English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I look forward to the responses of the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made quite a number of important points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.

I just want to say something in relation to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, including myself. I do not want to repeat what he has said—indeed, in debates on previous Bills we have had long discussions on the issue of chief planning officers—but I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. Let me explain a further reason why I think Ministers need to do that.

There are several areas of competence in the Bill for mayors. Four of them require planning advice. One is transport and local infrastructure, a second is housing and strategic planning, a third is economic development and regeneration and a fourth is environment and climate change. Each of those will have either an elected member or a commissioner leading, as it were—I will not say “in charge”, because commissioners have to report to the mayor, and the strategic authority would be making the relevant decisions.

The point is that in any one person, to have the professional capacity in each of those four areas of competence that I have identified, you have to have professional expertise. I do not see in either the Bill or the Explanatory Notes exactly how that is going to be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an unanswerable case for there being a chief planning officer who brings all these things together within a local planning authority and within the strategic authority. No doubt we will come back to this on Report, but I hope that the Government understand its importance. If you are trying to drive growth, you have to have professional expertise in place to do it and I suggest that chief planning officers are one of those positions.

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience.

I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward.

In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was involved in the London Olympics for 19 years, from day one. Our first meeting was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, with three of us, in 1999. These projects take a long time, and it was only after that first meeting that I dared to go and see the architect Richard Rogers at his house. When he heard our vision and thought about it, he decided to be part of the team as well, and one thing led to another.

It was a very long journey, and it did not begin as a development corporation. The ideas for what eventually became the legacy company grew up among a small group of leaders, including Sir Robin Wales, the Labour leader of Newham at that time, who focused, over many years, on the place, the history of the place and a vision for the future. It was a long journey.

When, eventually, we won the bid, lessons were learned and it did not begin as a development corporation. It became known as the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was a social business—for those of us who remember it in detail—which wanted to make sure we had the right people around the table who could begin to drive the legacy programme and not do what had happened in so many Olympic projects around the world, many of which I went to see, which had no legacy and ended in wastelands.

As we gained competence, what began to happen is that politicians and the system began to realise that we needed to be given planning powers. It was only after a number of years, as we grew as a company in skills and had a clear vision, that we became the London Legacy Development Corporation. The wise thing at that time was that the directors were not changed and moved on, and we did not have the usual churn that goes on; we were encouraged to stay as a group of people to follow through on this development.

What are the lessons learned over that very long period of time around this development corporation process? Our first lesson was to have a clear vision that is deeply rooted in the history of the place and the people who live in the place. That is absolutely critical.

Secondly, bring together the right people with the right skills and ensure that you have the right business skills on the board. It is not about having boards—if I am honest—that are just council representatives; it is about the right individuals from the public sector, the business sector and the social sector who come together.

Thirdly, good leadership with the right business skills is absolutely essential.

Fourthly, a development corporation has to take the long view. It will pass through different Governments and different local councils. It is really important that continuity is seen as an essential element of any development corporation.

Fifthly, create a learning-by-doing culture focused on quality, not a tick-box culture.

Sixthly, create integrated environments wherever you operate, bring people together and resist silos.

Seventhly, focus on people and relationships, not just process.

Eighthly, government needs to get interested in the detail. This is my thought at the moment. There are real lessons out there, but development corporations across the country are not all good and all the same thing. Get interested in the detail and what works.

Finally, if you look out there at what is going on, you will find that some development corporations are far better than others, some have had some successes and some have failed to learn the lessons.

This amendment is important, and I certainly want to support it, but the detail on this and the practice really matter.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.

I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing

“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.

This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.

First, Amendment 133

“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.

Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?

If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,

“including when disposing of it”,

in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just shared with us.

Earlier, I mentioned “learning by doing” cultures. What do they actually look like? We have been engaging in depth in east London for 42 years. We have pioneered a lot of the things that we now take for granted across the country in parts of the health service, including social prescribing. We have the long view. We spent time looking up the telescope, not down the telescope from government. When you engage in a local community in depth, you soon start to discover that health and wealth are absolutely connected—they are fundamental —yet the siloed systems of the state absolutely miss what all of this might mean and the opportunities that are there in practice.

The Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded and of which I am now president, has pioneered wide-ranging approaches to these precise issues over the years. Today, we are responsible for 55,000 patients and we have built 97 businesses with local people. If they were here, our integrated health team would tell you that, on a vulnerable housing estate in the East End of London, getting a job has more of an impact on your health than anything that doctors can do in our health centre. All of them would tell noble Lords this. Yet, despite hosting 70 Government Ministers from different parties coming to see us over the past 30-odd years, when we share all this, they all say, “Yes, yes”, then go away. Nothing changes. In Bromley-by-Bow, we are still grappling with 62 different funding sources coming from the Treasury, all of which go down into different silos. We then spend a lot of money, with our staff, on putting things together around the same families. It is ludicrous. I share this with noble Lords: lessons are not being learned. In my view, the fundamental question that is being asked in this amendment is absolutely critical.

This Government are starting to talk about prevention and getting upstream. I agree with all of that but, if you talk to our GPs and our team—we have 2,000 visitors a year, from all over the country, looking at our work—they will tell you that the jury is out on whether this Government are serious about joining the dots around these issues. We will go not on what they say but on what they do. As far as we can see, at the moment there is little evidence that these dots are being joined up, but, if the Government get interested in practice, there is a great opportunity for this Administration and future Administrations coming down the line. This is not a party-political matter; it is a matter for us all and for the health of the nation.

In the 1990s, we realised, through practice actually, that the only way to gain scale with these kinds of issues is to start to partner with the private sector. We took these relationships seriously and today, both in east London and in a programme I lead nationally, we work with the private sector around place-making, and I declare my interests. The private sector is also concerned and interested in these questions. People in the private sector have children and families. Get to know them, dig under the carpet and create learning-by-doing cultures with them, and you will find opportunities to take these kinds of questions to scale. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I hope that we will move beyond amendments and yet more talk into practice and detail and get curious about what this actually looks like for local people.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his salutary warnings. It is very real when you have the experience of somebody in a particular local area who can say that the dots are not joined and that the funding streams are too many and are simply not joined together. There is a huge opportunity here if the Government can take it. This amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seems to me to be central. I hope that the Minister is going to be helpful in her response. Local growth plans should take account of statutory health duties, and they should be brought together. There is a clear link between economic growth and health improvement. There should be that clear link. Health improvement has to be integral to growth plans. This seems to be unanswerable as a proposal, so I hope the Government will be in full listening mode.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, is important. It is helpful that she has proposed a way forward through statutory guidance. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There is a serious danger that growth plans will lead to competition between economic growth and environmental growth responsibilities. I think the Government can help here by publishing guidance on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the nuclear industry. I can think of other examples where there is a conflict between an environmental consideration and a growth consideration. Given the new world that we are about to enter with mayors and strategic authorities, clear guidance would be a big help in this area. I hope the Government will be in a positively responsive mood.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Freeman of Steventon, for tabling these amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 140 would ensure that local growth plans take into account statutory health duties and health inequalities strategies prepared by the strategic authorities. Councils have a crucial role to play and are often well placed to better understand and address local health issues, but I still bear the scars from trying to do this locally many years ago. It requires the NHS to devolve powers—and, as importantly, money—down. I tried. It was very positive to begin with —that is what they wanted us to do—but when push came to shove, acute hospitals always kept the money.

Until government can sort things out between the NHS and local authorities, that will not happen, which is a great shame. As we have heard, local authorities can create really safe environments that are more conducive to community well-being, promote healthy lifestyles and collaborate with other organisations to make really targeted interventions on the issues in their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I wholly welcome the Bill, and I am delighted to hear Preston and Manchester being cited as examples of good practice, because, as the Committee knows, the north-west was my region. However, I rise to support the principle that local growth plans should include provision for cultural venues, especially live grass-roots venues.

If we look to music and the recent success that we have had at the Grammys, we see young women from disadvantaged backgrounds who came through the BRIT School, a free school, and worked in local live venues. If we look to the recent UK success at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, we see young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been able to come through theatres and other live performance spaces, as the noble Earl said. We have, for instance, wonderful scripts, workshopped by local young people in local spaces, that then have huge success.

I particularly want to talk about youth theatre. People will be aware of the success of Liverpool’s Everyman Youth Theatre—I will stop talking about the north-west in a minute. I was born in Coventry. I have to say that youth theatre and youth education, which was provided in a joined-up way by the youth service at that point, gave me a pathway forward, and it gave a lot of my contemporaries an opportunity to have a way forward, as well as hope and participation, when a lot of our fathers were being made redundant from car factories in Coventry. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider including in local growth plans the provision of live cultural venues and the development of local cultural plans.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the four amendments in this group should be supported in principle. We had a lengthy discussion on cultural and heritage issues last week during earlier Committee days considering the Bill.

Amendment 147, on cultural ecosystem plans, really matters. I support this amendment because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what, particularly the funding of local cultural assets and support.

--- Later in debate ---

These are important questions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief because we ought to hear from the Minister on the range of questions that have been produced, and I do not want to simply restate them. I have always supported greater investment by local government pension schemes. I should declare an interest, since I have a very small local government pension from the days when councillors were able to be part of the scheme. I just make that absolutely clear, even though the sum I receive is really very small.

I have always wanted local government pension schemes to invest more in their areas to drive growth in their areas. It seems an entirely laudable objective, but it has to be consistent with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made clear in their explanatory statements, scheme managers have to remain independent and focused solely on the interests of scheme members. There are those two competing requirements.

I want to support the Government’s objectives here. This has to be the right thing to promote, although one has to be extremely careful. At this stage, that statement of principle from me is probably sufficient, and it would be useful to hear the Government’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 148, 149, 150 and 153. I will try to clarify the questions that she asked and, if I cannot, I am more than willing to write to her. Some of these pension aspects are very technical.

These amendments relate to the important requirement that strategic authorities work with the Local Government Pension Scheme funds in their area. This mirrors the duty to co-operate with strategic authorities placed on LGPS funds in the Pension Schemes Bill. The aim is to help strategic authorities to identify local projects that are appropriate for pensions investment and drive growth.

I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention, in tabling Amendment 148, to seek to broaden the provisions to include other employers participating in the scheme. The clause requires the strategic authority itself, rather than its constituent authorities, to co-operate with the relevant pension fund. In my view, this is the correct approach. Strategic authorities are responsible for driving local growth; as such, they should be aware of the interests of housing associations, admitted bodies and other local employers. An additional requirement for multiple other organisations to collaborate with the LGPS would place an unnecessary burden on those employers.

I turn to Amendments 149 and 153. I recognise the intentions to preserve the independence of LGPS-administering authorities and to reduce the burden of regulation on their functions. I assure noble Lords that the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duties of local pension funds in any way. The decision on whether or not to invest in a particular asset will be made by the asset pool, not the fund. This will help protect the fund against potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that all investments are made in the interests of the fund. Supporting guidance will be clear that investments should only ever be made where that investment helps the investing pension fund to meet pension liabilities.

The Government want to see funds and asset pools working closely with combined authorities, including corporate joint committees in Wales, in order to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities so that the investment might of the Local Government Pension Scheme can drive local growth. I share the view of the noble Baroness that this requirement must be workable. For this reason, the high-level requirement does not put a restrictive framework on exactly how strategic authorities must work with the scheme. It will be up to strategic authorities to establish a system that is workable for them. Further, I point your Lordships to the existing guidance for strategic authorities on the development of local growth plans, which supports strategic authorities in establishing a productive relationship with investors.

I turn now to Amendment 150. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for asking important questions regarding a requirement for funds to participate in an asset pool. Asset pooling is the cornerstone of the Government’s investment reforms for the LGPS, bringing significant benefits of scale and expertise. As I have said, the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set an investment strategy—the key driver of investment returns—will remain with funds, ensuring that they retain local accountability and decision-making and that they can drive performance. The duty in this clause is complementary to the duty that will be placed on LGPS funds through regulations made under the Pension Schemes Bill. It will work effectively only if the concept of participation is defined in the same way in both pieces of legislation. That is why the Government are tabling amendments to this clause to reflect changes that have been made to the Pension Schemes Bill.

A question was asked about pooling. Integrated models in which strategic advice and investment management are both delivered by the same fiduciary manager are commonly used in private sector schemes and internationally. These models can deliver greater value for money and economies of scale. Asset pool companies will be required to have robust policies and procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest. In contrast to external advisers, asset pools owned solely by LGPS AAs are expected to provide services in their interest. They do not stand to gain financially from the partner fund taking their advice or from providing poor-quality advice. I will look again at the noble Baroness’s speech in Hansard to make sure that we have covered all her questions and so that she has what we are doing in writing.

I turn now to government Amendments 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 157. These minor and technical amendments correct the definition of participating in an asset pool company. They will accommodate a pool company structure where the pool is owned by a holding company, thereby allowing an existing pool—the Local Pensions Partnership—to be included in the definition. This is not a change in policy but a correction.