English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons and Amendments

21:41

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

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”

[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, 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.

21:45

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.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I respect the views that have already been expressed. I also respect the views of the elected House on this matter, which have been expressed to us quite clearly on a number of occasions. This is an improved amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has put before us this evening.

I will simply say this. At some point it will become necessary to put this on a statutory basis, even if the Government do not seem ready to do so at this point. As part of the fan-led review, which I was commissioned to lead by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons, I visited every corner of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. One of the places where we held a round table was the Sub Club in Glasgow, which has benefited from the statutory provision of the agent of change principle in that residential flats have been built nearby in recent years and without any question the developers had to provide the mitigating measures that were necessary if they were going to be opening up residential properties next to an existing music venue with the existing noise—not noise nuisance but existing noise that was already generated by that valuable cultural institution in Glasgow.

As I have expressed clearly before, I think the right way forward would be to put this on a statutory basis. If the Government are not ready to do that and if this amendment is not successful—I appreciate that my report was published only last week and the Government will have to respond to it when the committee submits it to them for response—at the very least I hope that they will undertake a review of how these systems operate in Scotland, look at the recommendations in my report, and report back in due course to Parliament on their conclusions as to how the system is working in England in comparison with Scotland. It is my view that any dispassionate examination of that will find that putting these provisions on a statutory basis would be a better way forward.

However, I appreciate that the Government have accepted that the current system under guidance has not worked in an ideal way and want the opportunity to strengthen it and to prove that it can work in that way. If they undertake to review that and report back in due course, that would be an important step forward. On that basis, I very much welcome the comments from noble Lords and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

22:00

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.

Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.

I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.

I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.

I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?

The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create

“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]

It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.

Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.

In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.

Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.

Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.

This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.

Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.

The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.

I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.

Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard and addressed concerns over the role and importance of rural affairs within our devolution framework for England. I already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron, for their thoughtful interventions on this subject.

As my colleague the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities set out in the other place, mayors of strategic authorities should be in no doubt that they have the ability to convene meetings with local partners and to collaborate with neighbouring mayors on matters relating to rural affairs and coastal communities. Nor should there be any doubt that the Government have the power to provide additional functions for strategic authorities in relation to these matters where doing so will support them to deliver against their areas of competence. That is why the Government are proposing the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I thank noble Lords for their support for that change.

22:15

On ministerial powers of direction, the Government’s clear policy and established practice is to work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. Our commitment not to commence the powers for a period of time following Royal Assent will provide sufficient time for areas that do not yet have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals. We will also remove the ability for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. This strikes an important balance: it maintains the ability to secure access to devolution as a last resort while ensuring that decisions about adopting a mayoral model within existing non-mayoral authorities are made locally at the point they consider is right for their area.

The Government acknowledge the strength of feeling among noble Lords on the importance of prioritising the use of brownfield land for development. It is a priority that the Government share, but we still believe that policy is the most appropriate place to provide for this and that the amendment made by this House is unworkable. When the new rules-based wording in the new NPPF is published, that will tighten up the wording that applies to brownfield land.

I thank noble Lords for their interventions on agent of change and appreciate the arguments made once again on this topic by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Brennan. However, I remain convinced that a policy-led approach is the most effective means of addressing the challenges that have arisen in the application of the agent of change principle. Authorities are legally required to have regard to national policy when preparing statutory development plans, which form the basis for decision-making. The evidence does not clearly demonstrate that a statutory approach in Scotland has delivered materially better outcomes on the ground. Legislation can be inflexible and difficult to adapt. It would also cut across our wider reforms to streamline the planning and consenting process.

As I mentioned, we committed last week to updating planning practice guidance. It is simply wrong to say that planning practice guidance carries no weight. This would draw on established best practice to support consistent application across the country, including learning from guidance developed by authorities such as Greater Manchester, Brighton and Sheffield.

It was very clear from my meeting with the Music Venue Trust last week that the agent of change issues are only part of the issues faced by the music industry. That is why it is important to point out that the Government are already committed to supporting the UK’s music industry and will soon publish a music plan, with a £30 million music growth package over three years from this year. We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt a voluntary ticket contribution, where £1 from every stadium and arena ticket goes towards supporting grass-roots music. In 2026-27, all live music venues will benefit from a 15% business rates relief, on top of the support announced at Budget 2025. Their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years to allow vital infrastructure that showcases our vibrant music industry to continue to thrive.

I genuinely believe that taking a case-by-case approach informed by the type of development being considered and the type of noise involved, including the nature of the proposed location, is the best way forward. There are many different types of mitigation, such as engineering, layout, planning conditions, obligations and mitigating the impacts on areas likely to be affected through noise insulation.

Finally, local authorities can already take account of the agent of change principle within the current licensing system. We conducted a call for evidence last November on reforming the licensing framework, which sought views on whether there is value in strengthening the existing approach. I am very happy to look further at my noble friend Lord Brennan’s report and thank him very much for all the work he has done in his fan-led review. Once we have published the new NPPF and updated planning practice guidance, we will of course monitor implementation and keep this policy under review.

On local authority governance, the Government remain clear that executive models, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide the most effective framework for local decision-making, although we are making a small but important change to ensure that residents are properly informed of governance changes in their area. It is the clear will of Members in the other place to have these provisions relating to local authority governance and executives restored to the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to insist on his Motion but instead to work with the Government to ensure that any council required to change its governance model is able to operate a version of the leader and cabinet system best suited to its local needs. I have said previously that the cabinet executive model gives scope for pre and post scrutiny of decisions, and for members to get involved in cabinet panels or any other model that works within that system.

On neighbourhood governance, the Government cannot accept Lords Amendments 37 and 91 as drafted, but we have brought forward an amendment in lieu that addresses some of the concerns that have been raised. The proposed amendment provides that regulations made under Clause 60 provide for parish councils to be represented on neighbourhood governance structures. It goes further and places beyond doubt the expectation that local authorities should engage with parish councils about parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements.

We are also pleased to commit to reviewing and updating the community governance review guidance. We will start engagement for this work before the Summer Recess and update the guidance as soon as possible thereafter. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we will of course be speaking to the National Association of Local Councils to determine the best way to take this engagement further. That is the key body to work with, alongside the LGA, to make sure that we are carrying out that engagement in a way that works for them.

Alongside our commitments to update the community governance review and publish a neighbourhood governance framework, this is a proportionate and practical way forward. It secures meaningful parish engagement but avoids necessary prescription. I therefore ask the House to support these amendments in lieu, to insist on disagreeing with Lords Amendments 37 and 91, and to allow the Bill to proceed with a proportionate approach that respects parishes and supports effective neighbourhood governance everywhere.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.

89D: Because national planning policy already ensures that brownfield land is prioritised for development.

89E: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 89B to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

22:22

Division 2

Motion B1 agreed.

Ayes: 217

Noes: 145

22:33

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words restored to the Bill by that non-insistence on Amendment 155.

155H: Schedule 27, page 281, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Before moving to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with subsection (2), the local authority must—
(a) secure that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at its principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(b) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—
(i) states that the authority will be moving to a leader and cabinet executive,
(ii) states the date on which the change is to have effect,
(iii) describes the main features of the change,
(iv) states that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at the authority's principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(v) specifies the address of the authority's principal office.”

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

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 and 155H.”

22:34

Division 3

Motion C1 agreed.

Ayes: 210

Noes: 145

22:45

Motion D

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 91 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 91C to 91E in lieu.

91C: Clause 60, page 61, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In making appropriate arrangements in relation to a neighbourhood area in which there are one or more parish councils, the local authority must engage with the parish council or councils about parish representation under those arrangements.”

91D: Clause 60, page 61, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, make provision for the membership to include parish representation.”

91E: Clause 60, page 62, line 9, at end insert—
““parish representation” means representation of any parish council or councils within a neighbourhood area;”

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 94B and 94C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 94D and 94E.

94D: Because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

94E: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 94B to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94F and 94G in lieu—

94F: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments
After Section 70D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert the following new section—
“70E Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “noise-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing noise in the vicinity of the development.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 70(1), a planning authority—
(a) must, when considering under section 70 whether to grant planning permission for a noise-sensitive development subject to conditions, take particular account of whether the development includes sufficient measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effect of the anticipated noise of existing activities on the development from any existing cultural venues or facilities (including in particular, but not limited to, live music venues), or dwellings or businesses in the vicinity of the development, and
(b) may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for a noise-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that noise.””

94G: Clause 92, page 88, line 21, at end insert—
“(z1) section (Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments) (protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments);””

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened very attentively to what the Minister had to say, but I would like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

22:46

Division 4

Motion E1 disagreed.

Ayes: 58

Noes: 138

22:56

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

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 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.

123C: Schedule 1, page 91, line 18, leave out “, (4)”

123D: Schedule 1, page 91, leave out lines 31 to 37

123E: Schedule 1, page 97, leave out from line 25 to line 12 on page 98

123F: Schedule 1, page 98, leave out lines 36 to 38

123G: Schedule 1, page 105, line 17, leave out “, (4)”

123H: Schedule 1, page 105, leave out lines 29 to 35

123J: Schedule 1, page 111, leave out from line 25 to line 12 on page 112

123K: Schedule 1, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 3

[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 Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

22:57

Division 5

Motion F1 agreed.

Ayes: 199

Noes: 144