood governance, to be published later this year, and in subsequent guidance, once regulations are laid.

I always find the noble Lord’s rhetoric entertaining, but rhetoric it is, I am afraid. We have committed to review and update the statutory guidance that underpins the community and governance review process, including adding good practice. That is the proportionate way forward for locally led neighbourhood governance. I therefore invite the House not to insist on its Lords Amendments.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion E1. It has been a very helpful debate. Indeed, each time we have debated this issue it has been very helpful.

At the end of it, the issue is a simple one: are local people, who actually pay the bills, going to be trusted to make their own decisions about the governance structures that they want in their area? What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that one model fits all. There has to be an alternative, and people have to be enabled to maintain the possibility of effecting change.

Examples can be quoted of some things having worked well, and others not so well. In the end, the government issue is: let the local people decide on the model they think is best for them in all the circumstances they know about in their area. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House on Motion E1.

--- Later in debate ---

14:23

Division 4

Motion E1 agreed.

Ayes: 207

---

Conservative: 129
Liberal Democrat: 56
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 141

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 2
Bishops: 1

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.

37A: Clause 60, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, provide for the membership to include one or more members representing any parish council or councils within the neighbourhood area.”

91A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 37 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A, and do insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

14:34

Division 5

Motion F1 agreed.

Ayes: 197

---

Conservative: 125
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 8
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 144

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 3
Bishops: 1

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 94A.

41A: Because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

94A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

14:47

Division 6

Motion G1 agreed.

Ayes: 208

---

Conservative: 126
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 17
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 138

---

Labour: 126
Crossbench: 10
Non-affiliated: 2

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.

85A: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 103 to which the Commons disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

14:59

Division 7

Motion H1 agreed.

Ayes: 199

---

Conservative: 131
Liberal Democrat: 52
Crossbench: 6
Non-affiliated: 5
Green Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Labour: 1

Noes: 146

---

Labour: 128
Crossbench: 14
Non-affiliated: 3
Bishops: 1