English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with Motion A. We have discussed brownfield prioritisation many times in this Chamber, and it is clear that we all agree that brownfield development should be prioritised. I am pleased that the Government have finally tabled an amendment to put that principle into legislation and therefore enshrine it in law. Time and again we were told that this is a policy matter and not for legislation, yet we do not take that approach when it comes to environmental obligations or other considerations. All we have pushed for is that brownfield is prioritised over these other considerations, which planners must take into account.

We appreciate that there are complexities and challenges in this and how the legislative changes relate to the NPPF. However, that does not mean that we should be complacent. Indeed, where is the Government’s enthusiasm to overcome the challenges of brownfield development, which people so clearly want to see? I hope the Government will follow words with action. The proof is in the pudding. None the less, we have come an awful long way on this. I thank the Minister for the time she has spent with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on this issue. It has been worth it to get what we all need, which is brownfield, not greenfield, and regeneration of our towns and cities.

I will speak briefly to Motion B. We have argued in favour of local choice, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his dedication to this. It has been very good working so closely with the Liberal Democrats throughout on this Bill, for no other reason than that we want a decent Bill to go through, because we are all passionate about local government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the issue has thrown into question the Government’s intentions behind this Bill. They say it is to empower local government, such as through letting local government choose its own governance models, but is it—as we rather think it might be—to impose the preferences of central government? It has been a valuable debate, and I hope it has perhaps made a bit of an impression on the Government as they go forward.

Moving to Motion C, I am grateful again to the Government, who have conceded to remove most of the powers of the Secretary of State in Schedule 1 to establish mayoral and non-mayoral strategic authorities or to impose a mayor without local consent. We accept the additional concession that the Secretary of State’s powers to expand the boundaries of strategic authorities will not be commenced for at least four years after Royal Assent. We understand the reasons why, and we again thank the Minister for her engagement on this matter. Our efforts will ensure that devolution is guided by local consent and that authorities are not pressured by the Secretary of State into changes they would not choose for themselves.

With that, I sincerely thank the Minister once again for her engagement throughout on the Bill and for the way it has passed through this House. I also thank all noble Lords who have debated this many times into the early hours of the morning for their passion for local government. I know the Bill is leaving in a better place than it was when we started and I wish it well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. This Government’s objective remains clear: to ensure that every part of England can benefit from devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about the level of centralisation we have had in this country. It is completely different from other parts of Europe—probably the rest of the world, come to that—and now is the time to change that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, reflected on the shared passion that we have across the Chamber. It has been obvious through the discussions on the Bill that we share our passion for local government; that theme has run all the way through debating the Bill.

Although we cannot accept amendments that would remove all the powers in Schedule 1, again, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords. We are content to remove the powers in Schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of mayoral or non-mayoral strategic authorities, or to direct there to be a mayor of an existing non-mayoral strategic authority. We have also committed not to commence the remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to a strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. Our Government’s preference has always been and, as I said before, will always remain to work collaboratively with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that meet local needs. We will continue to strive to do that and I hope the concessions we have set out today put that beyond doubt.

We acknowledge the strength of feeling among noble Lords on the importance of prioritising the use of brownfield land for development. As I have said before, we all share this priority. In recognition of the strength of feeling in this House and to further reinforce that, the Government have brought forward our own amendment on this, which will require the Secretary of State to make regulations that prescribe strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land.

As I said, our Government’s position on local authority governance remains that the executive models, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide a more effective framework for local decision-making. I hope that the amendment we have proposed today partially meets the needs that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has described many times during our debates. Respectfully, I hope that, having withdrawn his amendments, the noble Lord will recognise that. What we have put in now on this subject is a practical safeguard, not a change in the wider policy on governance arrangements, but I hope that it meets some of the needs that have come forward during our discussions.

I am grateful for the many contributions to this Bill and especially to the opposition spokespeople, both in your Lordships’ House and at the other end of the building, for working with us and for their time and commitment, especially today, in getting outstanding matters on the Bill resolved. I had the opportunity to thank the Bill team and my private office at Third Reading, but I reiterate those thanks now to them and to the House staff, who have supported us on some late nights on the Bill. I thank my honourable friends the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities for supporting me all through the Bill, as we went through its passage in your Lordships’ House.

Perhaps I am a bit biased, after 30 years in local government, but I genuinely believe that most decisions are better taken at local level by those who know best the places, people and communities that they serve. This Bill will now give local leaders the powers, funding and support they need to power up every part of our country.