English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I commend the Government for their Amendment 2. We had a good debate about this in Committee, with significant support from across your Lordships’ House for the Government to expand the list of strategic competences in this way. As I hope the Minister can hear, we are very glad that she has done so. As she can see from the other amendments tabled in this group, however, there remains enthusiasm for ensuring that we do not just look at culture but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board.

In Committee, the Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competences. Indeed, when one looks down the list, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, the environment and climate change and health and well-being. She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I am very glad that there is further encouragement, because we know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or have taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring.

As I said in Committee, when I had the pleasure of being the Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities—of all parties and at every tier—that were cutting their spending on culture and therefore missing out on savings in their health and well-being budgets, for instance, and missing out on opportunities for economic development. When one sees what is going on in some of the coastal towns around the Kent and Sussex coasts, such as Margate and Eastbourne, and when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north-east coast in towns such as Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts, culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of local authorities, so I am glad that this nudge is being put in. However, I am curious to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen their minimalist description of just “culture”, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in Committee and that other noble Lords have proposed.

I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Often, when people think about culture or heritage, they think of it solely as a subsidised sector. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right to talk about the importance of that: this is where the new, the experimental, the avant-garde, and the works that we will come to love in years to come can first be tried. However, most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised, and most of the live music venues that are struggling but surviving in our counties are small businesses. It is important to stress the commercial element of culture and heritage, and the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre do not know whether they are going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre; they are just glad that there is one there that is putting on things that attract people and boost tourism.

While there is enthusiasm for the opportunities presented by the visitor levy that the Government are embracing, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others, there is concern that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than fixing the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we see in some local authorities. If the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed. I commend the Minister for government Amendment 2, and I hope that, even at this late stage, she will look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.

In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, now that we are starting Report, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, just said. To me, the word “culture” means a lot of things: tourism relates to culture; heritage is part of culture; leisure can be part of culture; and the creative industries are certainly part of culture.

I commend the Minister for the decision that the Government have made to extend that list of competences, which is absolutely right. But whatever we say—or whatever the Government say—I suspect that the strategic authorities and mayors will say, “Well, this all interlinks, so let’s join it all together”. That is the role of the strategic authorities. So I welcome all this because it is helpful. All the contributions we had—from the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—have given us a dimension of what we mean in this debate.

However, I briefly repeat a note of caution that I raised in Committee: we would not want local authorities to think that somehow all these matters are transferred to the mayoral level. Heritage and culture—all these things—are actually very much a function of existing local government. With those words, I commend the Government for their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret not having taken part in Committee. If you come to the arguments on Report quite fresh, they have a curiously powerful impact. This afternoon, we have heard speeches on aspects of the amendments on rural needs and ambitions that have been very powerful. We do not have planning and development Bills that often, and I know my noble friend the Minister has been extremely flexible and engaged on many aspects of the Bill, but I do think that a Bill that claims to speak for the whole of development, in terms of the devolution settlement across the UK, and community empowerment has a duty to address the needs of the whole country.

We have had these debates about the absence of the rural voice, rural priority and rural needs as long as I have been in this House, for 25 years. The same arguments have been made by many of the same noble Lords and have grown in urgency rather than diminished. The loss of the unit for rural-proofing was very seriously misjudged.

If the Minister could give some further thought to Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend, it would be incredibly welcome. It is reasonable, proportionate and comprehensive in what it would achieve, to flag up the seriousness with which the Government take the contribution of rural areas to growth, building community and their specific needs, which have been neglected for far too long.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak about this based on my experience and the report I helped author for the Co-op commission on rural poverty some four years ago. What was clear to us then was the growing disparity between our towns and villages and our cities. The disparity manifested itself in the flight of public services: principally transport, but other services too. Unless we get the balance right with the creation of the new strategic authorities, villages and small towns will feel very much left behind, and that is not right or just. I know that that is not the Government’s intention. Amendment 310 goes a long way to trying to ensure that we get that balance in the right place.

Combined mayoral authorities are, by and large, a very good thing, but applying them to rural areas is difficult. In creating these new combined mayoral authorities, we have to ensure that a balance is sought between town and country. Otherwise, the smaller communities will feel left behind, left out and disadvantaged. We have to take measures to adjust and remedy that disconnection. Otherwise, I fear that the flight of public services and professional services in rural communities will continue apace. As I said earlier, that is not right or just, and it undermines the need in those communities for, in particular, new housing and new services related to housing.