English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this opening group, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his amendment highlighting the importance of heritage. I also agree with my noble friend that the word “culture” can mean different things to different people, so could the Minister please explain to us whether this will be clarified in guidelines? It will be very important that it is clarified.

The debate today clearly identifies the importance attached by many noble Lords to areas such as tourism, culture and heritage. However, it has also brought into focus a more fundamental issue with the Bill as drafted. A central question remains: what, in practical terms, is actually being devolved here? What do these areas of competence mean in terms of real power, real responsibilities and real outcomes? The response to that uncertainty cannot simply be to continue adding to the list. If the framework is unclear, expanding it risks compounding the lack of clarity rather than resolving it. We risk creating a system that is broader on paper but no more certain in practice.

There is also a question of focus. Strategic authorities will need to prioritise and deliver effectively. Simply extending the list of competences, however well-intentioned, risks diluting that focus and creating expectations that may not be matched by the powers or resources available. That is not to diminish the importance of the sectors that we have just discussed; far from it. Tourism, culture—whatever that means—and heritage are clearly vital to many local economies and communities. But the issue before us is not whether these areas matter; it is whether this Bill provides a clear and coherent framework for devolution. At present, we believe that there is a risk that it does not. Before adding further competences, we should first be clear about the purpose and effect of those already in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point directly.

--- Later in debate ---

So I find myself in support of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I think you have to do both. I think the guidance has got to give us embedding in every area of competence, but, in addition to that, to prevent problems being identified after the event, it is important that mayoral combined authorities, strategic authorities, have a rural commissioner who is responsible for ensuring that there is a competence to be delivered by a person on rural affairs and rural issues. If my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville is resolved to test the opinion of the House, I will be in the Lobby with her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I did not know that I had to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward important amendments in this group and for the debate highlighting clearly the different challenges faced by rural areas compared with neighbouring urban areas. I very well remember my social life at a bus stop in a rural village in Essex, and that was 65 years ago, so it is interesting that social life in villages is still at or by the bus stop.

I will start with Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The current areas of competence outlined in the Bill broadly cover the responsibilities of public officeholders. While we previously expressed concerns that rural affairs should not be considered in isolation, since Committee stage the Government have announced changes to ensure that a commissioner’s work can relate to one or more aspects of an area of competence, to tackle these cross-cutting issues. Therefore, we support this amendment to include rural affairs.

As it stands, the Bill fails to highlight the specific attention that rural affairs deserve. While it does indeed cover the environment and climate change, this is a more macro—and, I dare say, politicised—area of policy. Rural affairs are far more localised and are often the basis around which local economies function. They should therefore get specific consideration and be part of the responsibilities of these new authorities.

I would also like to thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendments. We entirely understand the desire to mandate the appointment of a commissioner to oversee rural affairs, and we support that sentiment, but we are hesitant to specifically legislate that mayors must do so. In the debate on group 9, we will highlight that we are rather sceptical of the proliferation of these commissioners in the Bill. These commissioners are unelected and often bureaucratic; we do not want them to absolve mayors of the responsibility that they were elected to hold. We have already outlined our support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which would add rural affairs to their areas, meaning that mayors would already be required to oversee rural affairs. I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendments none the less, and we will wholly support the principle behind them.

I believe that the same argument can be made for Amendment 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. If rural affairs is to be included in the responsibilities of strategic authorities, then, by definition, they will have the duty to consider the needs of rural communities.

We believe that accepting Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, would be the easiest way to achieve the end that everyone in this debate seems to be after: that rural communities’ needs are acknowledged and catered for.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, and her explanation as to why rurality is not in this Bill at all. Mayoralties are moving much closer to the more rural areas of this country and away from our cities and our more urban areas. It therefore seems sensible that rurality should at this point be taken into account. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, decides to divide on this issue, we on these Benches will support her.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, as I have said previously, principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This means they will play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. In this way, the Bill will ensure that all tiers of local government can work together in the interests of their local communities. With these explanations in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

8: Schedule 1, page 91, line 15, leave out paragraph (b)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Cornwall is a very distinct part of this nation; I thank the Government for recognising that. It has great aspirations for further devolution. I understand that it has to show itself competent in the devolution areas that it already has, and I believe it has done so. It is not isolationist. It has recently become the area where geothermal energy has first been proven to be successful for the future economy, and it will be a major source of strategic rare minerals, not least lithium. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.

There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.

We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.

This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.

As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that

“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.

Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.

Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

35: Schedule 1, page 114, line 13, leave out paragraph 42
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

39: Clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out from “CCA” to end of line 33
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment opposes the requirement that decisions of a Combined County Authority have the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a majority of members.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. These amendments address a fundamental question at the heart of this Bill: whether decisions of a combined county authority should depend on the agreement of the mayor or instead be determined by a majority of its members. At its core, this is a question of democratic balance. Combined authorities are designed as collective institutions bringing together elected councillors to reflect the diverse voices and experiences of the communities they serve. That purpose is fundamentally compromised if the will of the majority can be overridden by an individual. Requiring the mayor’s agreement is not a minor procedural step; it is a significant concentration of power that cuts against the grain of local democratic tradition.

In Committee, noble Lords raised serious concerns that granting the mayor what amounts to a veto could sideline the will of the majority and move us towards a more presidential model of governance. That concern is not merely theoretical. One can readily imagine a situation in which the majority of councillors support a vital transport or investment decision only for it to be blocked because it does not command the mayor’s agreement. In such circumstances, can it truly be said that the outcome reflects the democratic will of the area as a whole? If the majority view can be set aside so easily, what meaningful role remains for the collective body?

I recognise the argument made by those who support these provisions. Directly elected mayors bring visibility, leadership and a clear mandate, but strong leadership should not come at the expense of collective accountability. What is the value of a majority decision if it can be overridden by a single officeholder? Does such a system strengthen democratic legitimacy or does it in fact weaken it by concentrating power into too few hands?

These amendments seek to restore the balance for three reasons. First, they uphold the principle of collective decision-making. The authority should act as a body reflecting the range of communities it represents, not as a forum in which the majority view can be set aside by a single voice. If we accept that councillors are elected to represent their communities, on what basis do we justify diminishing their collective authority? Secondly, they reinforce democratic accountability. Councillors, like mayors, are elected representatives, answerable to their constituents. Where decisions are taken collectively by the majority, responsibility is clear. Where agreement of the mayor is required, accountability becomes blurred. In such cases, who is ultimately responsible for the outcome? Is it the mayor or the authority as a whole? Thirdly, they support effective and practical governance. Combined authorities must take timely decisions on transport, economic development, public services and many other things. A system that enables one individual to block decisions supported by the majority creates a clear risk of delay, deadlock and politicisation, particularly where political control is divided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.

Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

45: Clause 9, page 11, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Appointments under this section must be made following a fair and open selection process.(1B) The mayor must publish the criteria and process for appointment.(1C) The mayor must publish the agreed remuneration for the appointed commissioner.(1D) The mayor must publish details of appointments made under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process, and that the criteria and process for appointment are published, as well as their remuneration, in order to ensure transparency and accountability.