English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

31: Schedule 1, page 112, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The local authority of the local government area does not have any specific responsibility for and stewardship of the rights of its population under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent an area from being added to another combined authority, if that authority for that area has responsibilities relating to a protected national minority and language. It is intended that this provision would apply to Cornwall.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 31, I shall speak to my Amendments 33 and 34. I am very privileged to have a group all to myself. These amendments aim to safeguard Cornwall’s distinct constitutional and cultural position within the Government’s devolution framework. I thank the Minister and her team for the time they gave to talk through these amendments, and the noble Lords, Lord Hutton and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for adding their names to the amendments. I also thank the Public Bill Office for its efforts in crafting these amendments.

I must explain to the House that, although these amendments are on Cornwall, they do not actually mention that name. The reason is that, if these amendments were agreed, I am assured that they would hybridise the Bill—although London does not seem to have the same problem, as is so often the case in our affairs. That is why the amendments refer to certain European conventions, which I will come to later. Needless to say, in effect, these amendments refer specifically to Cornwall.

I will not take up a huge amount of the House’s time, but I remind Members that Cornwall is not traditionally part of England: it has its own language and its own Celtic culture and, indeed, used to have its own Stannary Parliament. Although it does not allow those traditions to get in the way of its future, there is still a huge pride in Cornwall’s own culture and history, among not just those who were born there and have a long pedigree of being Cornish but the many people who come into Cornwall to have it as their home and workplace. They too treasure the distinction that comes with that history.

I wish to make this point quite strongly: Cornwall is not isolationist. These amendments attempt to prevent moving towards a mayoral system, which has not been received well in Cornwall generally, and to ensure that it is not part of a wider authority; the Isles of Scilly could perhaps be an exception to that, but I am not here to speak on their behalf. We do not want to take on the Government’s devolution agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her excellent comments. This is the first time I have put down an amendment that has been rejected by the Government partly because it gets in the way of international treaties or something like that. I mark that up as a first, and I am sure Cornwall will be delighted to hear that news.

I take the point that discussions are continuing, and I stress again that this is not Cornwall isolationism. We are there to work with our friends in Devon on the other side of the Tamar and further up in the south-west as well. In the meantime, because even I must admit that the amendments are so highfalutin in terms of avoiding hybridisation, I will not press them, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.