Charities: Banking Services

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that easy, holiday-focused question on the last day of term. I also thank my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson, who got to the Treasury job too late to take this Question. Mine’s a gin and tonic, David.

We recognise the concerns raised by charities about access to banking services. The UK’s anti-money laundering regime is designed to be risk-based and proportionate, and banks are expected to assess customers on that basis, rather than applying blanket approaches. We continue to engage with the banking sector, regulators and charities to understand these issues, and we will keep under review whether further guidance is needed to support fair and proportionate treatment of civil society organisations.

Just to share my empathy with my noble friend, the Charity Finance Group’s 2024 survey said that 92% of charities had experienced at least one banking difficulty in the previous two years. That number needs to come down.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister address the issue of access for charities and others in rural areas? Two or three years ago, the Treasury issued a mandate that every resident should live within two or three miles of a bank branch. That has simply not happened. Can he address this as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Baroness is making; I live in south Devon, so I recognise the picture. We understand the importance to communities and high streets of access to banking services. The industry has committed to a rollout of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. Over 275 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 240 are already open. You can get a full list of hubs on the Cash Access UK website. If there is a particular place where there is no access to banking services, you can put in a petition, as it were, and it is obliged to look into it. This is an ongoing area of concern for the Government, and we have launched a review into access to banking services. I will happily talk more about that if noble Lords ask me.

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.

To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?

I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.

I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?

I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.

On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.

My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.

I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.

My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?

My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?

The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.

Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.

Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a recent court case set aside these informal and non-mandatory provisions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wants to implement the statutory basis of the 2010 Act to make these mandatory. Will she please agree to do so at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is referring to Schedule 3, which has been under consideration since 2010. It is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing the objectives of that. Although a final decision has still not been made, we believe this can be better achieved through continued improvements to national planning policy and the adoption of maintenance approaches, rather than commencing Schedule 3. That is why we have strengthened the national planning policy on that important issue.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.””

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Throughout the debate on this Bill there has been agreement across the House that there should be a focus on brownfield first, putting homes where they are most needed—close to jobs, facilities and infrastructure. It is better for the environment, helps to regenerate our towns and cities and saves our valuable green fields. The current crisis has highlighted the need to grow our own food.

While prioritising brownfield is in planning guidance, it is not working. Greenfield development continues to represent around 50% of all housing development, with the loss of around 50,000 hectares in the last three years according to government statistics—and that excludes solar farms. Why? Because it is easier and quicker for developers to build on green fields. If we are genuinely to move the dial, we need to do more. We need a more proactive approach. Strategic development strategies are an opportunity to proactively look at how more can be done to build on brownfield to regenerate those urban areas and build the homes we need, to remove barriers and to support doing the right thing. That is why we are moving this Motion to make clear that this should be the case and to give it legislative backing.

The Minister raised some concerns, and I appreciate the time she has given to discuss this. We have listened to those concerns and have changed our original amendment, which the Minister thought might have unintended consequences and, as such, legal challenges. Our amendment in lieu reframes this as policy-led and aligns more closely with how spatial planning operates in practice. We have specified the amendment as pertaining to spatial development strategies and have recognised that land is allocated to meet specific identified development needs. Our amendment recognises that authorities must have regard to relevant national planning policy; housing and economic requirements for relevant areas; environmental impacts; and deliverability and economic viability of brownfield development. We do not believe, as the Minister said, that it will cause delay. In fact, it is the reverse: this is an opportunity to have more sites available for development.

I reiterate that we are not seeking to stand in the way of development. Rather, we want authorities, mayors and central government to properly address and overcome the challenges of brownfield development. I hope the Minister will recognise the constructive intentions behind our amendments in lieu, on which I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I also thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her efforts on her amendment in lieu, to bring it more in line with the arrangements in Scotland while seeking to reflect English planning laws.

We must remember that this is not just about music or cultural venues. It involves several other existing businesses and facilities, which deserve recognition in this debate. I look forward to the responses from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend from the Front Bench, and I will speak to Motion G.

I take this opportunity to most warmly thank the Minister for meeting with a group of us this week and following that up with a meeting with the Music Venue Trust yesterday. I listened very carefully to what she had to say. I understood that, possibly, last week, the Government were minded to bring forward an amendment; it is still not too late for them to do so.

I declare that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate, and I would like to look to the Scottish model in this regard. The Scottish model gives a statutory legal basis, giving legal effect to the agent of change principle. The amendment is wider than the Scottish proposed law, which has now been in force for seven years, and our proposed amendment goes on to reflect English planning practice.

In the last seven years since the Scottish provision came into effect, the world has not caved in, and I do not think that, in that time, a significant number of music centres have closed, nor indeed have there been other instances of massive mitigation costs being sought. The Scottish provision has brought clarity and legal certainty to all those concerned. I am afraid I part company from the Minister: I think the House and the Government need to move on from light, fluffy, non-statutory policy to give statutory basis and legal certainty in the provision that I have set out.

We have set out in Amendment 94B that, in the event of an impact-sensitive development, regard is held and it is the agent of change—the new business—which takes any precautionary measures and pays the expense. It gives protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions resulting from new developments.

I am very mindful of the fact that this mostly concerns music centres in England. We have had some figures recently from the Music Venue Trust in this regard. This is a wider issue than that. It reflects the fact that we have an urban-based problem here—a conflict between existing businesses facing competition and restrictions perhaps being imposed by others. While it is without doubt mostly music venues that have been affected by mitigation costs and the risk of businesses closing, the problem is wider and arises from dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and mixed-use development. The beauty of the amendment before us today is that it engages planning, licensing and nuisance in a way that would resolve this problem.

I firmly believe that the Government would be sticking their head in the sand by trying to go along with fluffy, non-statutory guidance followed up by a letter, and I ask the Minister to explain what status a letter would have. The provision proposed today, which would come into effect two months after the Bill is enforced, would resolve the issues once and for ever. It would give clarity to planners, developers, existing businesses and practitioners, and we could move on from the constant lack of clarity and uncertainty in various iterations of the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance. I am minded to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94B and 94C in lieu—

94B: After Clause 63 insert the following new Clause—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions 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 resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “impact-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing activity 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 an impact-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 impact 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 an impact-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that impact.””

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who spoke. For all the reasons we rehearsed in our arguments when we moved the amendments, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

244: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to speak briefly on this revised amendment, which I have brought back from Committee. At the outset, I would like to echo the words of the Minister on the loss of Lord Beecham, who was a very charming colleague and a very hard-working and assiduous Member of this House. He will be missed, but his legacy, as the noble Baroness said, lives on.

In response to the amendment in Committee, I was delighted to get such warm and encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. He accepted entirely the issues of sparsity of population and distances to travel, and the introduction of combined authorities in counties such as North Yorkshire has compounded them. I took great encouragement from this response to the amendment, and it is why I have sought to echo the wording used by the noble Lord. I would like to quote from his comments. He said:

“The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise … engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format … Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 183]


Well, this is the time; this is the place, and this is the legislative opportunity. I am completely baffled as to why the Government are not seizing this opportunity, having responded formally to the consultation last year, to grab this issue and enshrine it in statute. Parliamentary time permits this today, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look favourably on this new Amendment 244.

This Bill, on English devolution and community empowerment, is the right time to implement such legislation. I would like to understand from the noble Baroness why in the Government’s view this is not the appropriate legislation to introduce what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so eloquently set out in his response to my amendment in Committee. I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to commit to this amendment. Were they not to, will the noble Baroness confirm that such legislation will be announced in the King’s Speech? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her usual thoughtful submission of the amendment and her moving of it. This is an important issue about how local authorities conduct their meetings, and the Government, as the noble Baroness will know, are very sympathetic to the aim of her amendment, that local authorities should have the flexibility to hold meetings online where it is appropriate to do so.

The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.

Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. On behalf of councillors in North Yorkshire who have approached me on this, I have to say I am deeply disappointed, for all the reasons that we have given. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure there will be other opportunities to bring this back.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

246: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a local planning authority construed in accordance with Part I of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities)(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this was debated some time ago, but if my memory serves me well, I believe it is an unacceptable position that we find ourselves in. We have heard from the music industry and from licensing and planning legal practitioners about how unsatisfactory the current situation is. It is actually delaying the Government’s own growth strategy timetable, because it is leading to unnecessary delays and tensions in planning decisions. As Scotland has now established on a statutory basis the agent of change principle, I believe if it is good enough for my homeland then it is good enough for England. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.

I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 100 in this group but congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on opening this group of interesting amendments. I thank the Minister for meeting us prior to Report and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility vehicles. It was an interesting and successful meeting, and elucidated that currently there is no definition covering this area.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

100: Schedule 5, page 146, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations must make provision for a licence to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I would like to clarify something on the Highway Code. The Minister was absolutely right that the Highway Code is available in hard copy. It is when it is updated more than once in quick succession that the changes are available only on the internet.

Amendment 100 not moved.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for moving the first amendment in this group so eloquently. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52, 61 and 326 in my name, but all the amendments in this group look to put rural areas front and centre.

For five years, I had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, and I was delighted with the work we were able to do to put rural affairs front and centre. I was very proud of the fact that we had a rural-proofing unit within Defra at that time, so it was a source of great disappointment to me that it was disbanded.

The 2021 census defines the rural/urban classification in this way: urban areas are settlements with a population of 10,000 people or more, and rural areas are literally everywhere else and include rural towns, villages, hamlets, isolated dwellings and open countryside. Nearly one in five of us lives in a rural area. The challenges facing rural areas are very different from the challenges facing urban areas. The cost of living is often greater. We are also off the energy grid and dependent on oil for delivery in most cases. In normal times, it is bad enough, but with the Middle East hostilities at the moment, it is a completely different situation.

Houses are often isolated, and there is a lack of housing, particularly small units of one or two bedrooms. All the developers seem to want to build four- or five-bedroom homes, for which there is not the same need in rural areas. Public services are sparse and cost more to deliver, whether it is accessing GP surgeries, ambulances or hospitals. School buses are a particular contention at the moment after the rural deprivation grant was slashed and abolished by this Government.

I personally regret the move to combined authorities and metro mayors—they are not suited to rural areas. When we debated the orders on the combined authorities and the metro mayors for North Yorkshire, only the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I spoke against the move. I know there was a feeling of great loss in North Yorkshire when we moved away from the districts and the boroughs which had served North Yorkshire extremely well over generations.

The definition of rural-proofing, according to the Government’s own website, is

“assessing what might affect outcomes in rural areas and adjusting policies or policy delivery when appropriate and practicable”.

I will preface the amendments in my name with remarks from some of the briefings I have received in preparation for today. The Campaign to Protect Rural England states very clearly that at present, many combined authorities are focused on large urban areas, with focuses on economic growth, transport and infrastructure. The Government have said repeatedly that they see cities and towns as key to economic growth and investment. Therefore, the CPRE is concerned that rural communities will be left behind as strategic authorities draw up their own SDSs. In a similar vein, the Better Planning Coalition briefing I received states:

“The concept of strategic authorities draws on the previous development of metro mayors for large urban areas. Much of their focus will be on economic growth, transport and other infrastructure … the Government is clear that it sees cities and larger towns as the focus for economic growth and infrastructure investment. There is therefore a risk that rural communities will be sidelined as strategic authorities draw up their strategies and develop their workplans”.


The model is not one size fits all. I can quite understand the argument for mayors in urban areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, where there is a big centre of population and a big mass, and where policies are more homogeneous and can be dealt with for a large centre of population. That is not the case with metro mayors for rural areas—it simply does not stack up. The needs of the residents of the city of York and of those of North Yorkshire are in direct competition with each other in terms of economic growth, culture, tourism and other areas.

My Amendments 52 and 61 seek to ensure that mayors in rural areas appoint an extra commissioner to have responsibility for rural areas. I am not wild about commissioners in any shape or form—it would be far better if the mayor set the priorities and that those elected to the office should have that focus—but my Amendment 61 looks at appointing

“a commissioner with competence for rural affairs if their authority is a majority or intermediate rural authority according to the Rural Urban Classification”,

to which I referred earlier.

For me, the most important of my amendments is Amendment 326, which goes to the heart of rural-proofing and making sure that not just one department—such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—should be responsible for rural-proofing. I would like to see a real pull from the Government to ensure that every policy that addresses rural issues is rural-proofed before it becomes policy. I will explain why it should not just be Defra. I am very exercised at the moment about the powers of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because it is directly opposed to the residents of rural areas, particularly those who live in open countryside, who do not want to have all these clean energy projects that will destroy not just their view but, quite possibly, their way of life and the value of their properties.

Amendment 326 seeks to ensure that, before any regulations are made under the future Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the future Act’s impact on rural areas, including its costs and benefits. Without that amendment, I feel that the Government will be wading into areas where they will be so focused on the issues of those living in urban areas that they will leave behind the interests of those in rural areas—including market towns, villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings—who enjoy the open countryside they have at the moment.

I will end with a plea. Local elections are coming up in May, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to be honest about what their plans are for future planning policy. If the Bill really has nothing to do with English devolution and community empowerment and will actually take away the rights of those who live in rural areas to object to some of the sites being proposed, particularly because of the clean energy schemes that I referred to earlier, then this is a wake-up call for those electors in rural areas and a one-off opportunity to reject what this Government are proposing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require

“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.

Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.

Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.

Historically, strategic investment has typically focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire forward investment from the private sector, and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here, as we move forward with this programme of devolution, with rural parts of the country now being covered at strategic level, to ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.

Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.

My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.

With 85% of the country’s land being classified as rural and 17% of the population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition of the value of our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include this duty and, at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in the Bill. It must be clear that the Bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the many and varied amendments in this group. For Amendments 41, 122, 123, 125, 126 and 308 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, we owe especial thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his efforts since Committee stage.

I begin with Amendment 41, which links the local growth plan to an authority’s preparation of its spatial development strategy. This would require spatial development strategies to identify policies of strategic importance to the priorities set out in the local growth plan. It is common sense that these should not be developed in isolation from each other, and we see no reason why their link should not be set out in statute.

Amendments 122, 123 and 125 would require mayoral combined authorities to identify the infrastructure projects to be included in a spatial development strategy and local growth plans in order to support growth, especially in relation to employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities. With the increased pressure on authorities to meet housing targets, it is more important than ever that these plans and strategies should be consistently co-ordinated. The Minister agreed with this in Committee and hinted that the revised NPPF may address this. Can the Minister confirm this and set out more details? Why should these amendments not form part of the Bill before us now?

Amendment 308 would simply require that neighbourhood priority statements be commenced under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, while updating them to match the provisions of this Bill. For those unaware, I point out that neighbourhood priority statements summarise what are considered to be the principal needs and prevailing views of the neighbourhood community in respect of local matters. This amendment would allow for both town and parish councils to make those statements—and include single foundation strategic authorities as well as development corporations with planning powers—to the relevant authorities. That sounds like community empowerment to me.

In Committee, the Minister stated that now was not the right time to commence neighbourhood priority statements due to the changes in the plan-making system, but if not now, when? Indeed, is there no better time than amid the restructuring of local government for town and parish councils to make clear the needs of their communities?

In the interests of time, I will comment on only two of the other amendments. Amendment 307 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner. In Committee, we on these Benches said that the proposal had merit; our position has not changed.

We also support the agent of change principle outlined in Amendment 246 to ensure the integration of new developments with existing businesses and facilities. Centuries-old church bells should not be silenced by a new neighbouring housing estate.

These are all important issues; I look forward to hearing a detailed response from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to a number of amendments I have in this group. I will limit myself to those in my name and in the names of others who have been kind enough to support them.

The Minister will be quite familiar with Amendment 120 at this stage. I read very carefully her comments in reply in Committee; I have to say that I still take issue with what she said. I would just ask her to think again, and to bear in mind that the department is responsible for preventing flooding and for dealing with situations where, for example, surface water flooding combines with sewage in combined sewers and can cause a public health issue by coming into people’s homes, forcing them to be evacuated.

The Minister will be aware that Defra is extremely keen to implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that there should be mandatory sustainable drainage in all major developments. I would ask her to think again. This is the one disagreement; I know that the Minister referred in Committee to the NPPF, but I believe it would be better to have this mandated to make sure that major developments have provision—there could be sustainable drains, ponds or culverts—to take the excess water to prevent these sewage spills which cause such grave issues when they happen, including mental health and public health issues.

The second part of the amendment deals with situations where there is no capacity to connect to major developments. The Minister may be aware that the Independent Water Commission chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe said that water companies should have the opportunity to say that they cannot connect and that there is no way for wastewater—that is, the sewage—to leave a major development. In light of the fact that the Government are going to bring forward major water legislation following on from the Cunliffe report, I hope that the Minister will look kindly at Amendment 120.

I turn to Amendments 124 and 127 and take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for co-signing them. They might appear to be of minor significance, but they are extremely important to enabling planning. The Local Government Association asked in its briefing that the Minister support these amendments. With culture having been given as a competence to mayors acting in their strategic role, it is extremely important that local growth plans should include provision about cultural venues. These two amendments together would seek to ensure that, so they follow on from the earlier amendment, now in the Government’s name, to add culture as a competence. I will not press the two amendments to a vote, but I hope that this is something that the Minister will acknowledge.

Amendment 246, I think, enjoys cross-party support. Let me take the opportunity once again to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as well as my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for lending their much-valued support, especially given the experience and expertise each of them have in this field.

We have had numerous attempts as a Parliament to introduce the agent of change principle. I was fortunate enough to serve on and to chair the ad hoc committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Great concern is caused among the cultural community where existing successful and well-established businesses face a development—normally a block of flats or something—built right next to them at a later date. Of course, the residents of the new block will then ask that changes be made, normally at the expense of the existing business, to make sure that the two can live together.

Adopting the agent of change principle into a statutory framework would ensure that in every planning application involving music venues, they would have, if you like, a higher right than newer developments in every community. This matter goes to the heart of the Government’s growth agenda, so the Minister must see that there is a great merit in this principle.

We are asking that we should have the same situation as exists in Scotland, where the agent of change principle is enshrined in statute. This would significantly shorten the planning process and empower local authorities—this is the devolution and community empowerment Bill, so I believe it is where such a principle should be placed —to have something specific and enforceable to go back to developers with when their plans did not consider existing music or other live entertainment venues.

We believe that the agent of change principle remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK. It is not perhaps the strongest protection of the businesses, but I think it is something that they could live with. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that

“we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 621.]

In my view, we have had so many consultations and very powerful evidence was given to the committee reviewing the Licensing Act 2003. Looking to the growth agenda, I remind the Minister that 35% of grass-roots venues have closed in the last 20 years; they are coming under increasing threat. I will listen very carefully to what she says in summing up, in particular on Amendment 246, and will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before we test the opinion of the House, when the time comes, could I just ask: if it is working well in Scotland, where there is a statutory basis, why are the Government so opposed to this? Does the Minister not realise that the guidance is simply not being adhered to, and practitioners are at their wits’ end on that basis?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to take back the points about Scotland, but we have conducted an extensive call for evidence on licensing, and we are carrying out an extensive review of the National Planning Policy Framework, so there has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute their views on that. In both cases, we will be analysing the responses and publishing our responses on the NPPF in the summer and on the licensing framework in due course.

Turning to Amendment 306, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I do not believe this amendment is justified or proportionate. We are concerned that adopting it now could have unintended consequences. The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the statutory consultee system and consultation feedback is now being reviewed. It is important that we allow this process to conclude before taking any decisions on consultation outcomes. Introducing fire and rescue services as statutory consultees in the planning process at this stage would therefore run ahead of the review’s conclusions and impose additional administrative responsibilities on these services.

Of course, I am aware—we have discussed it many times—that battery energy storage system developments are a particular area of interest. These installations are already governed by a robust regulatory framework overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which places clear responsibilities on designers, installers and operators to uphold high safety standards. In addition, planning practice guidance encourages developers of larger battery energy storage system schemes to work proactively with fire and rescue services. This guidance also encourages local planning authorities to consult with these services for these types of larger schemes and to take account of guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council when determining the planning application.

Alongside this, the Government are actively exploring whether further measures are needed to enhance the regulatory oversight of environmental and safety risks linked to battery energy storage systems. Defra’s recent consultation on modernising environmental permitting included proposals to bring battery energy storage system sites within the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is now considering the feedback received and will publish its response in due course.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 308. The Government’s position remains unchanged. Given the significant changes to local plan-making that we have recently set out, now is not the time to introduce neighbourhood priorities statements. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on when neighbourhood priorities statements will be introduced, we will consider the progress on them once the local plan reforms have taken effect.

The second aspect of this amendment would substitute arrangements made under Clause 60 for neighbourhood fora as the bodies permitted to prepare neighbourhood priorities statements. This is not the purpose of Clause 60. While neighbourhood planning groups, including neighbourhood fora, may be involved in arrangements made under Clause 60, their functions are separate, and should remain so.

New Housing: Flood Risk

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that my colleagues in local government, who address these issues every day through the planning system, as the noble Lord will be well aware, are more than alert to this issue. When the new authorities are set up, they will have more resilience in their planning functions because there will be fewer of them and they will be able to focus on planning issues using the capacity funding that the Government have put into planning. As importantly, there will be a strategic level enabling planning across a combined authority area, which will make sure that issues of flood risk are taken into account right from the strategic level to the local plan. We are developing our new National Planning Policy Framework and making sure that it supports local authorities to do just that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the sequential test. She will be aware that that was overturned recently in the case of Gladman in the High Court. Will her department respond to that case and ensure that the sequential test is met in every case?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That High Court judgment has been raised in recent debates on the English devolution Bill. I cannot comment on specific cases, but the case does not disapply the strong protections in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to development in areas of potential flood risk. The sequential test is a procedural step to assess relative degrees of risk and is used to steer development to areas of lower risk where possible. However, where development is necessary in such areas, the framework is clear that it should proceed only if made safe for its lifetime, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, which is the other danger. I reassure the noble Baroness that the sequential test remains firmly in place as part of the planning process.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

218: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others speaking to Amendments 219 and 220.

In responding on an earlier group, the Minister referred to the number of civil parishes in Cumbria. I would like to place on the record that, in North Yorkshire, there are 729 civil parishes, of which 662 are parish or town councils. It is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, county in the country, covering 8,037 square kilometres. That is on the North York Moors website; unfortunately, it does not give it in square miles.

Against that backdrop, I hope the Government will look favourably on a plea that local authorities should be able to meet on the same basis that we in this House meet, which is that, if you are attending a committee, you can attend remotely in hybrid form. For some reason that is beyond me, we are not extending that possibility to local authorities. Given the fact that North Yorkshire is possibly the most rural and sparsely populated county, I would like to give an example based on it. If a councillor is to attend council meetings in Northallerton, where the North Yorkshire Council—a combined authority, against my better judgment—now meets, on a good day that will take one and a half hours going one way, given that the roads are highly congested and, at this time of year, often quite dangerous with fog, snow, ice and other such challenges. On a bad day, it could take a lot longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for their amendments relating to council meetings.

First, on Amendment 218, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for raising this important issue, which she has rightly highlighted on numerous occasions in the House. I know that north Yorkshire, where she lives, is a large rural area, and I sympathise with her views on Sutton Bank. I live near there, just off the A19, and it is very steep; it is hard getting up there at the best of times, let alone in the middle of a snowstorm.

The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise democratic engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format.

Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised.

Likewise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his amendment on the issue of allowing councillors to participate in local authority meetings remotely. Noble Lords may be aware of the High Court judgment in 2021 that confirmed that local authority meetings, to which that case applies, must be in person and take place at a single, specified geographical location. This amendment would allow for councillors to join a meeting virtually, by video call for example, but only if the meeting was still happening in a physical room. It would not allow meetings to be completely remote. As I set out on the previous amendment, we are committed to giving local authorities the choice about how they hold their meetings. We would therefore not want to restrict any changes to just enabling hybrid meetings. Again, we remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this important flexibility for local authorities. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the open and flexible way in which he has drafted his amendment, I must ask him to withdraw it at this time.

I turn now to the other amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which would give the Secretary of State a power to allow members to vote by proxy at local authority meetings. In person debate and public participation remain fundamental to local democracy. However, we recognise that personal circumstances can, at times, make physical attendance difficult and create challenges for the continuity of local authority business. That is why we sought views through public consultation and, in response, confirmed our intention to plan to legislate in order to introduce arrangements that would enable proxy voting at local authority meetings. Such arrangements would support more diverse and inclusive local government while preserving the certainty and flexibility that local authorities need to set proxy voting arrangements which reflect local circumstances.

In the meantime, therefore, and where appropriate, substitute or pairing arrangements remain available. These arrangements continue to offer support to councillors during periods of absence while ensuring that the electorate are represented. Any arrangements to enable proxy voting at local authority meetings must strike a careful balance between maintaining transparency and accountability and modernising arrangements to support more diverse and inclusive local democracy. The noble Lord’s proposal for wide ranging central government powers to mandate and adjust proxy voting arrangements would mean Whitehall deciding operational details that are best decided at a local level. We have no desire to micromanage local authorities, as that would run counter to our approach to devolution.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short debate. I do not know which slippery slope my noble friend Lord Jamieson was referring to, but he did not address the issue raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Pack. If it is good enough for committees in both Houses that we meet in hybrid form, I fail to see why we cannot extend the same courtesy to local authority meetings in certain circumstances.

I am going to make a suggestion to the Minister that may not curry much favour in this Committee. If his Government were minded to delay the King’s Speech, there would be legislative time available, and the Government could then bring forward the proposals. If I have understood him correctly as saying that he is in favour of local councils having the opportunity to meet online in a hybrid format as well as in person, but not just now, that is extremely disappointing, obviously, given the contents and results of some of the responses to the consultation; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for sharing them. Some 86% and 91% of respondents were in favour, which shows that they are crying out for this. My noble friend Lord Fuller argued forcefully in favour of why these amendments are needed. Councils were able to meet in hybrid form and online in certain circumstances during Covid; if it was good enough for Covid, it should be good enough for the rest of the year.

I reserve the right to return to this theme on a future occasion but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 218 withdrawn.