English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

251: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and(b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must publish an invitation for interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Government Whip may be pleased to know that my mother used to say that I spoke far too quickly. This amendment complements other amendments, which have been discussed, seeking reviews of one form or another. It is distinct in its scope and its timeframe. It would provide for post-legislative review within five years of the measure being enacted.

The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny. The problem is in delivering it. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. The law may be implemented in a way that does not deliver on what Parliament intended. Some law may never be commenced; this is what I have termed “law but not law” and is covered in Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Some law may be misinterpreted or poorly understood. We cannot properly know that without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, completing a legislative feedback loop.

As I said on our first day in Committee, success for the Government should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—this is how Ministers have tended to see it—but, rather, as delivering what it is intended to achieve. The answer is to ensure that there is post-legislative scrutiny. The Government are commitment to such scrutiny, at least in principle, and have been since 2008, when they accepted the recommendation for Acts to be subject to review three to five years after enactment. Giving effect to this is, in practice, more sporadic.

Some departments are good at such scrutiny, but not all are. The reviews are sent to the appropriate departmental Select Committees in the other place, but the committees have several tasks to undertake and following up on post-legislative reviews is not necessarily a priority. In our House, we usually appoint a special inquiry committee chair to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or Acts covering a particular subject, but we are—necessarily—highly selective. We are not able to compensate fully for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny in the Commons.

During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I argued the case for putting in provisions for post-legislative scrutiny where a Bill is large or complex; makes substantial changes to the law; is contested; and has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. This would have ensured that the Bill will be reviewed. Knowing that it will be reviewed serves as useful discipline for the Government. As I touched on in our discussion of Amendment 1, proposed by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, there is merit in adumbrating clearly the purposes of the Bill, providing, in effect, the criteria against which the Act may been assessed once it is in force.

This Bill clearly qualifies under the terms I have outlined. It is demonstrably large—the term “heavyweight Bill” would certainly apply—and complex. It makes substantial changes to the law; that is clear from the numbers of Acts that are amended by its provisions. It is contested, and it has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Norton and Lord Wallace, for their amendments in this group.

Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not specify how the objectives of the Bill are to be identified and, as such, it is not clear from the amendment what the Government would be required to report on. The Government already produce the annual report on English devolution, which covers many of the key elements of this Bill, including the establishment of new strategic authorities, and the functions and funding devolved to strategic authorities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 256, and I appreciate his desire to see primary legislation which passes through both Houses commenced following Royal Assent. I commend his desire to tidy up the statute book—I am a bit of a tidy-upper myself, so I appreciate that. However, it is my view that the Government should not prioritise parliamentary time and resource for the repeal of uncommenced provisions in existing Acts which have no impact on the effective running of local government.

Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that legislation which passes through both Houses is then commenced after Royal Assent, this amendment would not be appropriate and risks unintended consequences. Most provisions in the Bill will be commenced either at the point of Royal Assent or two months after it. However, some provisions will need to be commenced by Ministers after Royal Assent using commencement regulations, and some of these provisions will require secondary legislation or guidance to be published before the provisions can come into effect.

The automatic commencement of all provisions in the Bill risks unintended consequences, especially if powers are devolved to strategic authorities and communities without the necessary guardrails in place. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set an arbitrary date at which all provisions need to have been commenced. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to delivering on all the reforms in this Bill, so I ask that he does not move his amendment.

Amendments 257, 258 and 259 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Taken together, they would introduce definitions of the terms “community”, “local” and “neighbourhood” into Clause 86. The Bill already provides definitions where they are needed to interpret provisions effectively. Through regulations, we will define what a neighbourhood area is and set out the criteria for these arrangements. However, we recognise that there are differences between places and communities across England and we want to ensure that regulations include an element of local choice. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord not to move these amendments.

Turning to the government amendments, Amendments 261 and 262 remove the subsections on the publication of councillors’ addresses and the extension of the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority from Clause 92(4), which would commence them upon Royal Assent, and insert them into Clause 92(6), so they will commence two months after Royal Assent, as was the original intention for these measures.

Amendments 265 and 267 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 265 changes a reference from “regulations” to “secondary legislation” to ensure that order-making powers are also covered by the commencement provision and to be consistent with references elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 267 changes the Long Title of the Bill to replace reference to “local councils” with “local authorities”. This reflects the Bill’s application to authorities other than just “local councils” following an amendment made in the other place to extend the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I am sure that will be a great comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect.

I will move the government amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in Committee. We have had some great discussions, and I have really appreciated the contributions that have been made.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but extraordinarily worrying. It suggests that the Government do not know what they are committed to. All I am seeking is to put in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do anyway. By the sound of it, the Minister is reflecting a view that does not fully understand what the Government have themselves agreed to do. It sounds as if departments are acting in silos, because the response today is very different from the response of the Minister in Tuesday’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was very constructive and welcome. I was simply replicating more or less the provision that the Government accepted to that other Bill. As I say, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but very worrying in what it conveys. It reflects very badly on the department and is therefore something I shall most certainly come back to.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have to take issue with what the noble Lord is saying. I pointed out quite clearly that we already produce an annual report on devolution. Most of this Bill relates to the provisions that we are putting in place for the devolution agenda, so they will be covered in the annual report on devolution. It is not that the department thinks that we do not need to report on what is being done; it is that we already have a provision to report on an annual basis on the devolution agenda.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, there is a difference between reporting what is happening and actually reviewing an Act in its totality and—as my noble friend mentioned when we started this Bill, and as she referred to today—identifying what it is designed to achieve, its objectives, and therefore something against which it can be measured. That is why I think it is so important, and certainly something to which we will return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 251 withdrawn.