English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

140: Schedule 20, page 225, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that local growth plans explicitly take account of the statutory health duty and the proposed Health Inequalities Strategy. It strengthens the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the government’s intention that devolution should support inclusive growth and stronger communities, while maintaining local flexibility.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.

Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.

In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that

“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.

I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.

Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.

I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.

In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.

I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:

“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.

In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.

The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.

The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.

I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that this has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I am grateful to all contributors and for the amendments to Schedule 20 on local growth plans.

I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which draws our attention to the important role of mayors in addressing health inequalities in their areas. Through Clause 44, we are introducing a new legal requirement for combined and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of people in their areas, and to reduce health inequalities between people living in their areas. This will reinforce our ambition to ensure that health is considered in all policies and will support our health mission in England.

I add that the mayoral competencies set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform, so that means that that should be taken into consideration in all the work that the mayor and the strategic authority do. It is the Government’s intention that mayors should sit on ICBs, which I hope will start to address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Royall about how we get that linkage between what is going on in the national health and what is going on at local level.

There are some great examples across the country of what is happening—obviously, Manchester is the best known because it has specific powers to tackle health, and I really welcome that, but in a district council like my own, we took great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in our area to help the economy, such as tackling obesity, smoking and some of the big, long-standing mental health challenges that we faced, and we worked closely with partners in doing that. Of course, there is no better example of the contribution that local authorities can make to public health than the response of local authorities to the Covid pandemic, in those very unique circumstances, so we know it can be done.

Although I recognise that it is not explicitly stated in relation to local growth plans, I can reassure the Committee that this new duty will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. Indeed, as I said, many places are already demonstrating this awareness.

I know that many of my noble friends will be very sympathetic to the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in addressing these challenges—I know they are aware of my history in the co-operative movement. I hope they will also recognise that a key principle behind local growth plans is that they must be locally owned, in line with the fundamental principles of devolution.

I recognise the community wealth-building principles so clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and the example that she gave of Preston, which has been a leading proponent of using the power of public procurement and provision of infrastructure and services to tackle inequalities in its local area. That has been very important, and Matthew Brown and his colleagues have done a very significant piece of work on that. However, while we may commend those local examples, we must afford local growth plans the flexibility for local challenges to be addressed in response to the local context.

I hope my noble friend feels reassured that mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are already considering health as part of their plans, and that the new health improvement and health inequalities duty will achieve the desired effect. On that basis, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 141B is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and I thank her for all the discussions we have had around her environmental issues, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act and recently. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set out in guidance how mayoral combined authorities should align growth measures in their local growth plan with considerations of nature, wildlife and the environment.

I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, this is already possible. We have set out that the guidance on local growth plans can cover a range of matters. That includes the information to be included in a plan—that is to say, its content—and the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising other functions. But the guidance is not limited to just these matters; it can cover additional matters not explicitly set out in the primary legislation. I reassure the Committee that this enables us to set out the matters included in this amendment, should that be needed.

Secondly, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are already subject to several requirements linked to this amendment. This includes the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets, as well as statutory duties related to air quality. Local growth plans will provide an important framework for economic growth, but they will sit alongside a range of other statutory plans, strategies and duties. Decisions that impact protected species, nature recovery and the environment will still need to consider relevant policy frameworks—for example, local nature recovery strategies, about which we had much discussion during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for setting out so clearly how important it is to ensure that in our planning process, whether it is local growth plans or spatial planning, we aim to create that win- win for development and the environment. We made some significant steps with that in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I hope that local growth plans will contribute to that as well.

That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will feel reassured that the matters in her amendment must already be considered by mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I hope she will feel reassured that, should further guidance be necessary, it remains possible to set this out in the guidance on local growth plans. I therefore ask that her amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response, because she clearly understands the issues. I am super-grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords around the Room.

We are all absolutely in agreement that good health is a prerequisite for economic growth in our country. I realise that the Bill takes more account than ever before of the need for these new strategic authorities to act in relation to health and health inequalities. I hear all the frustrations around the Room about the fact that it has not really worked before. Manchester is working really well, and that is brilliant, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out, the dots simply are not joined, either in funding or in services terms. I know that a lot of that is because of the siloed way in which each of our public services receives its money. For it to work really well, we need to have properly funded local authorities and a well-funded health service.

This is a great opportunity, and I am sure that the Bill as it stands will take us a long way. Still, if we could have a statutory health duty in the Bill, it might be a catalyst for further action; it might be a real catalyst for discussion between the Treasury, the NHS and the MHCLG. I would really like to discuss this further with my noble friend before Report. I do not know how far we will get, but this is a great opportunity to make the system work better. I do not want to give up just yet, but I do not want to make her life a complete pain. I would like to come back to this matter before Report and have a discussion with my noble friend the Minister and her team but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 165A is in my name. It seeks to

“include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of ‘general health determinants’ that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality”.

My intention is to highlight to noble Lords that the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people is, to put it bluntly, a disgrace. I urge the Government to look at the outcomes at the moment for those who depend on wheelchairs and disability equipment and, basically, to ensure that local authorities and the NHS play their part in putting things right.

As the Wheelchair Alliance has said, at the moment, there are no consistent national standards, there is no independent regulation and there are few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints. As a result, many disabled people face long waiting times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being. It is the same dismal picture with community equipment, embracing hoists, hospital beds, pressure-related mattresses, grab rails, bathing aids, harnesses and all of the other essential items that we need.

The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment recently reported on the systemic crisis in this sector. Carers think that things are getting worse, and the system is inconsistent, underinvested, fragmented and lacking leadership. What is tragic is that this is easily sortable. I am convinced that, if we sorted this out, we would provide a better service at less cost, because the current system is just a complete and utter mess.

The reason why the Bill is suitable is because local authorities and integrated care boards share responsibility for community equipment. Wheelchair services and community equipment often reach the same individual; they should operate in tandem, but they are two distinct systems. In welcoming this very good clause, I would like an assurance that combined authorities, in collaboration with the NHS, will take their responsibilities in relation to wheelchair and community equipment services seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the difficulties that local authorities sometimes have in working with the health service and in the release of budget. Here we have a situation where both types of authority spend money inefficiently. I am suggesting that we could provide a much better service. Either the quality will be much better or we will have consistent quality, at least; I do not think that it will cost a lot of extra money as well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 166 would provide a clear mechanism for implementation and accountability of the proposed health duty, while maintaining local flexibility. It would require strategic authorities to produce a health inequality strategy and report on progress every five years.

In many ways, this follows the debate we had on earlier amendments. It is intended to provide a minimum standard and accountability for strategic authorities to adhere to, ensuring that they are meeting their new health duty. The requirement to report every five years was deliberately designed to be the same length of time as the proposed local growth plans will cover, to ensure that they better support one another in strengthening local economies and improving health. The amendment would also ensure that new strategic authorities will mirror existing practice in London, ensuring that health and well-being are embedded across all strategic functions.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. It in no way conflicts with the series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, so ably presented by my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I agree with the thrust of all she said. There is no doubt that, if Clause 16 is to be sustained, improvements to it, alongside those in the government amendments, would be useful. However, I do not favour that approach. I just do not believe that any part of Clause 16, which amounts to an unjustifiable fettering of the electorate—elect a good candidate or otherwise hand it to an elected mayor in office—should be sustained. Therefore, none of it should stand part.

The public are tiring of funny business in elections. I have laid amendments to later parts of the Bill that would make the cancellation of local council, mayoral and PCC elections illegal without the super-affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. Labour is playing fast and loose with democracy—a cancellation of a vote here and a postponement there, asking those with the most to lose whether they would like to stay a little longer, and bogus capacity excuses from councils that do not even run the elections. We read today in the Daily Telegraph a Labour NEC member of many years standing disclosing threats with menaces to Labour council leaders to connive to strip the franchise from more than 4 million electors this May.

When I was a young man, my noble friend Lord Pickles told me, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right then, and that advice is still correct today; it should never go out of fashion. We need to encourage as many people as possible to serve the public at every level. In my public life in local government, I took the view that I did not have the time to be a double hatter, or even triple hatter, by seeking to serve my community as a parish, district and county councillor—combining it with a business career was quite enough for me—but that is not how it is for others.

The fundamental principle here is that the public should get to choose their elected representatives. If somebody wishes to serve at more than one level, that option should be available to them, but they should be accountable to the electorate, not anyone else. It is the public’s choice. We often have people who serve at more than one level, amplifying the experience they gain at one level to the benefit of another; that was not for me, but it worked well for others.

I listened carefully to what my noble friend said, but Clause 16 is nothing more than a grubby stitch-up to prevent the public having their free say. It would stain a banana republic for certain citizens to be denied the chance to stand, especially those who had demonstrated a track record of success. I have not had time to consult my noble and learned friends but I am sure that I could get an advisory opinion that such action is contrary to international law. You would think that that would be enough to put the black spot on it, but not for this Government.

I sense that, in drafting Clause 16, there was some intent to prevent my noble friend, who served with distinction as mayor in the north-east—and whom the public elected once, then again—standing as a mayor and being in the legislature. It might have been the case that, as in the last Parliament, a county council leader is also an MP. In those cases, the Bill would force that person to choose, but, if you believe in democracy, it is not for him to make that choice—it is for the public, via the ballot box. Clause 16 is state overreach and a case of party-political interference. That why it should be deleted. I read the newspapers and have been in politics long enough to know what is going on here.

It transpired in the past week that the Labour Party’s own internal rules prevent a Labour mayor from sitting in Parliament. That is a choice for Labour and one that should be available to other parties, but it is not a compulsion to be forced on parties that have a different outlook and better principles. Do not just take my word for it. There are others who cherish democracy more than this Government. The Electoral Commission and the Speaker of the other place have had cause to criticise the debased commitment to the sanctity of the vote. We heard from the Prime Minister himself earlier this week that the reason why the Mayor of Manchester cannot stand in this mother of Parliaments is that it is part of Labour’s rules and has nothing to do with the candidate’s suitability—it makes no judgment on whether the candidate has the appropriate experience. No, the Prime Minister told us that the decision was driven solely by the unwelcome financial cost to the Labour Party of running a second-order mayoral election—so not by statute but by internal rules, which we all know change from time to time. That was coupled with the inconvenience of spreading more thinly the campaigning capacity of Labour’s demoralised and depleted activists.

The Government may have thought that they were being clever with Clause 16, by preventing local leaders from exercising national influence, but they have been pricked by the back-draught from the good folk of Gorton and Denton, which tells me that there is widespread support for the notion that Clause 16 should be excised from this Bill. The public know a lemon when they see one. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who introduced this Bill in the other place, now appears to have a case of buyer’s remorse, as the measures that she published are now being used to deny her Manchester mate from putting himself forward to the voters. That is some irony: it is not just back-draught; it is blowback. Of course, in the case of the Manchester man, that is for future service. However, I am anxious that in other cases there might be a question of retrospection. My noble friend highlighted Johnson and Khan, which is a case in point.

When I was the leader of the council in South Norfolk, which is an electoral authority, I was always careful, in so far as elections were concerned, to separate my role as leader of the controlling group from the administration and operation of the election and electoral matters. If successive returning officers who served me were here, they would confirm that approach. However, that is not how it works in Clause 16. The Prime Minister told us that he would put country before party, but those who continue to promote this Bill clearly did not get the memo, because Clause 16 is about putting the wants of the Labour Party before of the needs of the electorate. It prevents the electorate from having their say on who should be elected, especially somebody who has done rather well in one area of politics and who might do well in the other. It is an abuse of the people, the law and democracy.

We have heard it said that your Lordships’ House is standing in the way of the will of the Government and somehow it is improper and, as a result, we need to be reformed. However, with these amendments, we show that noble Lords are standing up for democracy and community empowerment. The denial of a free vote on candidates is the pure expression of community disempowerment. Labour should be ashamed of itself for Clause 16. It does not trust the folks, as my noble friend Lord Pickles advised all those years ago. No, for them, it is party first and public second. This clause proves this, which is why it must go.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

Can I just make a brief statement? While it is right and proper that each and every amendment and clause is debated, I deeply regret how party-political the last two contributions have been. What we are all doing here is trying to do the best for this country and not make these things party-political. I deeply regret some of the comments that have been made by people opposite.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a time for public sector agencies and all of us who have worked in the public sector to be reminded that the public sector does not exist for its own convenience: it is there to deliver to the needs of citizens, often at a time when they need it most. Authorities can do that only if they work effectively together and have regard for their partners when making the big decisions. I have come to the conclusion that that will happen only if there is a duty imposed on all public service partners to do just that. If we do it, we have a wonderful opportunity to change the culture of public services delivered in local areas from one of competition to one of co-operation. The benefits of that will be absolutely huge.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.

As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.

The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.

My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.

The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.

I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:

“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.


I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?

I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) rural affairs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add “rural affairs” to the list of areas of competence in clause 2 of the Bill.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for what he said in his earlier remarks.

The English devolution White Paper, published last year, set out the Government’s intentions for this Bill, including the exploration of

“a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making”.

The specific reference to “rural communities” is key, given that the Bill, as it currently stands, does not have a single reference to “rural”, “landscape” or “farming” in all its 371 pages. With the national focus on meeting housing targets, delivering large-scale infrastructure and supporting the Government’s growth mission, it is essential that rural areas are not forgotten and that rural communities feel that they have a genuine say in the decisions affecting them. It is important to note that 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural, with around 17% of the country’s population living in those areas. Rural areas have context-specific needs and challenges, and we should take this opportunity to ensure that these communities get the fair representation, strategic investment and support that they need to thrive.

Amendment 7 seeks to add “rural affairs” as an area of competence in Clause 2. Adding rural affairs to the list of competences would, in turn, allow mayors to appoint a specific rural affairs commissioner, if they so wish. As it stands, each competence in Clause 2 can be applied differently in rural and urban settings. There is a concern that in strategic authorities that contain both rural and urban communities, the strategic focus for commissioners covering these competences will lead towards the urban, with rural communities being treated as an afterthought.

Adding rural affairs as an area of competence would ensure that a specific rural affairs commissioner can be appointed to cover the range of needs of rural communities. It would also, incidentally, enable mayors to convene meetings with local partners, as set out in Clause 21, on rural affairs, and enable rural affairs to be one of the thematic areas on which neighbouring mayors can request collaboration, as set out in Clause 22. While Amendments 56 and 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have a similar aim of ensuring the appointment of a commissioner with responsibility for rural affairs, my amendment, in keeping with the objectives of the Bill, seeks to enable this to be an option available where necessary, with the decision on whether to appoint one ultimately being made locally. My amendment would also allow rural affairs to become a thematic area to which other functions in the Bill can refer, in addition to the clause on commissioner appointments.

As this Bill draws many provisions from the Greater London Act, there is a need to safeguard and ensure that measures being brought forward are not purely urban-centric in their approach and that different contexts are being considered across strategic areas, including those with significant rural populations. Amendment 128 would provide that method of safeguarding. This proposed new clause would place a duty on strategic authorities and their mayors to have regard to the needs of rural communities when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions. As a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network noted:

“Bill amendments that place a duty on combined authorities to consider the needs of rural communities would help ensure that rural housing is not overlooked in favour of urban-focused strategies and investment plans, and that accountability mechanisms are available to rural communities and advocates”.


I welcome Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would add public and active transport provision to the areas to which strategic authorities and their mayors must have regard. These would be vital inclusions to the duty relating to the needs of rural communities. I further welcome Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

Rural areas are important economic drivers for farming, food production and other local businesses, as well as tourism. According to the House of Lords Library, in 2022 predominantly rural areas of England contributed an estimated £315 billion in gross value added to England’s economy, representing 16.2% of England’s total GVA. Historically, investment has been focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire inward investment from the private sector and meet essential needs in food production, health and well-being. With their rich ecology and large landscapes, rural areas also present an opportunity to target investment towards significant gains around nature recovery and climate resilience. We cannot miss this opportunity to recognise the value of our rural communities.

Along with well-respected organisations supporting rural communities, including the Rural Housing Network, the Country Land and Business Association and the Rural Services Network, and as was highlighted in briefings by the Royal Town Planning Institute, I believe this Bill should be strengthened through the strategic focus on rural growth in these amendments. Their inclusion would help identify the enabling infrastructure needed to support rural communities and ensure that their needs are considered in recent and upcoming planning reform, as well as this devolution programme. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and thank her for introducing this group of amendments. I will speak to Amendments 52, 56, 60 and 260 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his support for all of them and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for signing Amendment 52.

The noble Baroness has fulfilled the first part of what the Royal Town Planning Institute—I do not think it is any relation to her good self—said in seeking a duty to consider the needs of rural communities. My amendments propose the second thing it asked for: the establishment of rural commissioners where appropriate. This answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Lansley about where in the Bill there is a legal basis to create other commissioners, so my amendments dovetail entirely with those in her name.

It is important to recognise that in the old days, in the first Labour Government to which I was elected— I was not elected; I was elected to the Official Opposition, let me get the facts right, my memory is playing tricks with me—one of their early proposals was to create regional development agencies, I think they were called. The beef or the grief I had with that was that, on paper, North Yorkshire, probably one of the most deeply rural, sparsely populated counties in the country, represented 11% of the population of the RDA. One would hope that one might get 11% of the funding, but we never got anywhere remotely near that.

Also, there used to be a policy of rural proofing. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, chaired a committee that looked into rural issues and focused quite a lot on rural proofing. That policy is still reflected on the Defra website, and there have been updates: the most recent one on this page was 2 December 2022. Rural proofing had a very special role to play. It ensured that every policymaker and legislator, like ourselves —so the Library note would have reflected this, presumably, on earlier Bills—would look at, assess and take into account the effects of proposed policies on rural areas.

Why is this important? Look at delivering a health service. My father was a rural GP; it is very difficult to access GP surgeries. It is even more difficult to access hospitals in rural areas. It was a 50-mile round trip from where I was brought up to the big hospital. Ambulances obviously have further to go. Look at delivering social care. Carers are not paid for the time they spend on the road, which is often not factored in. That is terrible and should be addressed. On education, we have had a terrible problem with school buses since this Government got rid of the rural deprivation grant, I think it was called. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority is getting the blame for having to revisit the provision of school buses and the taxi service to get children to schools which are more than three miles away from where they live. This policy has taken away the funding by scrapping that grant.

There used to be a rural commission in Defra which looked at all this rural proofing. I have mentioned some of the policy areas, but there are many others. Some 85% of England’s land area is classified as rural and 17% of the country’s population live in these rural areas, yet so often, particularly at local government level where there is an urban/rural mix, this is not reflected. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I had common cause—she will not disagree with me because it is on the record and I am not quoting her because she is not here—as we both opposed the orders for a metro mayor for York and North Yorkshire and I think that she, like me, also opposed the combined authority for North Yorkshire.

I believe that a metro mayor in areas such as Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester—I am being nice to north- west people at the moment—works where there is a concentrated landmass with a big population in that area. It is perfectly justified for those who wish it, but I do not think it works in rural areas. It certainly has not worked politically, because all the rural voters stayed at home and we have ended up with a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, which is not so excellent for those of us who live there. There is a lesson there.

I also believe that districts and boroughs were closer to the people. People knew exactly where the councillors lived and exactly what they were responsible for and felt that they were more accountable. We have also lost overall control. We have a majority of one now on the combined authority. Again, there was a political lesson that I tried to warn my Government about at the time, but it did not go quite as well as I would have expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Let me just check with my civil servants so that I do not say something I should not say. I believe that it has been published; I will send the noble Baroness a link to where she can access it.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and to my noble friend the Minister for her response.

I am of course delighted that mayors are empowered to support every part of their constituency; it must be their aspiration that they do so. It is very good that there are such broad areas of competence. I warmly welcome the great examples from Yorkshire and the north-east cited by my noble friend. However, I firmly believe that this Bill must be, and must be seen to be, relevant to and beneficial for all areas of our country. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, it is the case for many mayoral areas that, in population terms, such a tiny proportion of their constituents are from rural areas; it would be very easy to overlook their needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about rural-proofing. That is absolutely vital. I wonder whether we could have some discussions before Report on how there can be some sort of rural-proofing in this Bill. Personally, I would favour a duty that could be included in order to ensure that the needs of rural areas will be properly addressed. I recognise that it will be the desire of all mayors to ensure that they are properly representing and addressing the needs of all their constituents, but I fear that that might be very difficult when funding is stretched, as it is bound to be. I would like to see some means of ensuring that the needs of rural areas are properly addressed; perhaps we could discuss that further before Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Election Law

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lady Brown’s question about automatic registration, and following on from questions about young people, can my noble friend give me the assurance that at least young people voting for the first time aged 16-plus could be automatically registered? We know that voting is habit-forming and that we need participation in our democracy in order to give it strength.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I explained, we are doing our best to look at all forms of identification and how that might impact on voter registration. We want to be as broad-minded as we can. I will expand a little more. The secondary curriculum will also build on the introduction of civic citizenship at key stages 1 and 2 so that we can make sure that, at both primary and secondary age, pupils are getting an essential grounding in all the topics they need. We need to work on making sure that young people are not disfranchised because of the ID systems we use for voting. So we are putting our minds to it and will bring forward new steps in the elections Bill.

Homelessness: Homewards Initiative

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that—I know her passion for that particularly vulnerable community. Local authorities do have a responsibility to find those sites; we will continue to ensure that they do so. However, I will look at the latest figures and let the noble Baroness have them, and will let her know what we are doing extra to make sure that they are being delivered.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, in April, 8,000 Afghans were still living in hotels, 18 months after they were evacuated from Afghanistan. They have now been told that they have to leave that hotel accommodation and find private rented accommodation. If they are unable to find rented accommodation, will they be homeless, and if so, what are the Government going to do about them?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We have announced £35 million of new funding to enable local authorities to provide an increased amount of support for Afghan households and to move them from hotels into settled accommodation. At the same time, we have announced a local authority housing fund of £750 million, which will provide capital funding to councils in England to allow them to look at creative ways of getting more housing stock in, which will help the Ukrainian and Afghan arrivals. Together, therefore, we hope that we can get Afghanis into proper suitable accommodation as soon as we possibly can.

Inclusive Society

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this important debate and for her excellent introduction.

The need to build an inclusive society has been exacerbated by the pandemic and by 10 years of cuts in our public services and underinvestment in our communities. Even before the pandemic, the fabric of our society was torn. Now, it feels ripped apart, ravaged by fear and insecurity. The inequalities in our society have been exposed, and this very morning we heard evidence from the Resolution Foundation that young black people have been hit hardest by the pandemic.

I hope that Covid has made us as a society re-evaluate our priorities and made us value people for what they contribute to society rather than for what they earn. The extraordinary dedication of our health and social care workers, our teachers, our police, the amazing volunteers and the new sense of community that we have also gives us hope, but hope is not enough. As Michael Marmot has said:

“There is now an urgent need to do things differently. We must build a society based on the principles of social justice; reduce inequalities of income and wealth; and build a wellbeing economy that puts achievement of health and wellbeing, rather than narrow economic goals, at the heart of government strategy.”


The government mantra of “build back better” should be replaced by “build back fairer”. I live and work in Oxford, which has one of the strongest economies in the UK and tremendous assets, including research and innovation, but it is ranked as the second most unequal city in the UK. Housing affordability is a critical long-term issue, along with poor educational attainment, health outcomes and food poverty. As in every other part of the UK, both urban and rural, and despite the fact that we have a first-rate council which responded swiftly to the needs across the city, it is the disadvantaged who have been hit hardest by Covid.

There is, however, a great determination to bring about an inclusive economy, which I would argue is fundamental to the building of an inclusive society. In 2019, as chair of the Oxford Strategic Partnership, and with the support of the city council and the LEP, I had the privilege to moderate and participate in a series of seminars which brought together key national policy thinkers, anchor institutions, including the university—I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register—and the NHS, major local employers, city and county council representatives and community groups to explore solutions to ingrained inequality.

This led to the establishment of an inclusive economy partnership to take forward action to create a more equal city. Our work was delayed by Covid, but now we are working towards turning words into actions. Our ambition is to hard-wire inclusivity into the economy so that it delivers economic and social outcomes that benefit the whole of the community. We have working groups with a timeline for action on social value and procurement—my noble friend Lord Mandelson talked about the power of public procurement—inclusive employment and enhancing access to affordable commercial property and workspace, education and skills so that there is improved educational attainment, skills-based training and access to jobs in the new economy, and place-based interventions in targeted areas.

We are striving to engage a wide and diverse spectrum of the community so that we are responding to need and so that there is ownership by the whole of us as a society. The actions of the city, county and district councils are key, both the elected representatives and officers, who are also catalysts for action in this shared endeavour. However, we also need action by national government. We need increased local powers and flexibilities to work at the local and regional level, along with devolved funding from central government to test and scale up promising programmes. New forms of finance from complementary sources, including community crowdsourcing, social impact bonds and the private sector, are vital and require innovative design, investment and leadership.

I am confident that the Inclusive Economy Partnership will make a real difference, with public, private and third sectors all working together with community-based organisations, the universities, and colleges. There is a real understanding of the need for investment in our economic and social infrastructure—in our people. There is understanding of the benefit of collaboration and coherence and that the well-being of our society is dependent on the ability of all to have access to good education, health, well-paid work and a home; to live with dignity and respect without poverty in a sustainable environment; to thrive. I hope that this sort of initiative is taking place in cities and towns all over the United Kingdom.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate the point about timing. It is very important in a debate such as this that we stick to our times in order to allow all speakers to participate.