Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association for Local Councils.

The Social Housing Bill attempts to address an important issue across many local authorities: namely, that we are not building enough social housing. Yet this Bill goes about this issue in completely the wrong way. There are, of course, some measures that we welcome. In particular, we welcome the Government’s efforts to give landlords and the courts more powers to protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It is absolutely crucial that victims do not fall through the cracks of the system, and we will support efforts to strengthen the Bill in this regard.

However, for the most part, this Bill’s focus is not on the development of new social housing; it merely moves the goalposts on the existing housing stock. This Government came to power on specific promises in their manifesto to

“prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock by reviewing the increased right to buy discounts introduced in 2012 and increasing protections on newly-built social housing”.

The first part of that pledge promises to prioritise the building of new socially rented homes, yet this is not what is prioritised in the Bill before us. Instead, the Bill goes into tweaking overdrive on the right-to-buy scheme. While we recognise the Government’s promise to review the discounts introduced in 2012, other provisions in the Bill represent an all-out attack on the right-to-buy scheme: a key Conservative legacy that has helped so many own their own home and has transformed social mobility across this country. Indeed, I heard the Minister describe the right-to-buy scheme as a “leaky bucket”. For a council that fails to build enough social housing, this may indeed be its point of view, but that is not whose side we are on. We on these Benches are not on the side of failing councils; we are on the side of hard-working families who do not want to be dependent on the state forever.

To be clear, we do not dispute that we need more social housing. Our population has grown rapidly, and development has not kept up with that demand. Under this Government, more landlords are exiting the market; unemployment is on the rise, especially for young people; and more and more people may be forced to look for social housing. But what do they find? They find the First Lady of Sierra Leone, who otherwise occupies a presidential palace. They find that social housing is being taken up by non-UK nationals, as was highlighted in the “Alternative King’s Speech”. Approximately 33,000 new social tenancies each year are going to households where the lead tenant is a non-UK national. At the same time, the Government invest around £4 billion annually to deliver roughly 30,000 new social homes. That is neither sustainable nor fair for British citizens.

According to the 2021 census for England and Wales, 72% of those who identified as Somalis live in social housing in the UK. That is an example of a dependency culture right before our eyes. This is not why the British taxpayer pays tax. This is not a functioning safety net, nor is it a welfare state working for its own citizens. Moreover, it is evidently not the right-to-buy scheme that is the problem here. We Conservatives know the solution. We need to build more new social homes for local people, not restrict their opportunities for home ownership.

We need the opportunity of right to buy, but at least one new home must be built with the money from the right-to-buy sale. If you do this, it is a win-win outcome. We need an honest and mature conversation about whom social housing is for and what the state can afford. We need to recognise that it is a finite resource and should be reserved for those who truly need it, without needlessly trapping people into welfare indefinitely and with no way out. We also believe that councils should have the powers to decide who to prioritise, such as those with existing connections to their local area, or veterans who have done so much for our country.

Reacting to the King’s Speech at the start of this Session, one Labour MP summed it up perfectly: “This is incrementalism”. That is exactly what we are seeing with this Bill before us now: tweaking with a successful scheme in order to weaken a proud Conservative legacy, rather than solving the problems the country faces today. This is red meat to appease Labour Back-Benchers in the other place, who—let us be honest—would rather see the right-to-buy scheme abolished altogether.

This is not serious policy direction, let alone a vision. This House and the British people deserve better. I repeat that there are measures in this Bill that we welcome, particularly to protect victims, and there are certain measures that we, of course, recognise as manifesto commitments. But we have serious concerns about significant aspects of this Bill: its implementation and commencement, the powers being handed over to the Secretary of State and all that is currently absent from the Bill to properly and adequately address the problems we face.

Where are the measures to keep larger social housing providers accountable to their local communities, for example? How can we make shared ownership schemes more workable in practice? How can we enable councils to have more choice over what works best for their residents? I look forward to hearing the contributions and insights of other noble Lords across this House on how we can make this a better Bill for the other place, and I look forward to engaging constructively with the Minister throughout the passage of the Bill.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, while the independent Rycroft review consulted political parties on political donations, the Government have singularly failed to do so. Why did Ministers fail to consult the Parliamentary Parties Panel on these measures?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that there was extensive consultation with political parties during the course of the drawing up of the Bill. The Bill is being debated in Parliament now, and representations can still be made in Parliament. It will be debated in this House in due course.

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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.

Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.

Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.

This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.

Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.

The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.

I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.

Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard and addressed concerns over the role and importance of rural affairs within our devolution framework for England. I already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron, for their thoughtful interventions on this subject.

As my colleague the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities set out in the other place, mayors of strategic authorities should be in no doubt that they have the ability to convene meetings with local partners and to collaborate with neighbouring mayors on matters relating to rural affairs and coastal communities. Nor should there be any doubt that the Government have the power to provide additional functions for strategic authorities in relation to these matters where doing so will support them to deliver against their areas of competence. That is why the Government are proposing the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I thank noble Lords for their support for that change.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I give my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing forward again her Motion A1 on the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences. I agree with every word she said, including about broadband and mobile reception in rural Norfolk, which I have to deal with on a regular basis. While we have been suspicious of the expanding role of commissioners, if this Government wish to push forward their reforms, it is only right that rural affairs be added to the list of competences.

I know the Minister has outlined that rural affairs are already within the scope of other areas of competences, but the same could be said about the addition of culture, for example. What is more, the Government tabled amendments on Report which allowed a commissioner’s work to relate to one or more aspects of areas of competence and allow work on cross-cutting issues.

I feel very strongly that a commissioner for rural affairs with a rural area as part of their responsibilities would allow that rural-proofing, not just of rural things but of all other services that the mayor is considering. As a result, my understanding now is that this would not mean that every mayor has to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs. That may not be suitable, as I have said, for each area. However, adding rural affairs to the list of competences would allow the work of commissioners to at least relate to rural affairs and enshrine them into law, rather than leaving them, as we have heard, to non-statutory guidance.

This brings me to the appointment of commissioners. I am very grateful for all the time that the Minister has given me and others and for her work and engagement on this and other issues. Amendment 4 sought to ensure a fair and transparent selection process for the appointment of the commissioners. I am very pleased with the draft statutory guidance, which fulfils most, if not all, of everything we asked for. I thank the Minister for early sight of that guidance and for assuring us that it has sufficient teeth so that mayors can be held to account. We will therefore not be pushing this amendment.

Turning to voting arrangements on the London Assembly, I am also grateful for the work that has gone into setting out the Bill’s exact position on this. It was very complicated, so it was useful to have that explanation of the voting arrangements for mayoral budgets, which usually require a two-thirds majority. But, as the Minister has continually said on the Bill, the Government want consistency. We are not all sure that we agree with that, but the Government have made it clear that they want consistency across the country—so why not in mayoral voting arrangements?

However, as we and the Minister have said, there are exceptions across the country. We have the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the North East Combined Authority and the London mayoral voting arrangements. Given that this extensive Bill seeks to simplify the system of local government as a whole, it is not clear why this has not been addressed. That is why we have tabled Amendment 87B, to ask the Secretary of State to review the London Assembly’s voting arrangements in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities across the country. I recommend that the Government do more work in this area to ensure that voting arrangements not only are consistent but allow sufficient democratic scrutiny of all mayoral budgets. I am therefore minded to test the opinion of the House.

Finally, I turn to our package of amendments to Schedule 1. On the Secretary of State’s powers to direct changes to combined authorities and combined county authorities, based on the principle that these changes should be based on local consent, I note that the Government have committed not to use these powers for two and four years respectively. Surely this concedes that their use is an unacceptable breach of local trust. We have made it very clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we do not agree with imposing any changes on local government, of any type, without the agreement of local councils and, particularly, of local communities. The use of these powers, whether by this Government or by a future Government, could do serious damage to the relationships between central government and combined authorities and, crucially, their constituency councils and their local communities. For these reasons, we remain concerned about the inclusion of these powers in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will see the risk that they pose, not just now but in the future, and will support Motion H1.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add some comments on rural affairs, but first, I am grateful for the Government’s movement on the appointment processes for commissioners. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I had a lot to say about commissioners, their appointment, and their terms and conditions. My worry throughout was that we should never get to a position in which commissioners are appointed for reasons of political favour or similar. What we actually need are the best people for the job. Therefore, the guidance that has been issued is very helpful.

On rural affairs, there is a problem in the documentation that we now have. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was absolutely right to point out that the Commons reason for rejecting our amendment was:

“Because the matters that are within the scope of the other areas of competence already cover rural affairs”.


That is not the case; they do not. The noble Baroness mentioned one or two of those areas. I will explain why this is not sufficient.

It is very important that rural affairs are embedded in decision-making among all the competencies that an authority has, such as transport. I am sure that they will be by the commissioners, the mayor and those charged with making decisions. The problem is that there are things that are not within the competence framework. One example is the impact of energy costs on domestic users and small businesses in rural areas. It is not clear that this lies within any of the competences that the Government have come up with. There are issues around the cost of living, and travel costs for young people to education and training. Indeed, many young people undertake placements as part of their education, and these require substantial travel costs. Travel is more expensive in rural areas than in urban ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to the communications problem. There are communications problems for young people, and all residents of rural areas, that are not within the competence framework that the Government have come up with.

In general terms, the availability of public services would simply fall between two stools. The provision of NHS services would have a different focus if there were to be a rural affairs commissioner, and the same is true of leisure facilities. One can think of many areas of policy that are not within the areas of mayoral competence, so it would be very helpful if the Government would come back to this.

Having said that the Commons disagrees with the Lords amendment, the Under-Secretary of State said,

“I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 244.]

It would be really helpful if that became statutory, as opposed to non-statutory, guidance. I would like to know more about what is planned and the timescales for that, because it really matters.

There is a danger. Some of these issues are of lesser importance in wholly urban areas because there are no rural areas within them. Where you have a wholly rural area within a mayoral structure, due attention inevitably will be given by the mayor. But I see a problem coming where there is a very large urban area and a smaller rural area in terms of population. That rural area may feel it is losing out. Unless something like statutory guidance is given, I think we will find, in a year or two, that people feel short-changed in rural areas.

That takes me to a final suggestion to the Minister. There is to be an annual review. The Government should state clearly in the other place—if the House decides that this goes back to the other place, as I hope it will—that an annual review to assess what is really happening on the ground could be very helpful. I hope the Minister will take in good spirit the points made across the Chamber. There are issues here that need to be addressed. If the noble Baroness decides to press her amendment to a vote, I will certainly support her.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 87B and 87C in lieu—

87B: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the voting arrangements for determining the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the situation of the Authority in the context of the budget-setting arrangements for strategic authorities in other regions, and make recommendations on whether there is a case for reducing the majority required for the Greater London Authority.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be published within one year of the passing of this Act.”

87C: Clause 92, page 86, line 34, at end insert—
“(ia) section (Review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement) (review of voting arrangements: Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement);””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1 in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just said, and I will add a couple of points. One is that in a committee system, every single member of the council has a role to play, has a function and is a part of the system. It is a really good way of encouraging good people to stand as councillors. In a cabinet system, nine-tenths of the council has nothing to do and you just get total disinterest in wanting to sign up for that, particularly if you are likely to be in opposition. We need good people in councils—we might even apply the same to Parliament. Having a system where only a few people have a real role to play is a big disincentive to seriously talented people joining an assembly of any variety.

Secondly, on Motion F1, as has been said I am a resident of Eastbourne, and we will have nothing that represents Eastbourne except a committee of a unitary authority, which may well have a completely different political make-up from the councillors elected in Eastbourne. There will be no way of expressing our voice as a community; we will just be waiting to be trampled on by other people’s ambitions. That is not the right way to run a local community. Yes, we need to improve on what we have at the moment—having one big town council with a runaway precept with no limits on it is not much fun either—so we need to think through what we should do at the parish level. But to have nothing—no initiative or sense that this is important—is a big hole in the Government’s thinking.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for bringing forward his Motion on the cabinet model. In doing so, he raises a question about how best local authorities should be governed and where the balance should lie between consistency and local discretion.

I support this Motion to leave out Clause 59. The removal of the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure would allow local authorities the freedom to determine governance models that best reflect their local circumstances, as we have heard so strongly about in Sheffield. That flexibility is not only sensible but at times necessary. Local government is at its most effective when it is responsive to the communities it serves. Imposing a single governance model risks overlooking the diversity of those communities and the different ways in which effective leadership and accountability can be achieved. Allowing councils to make these decisions for themselves is a recognition of their democratic mandate and their capacity to govern in the best interests of their residents.

That principle of local discretion and trust in local leadership brings me directly to my Motions on town and parish governance. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have quite rightly championed the voices of town and parish councils. These communities represent the most immediate and tangible layer of local democracy, rooted in the everyday lives of the people they serve. I and many others have been very disappointed with the lack of strong support from the Government in this Bill for parish and town councils as part of our true local government. Town and parish councils are the custodians of local identity, the stewards of community assets and often the first point of contact for residents seeking to shape the places in which they live. For this reason, Clause 60 must go further.

This Motion is modest yet important. It would enable parish council representation within neighbourhood governance structures—not just maybe in them. We are not imposing a rigid requirement, but we are encouraging inclusion where it is appropriate. This is a matter of democratic coherence. If neighbourhood structures are to speak credibly for their areas, they must reflect the full spectrum of local government within them. Excluding parish councils, bodies with a direct democratic mandate, with the word “may” in the government amendment would risk creating a disconnect between decision-making and those who know their communities best. Such inclusion would strengthen collaboration rather than complicate it. We should champion and encourage this important layer of local democracy, and this amendment reflects and respects its role.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 37A, and do insist on its Amendment 91, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 91A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A and 86A, 97A to 116A, 120A, 121A and 123A.”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That this House regrets the decision-making process that led to the need for the Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026 (SI 2026/142) and the indecision and lack of transparency surrounding the proposed postponement of local elections; and affirms the importance of those elections now proceeding as scheduled.

Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, some time has passed since I tabled this regret Motion, and this House has debated this issue in considering the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am glad that the Government have responded to our concerns to make sure that we do not find ourselves in this situation again. I want to be clear from the outset that we are pleased that our local elections are now proceeding as scheduled, but we still regret the decision-making process that led to this U-turn being necessary.

This is a simple but important issue. The Government’s handling of these elections has created needless uncertainty, unnecessary costs and completely avoidable confusion for local authorities and their residents. They did this through a decision-making process that was unclear, inconsistent and lacking in the transparency that councils and voters rightly deserve and expect.

On 22 January, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that the Government would proceed with postponing local elections in 30 councils until May 2027. Legislation to give effect to that announcement was laid on 5 February, and councils were told to plan on that basis. Less than two weeks later, the Government changed their mind. On 16 February 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asked the Housing Minister to reverse the decision that he had just announced. This revocation order was then laid the next day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.

I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.

I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.

In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask about the £63 million? Has this already gone out to local authorities? If it has not, when will it go out?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot answer the specific question of whether it has already gone out, but we have notified local authorities of what will be coming to them. When we spoke to them about the decisions taken as a result of the reorganisation, we spoke to them about funding as well. I will write to the noble Baroness with information on whether that money has gone out the door yet.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and to the Minister for her response. However, I reject the premise of the blame game that the Government are seeking to play. The power, responsibility and ability to cancel local elections lie with the Government and the Government alone. They made the decision to cancel these elections and then they made the decision to reinstate them.

I welcome the steps now being taken, in the English devolution and so-called community empowerment Bill, to put this matter on a clearer footing for the future and to ensure that this can never happen again. Although the Government did not go quite as far as we wanted them to, I am pleased that the House’s scrutiny has brought us to this point. This is just one of many examples of your Lordships’ House demonstrating the vital and constructive role it plays as a revising Chamber.

I will not be pressing the Motion to a vote today, but I hope the Government take a clear message from it: councils must be properly supported and transparency must be the rule and not the exception for proper, functioning democracy. Before I sit down, I would like to place on record our thanks to all the local authority election staff and their returning officers, given the extra work this has caused. We know that they will deliver a safe, secure and efficient election on 7 May.

Motion withdrawn.

Local Resilience Forums

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are very happy to take all suggestions as we refresh the guidance, so I am happy to speak to the right reverend Prelate outside the Chamber to clarify what he wants in there.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, effective emergency response depends on clear lines of leadership and accountability. In the context of local government reorganisation and devolution, when will the Government clarify who will be ultimately responsible for the co-ordination, leadership and performance of local resilience forums? The issue is that emergencies do not wait for the Government to review things and make plans. They happen suddenly and we need somebody leading these resilience forums.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why it is important that, as well as making sure that we look at how this is done in future with the trailblazer programme and understand what can be done better, we make sure we have ongoing resilience throughout the transformation programme. For those local authorities where there will not be a mayor immediately, announcements will be made before the summer about how local resilience forums will be continued during the process of reorganisation and devolution.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

1: Clause 110, page 111, line 34, leave out first “[paragraph removed]”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in my name. These are minor and technical amendments, which I understand have been agreed by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

2: Clause 110, page 111, line 34, leave out second “[paragraph removed]”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

4: Clause 110, page 113, line 10, at end insert—
“(ka) section 40 (brownfield land priority);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

6: Clause 110, page 113, line 30, at end insert—
“(za1) section 63 (promotion of parish governance);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

8: Schedule 1, page 115, line 10, leave out “[subsection removed],”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Moylan, for their constructive challenge throughout the debates. I am very aware of the challenges facing an Opposition Front Bench, and let me say how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and all the work that goes on behind the scenes with me and officials, as well as with opposition Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, deserves much credit from the House for her approach.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pidgeon, for all their work. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when she could not get her own shoes on because she had a fracture. I thank him very much for his last-minute work on the Bill; his contribution was highly valued. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me in the Whips’ role throughout the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxis and licensing has made this Bill a lot easier for me to deal with.

Many noble Lords from across the House have shared their valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this Bill. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Bassam. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the Bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the Day v Shropshire case. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.

We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so that they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. The Bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition.

Finally, I place on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this Bill: the Bill manager, Hannah, Caragh, Jenna-Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel; and to Nadja, Beth and Anna in my private office. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House: the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, the Public Bill Office and our excellent Whips’ team. We have not had as many late nights on this Bill as we did on the planning Bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here until 1 am that we had a whole team supporting us.

I am pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex Bill, both in Committee and on Report. While there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I think there has been a shared sense that this Bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we are seeing regional centralisation and, instead of community empowerment, we are seeing yet more direction from central government.

To many, it is still not clear why the Government have decided to pursue this course of action or what the underlying vision is behind the Bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, as we are seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe that we are beginning to see it now.

That said, we on these Benches believe that the Bill as amended on Report leaves this House as better legislation than when it came to your Lordships. I am pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land for development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas and to amend Schedule 1 to safeguard local consent in local government changes. In addition, in the light of the Government’s amendments to increase the number of commissioners that mayors can appoint, I am glad that our amendment to ensure that they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.

HMT “Empire Windrush”: 80th Anniversary

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. As of January 2025, over £124 million had been paid across to 3,866 Windrush compensation scheme claims, and 94% of claims have now received a final decision. We remain committed to improving the compensation scheme to make sure that it reflects the lived experience of individuals. In response to feedback from the Windrush commissioner, communities and claimants, significant policy improvements were announced in October last year and implemented in January this year.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is right that we recognise the contributions of the Windrush generation to our country. The previous Government introduced the largest Windrush grant scheme to support charities, local authorities and community groups across the UK. However, we must ensure that these applicants genuinely intend to benefit the communities. Can the Minister clarify whether, under this scheme, grants have ever been awarded to the Muslim Council of Britain?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that the grant system that the noble Baroness spoke about has designated around 700 lasting assets, from books and exhibitions to films, educational resources and help for communities to commemorate, learn and come together. I will respond in writing to her question about the Muslim organisation.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, none of us will forget the events of 14 June 2017. The shock we all felt is nothing to the pain that the Grenfell community have suffered. We can never fully appreciate the cost of the Grenfell fire to those who were there that night and those who are part of that local community. They have shown such bravery in their fight for justice and I pay tribute to that community, who have demonstrated such resilience in the wake of this tragedy. Through the inquiry, they have been fighting for justice for eight years now. I know that noble Lords across the House share my hope that that community will soon get some further closure.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, which represents an essential step forward for the delivery of a lasting memorial for the 72 people who tragically lost their lives as a result of the events of 14 June 2017. Every one of them deserves to be remembered. Their memory ought to be cherished, and Ministers are right to progress this important work to deliver a fitting memorial for the whole of the Grenfell community. Indeed, the memorial is not just for the 72 who died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire; it is also for the 74 people who were injured and for the friends and families of all those affected by the fire. It is also for those who live nearby and who have links to that community. It is for all those who have been affected by the fire.

I pay tribute to the Minister for continuing the hard work that was initiated under the previous Government. I am also grateful to the Minister in the other place, Samantha Dixon MP, for taking the time to meet me to discuss both this Bill and the ongoing work to support the entire Grenfell community. I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the Grenfell community since the fire, in both national and local government—the MHCLG in particular—the RBKC and its officers, the NHS, the voluntary sectors, the community groups and the memorial trust. Their work has been vital and I know that they will continue to support the Grenfell community.

I turn to the memorial itself. This has taken a long time and that is the right approach. It continues to be essential that work progresses at the community’s pace, not anybody else’s. The Conservative Government ensured that the memorial was budgeted for and I am pleased that the current Government have continued that support. As the Minister said, this is not a political issue. We must work together across political divides to do the right thing for the Grenfell community. Indeed, this is not just a memorial: for many of those who lost their lives in the fire, Grenfell is their final resting place. The site deserves to be treated sensitively and with dignity, particularly for their sake.

In government, we had a cross-governmental committee to ensure that the Government were supporting the Grenfell community. I ask the Minister: how are the Government continuing that cross-government work that we started? The work we did, for example, was on health. This community has health issues unlike any other, both mental and physical: fire, smoke, contamination and all those mental issues that come from being involved in such an incident.

Children’s services were particularly important to me when I was the Minister. The children who had been in their early primary years were now becoming teenagers. Many of them had spent all their childhood in families where Grenfell and the fire were continually there. They saw it day to day when going to and coming back from school, or going to the leisure centre, but their families were also damaged by what they had seen and heard, and what they had lost. I particularly hope, as those young people become teenagers, that we are making sure, across government, that they are supported, protected and helped.

When I talk to the bereaved and survivors, they tell me that there is still no justice, so what are the Government going to do to move this on, to give this community peace and the ability to move forward with their lives? With that in mind, will the Minister confirm that Ministers will continue to engage fully with the Grenfell community as work progresses on the memorial? My honourable friend in the other place, Gareth Bacon MP, said:

“The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/26; col. 706.]


That is a principle that Ministers should keep in mind whenever they are working on the memorial and the other measures to support this community. This was a local tragedy but also a national tragedy, and it is right that the nation should remember in a fitting and lasting way all those who were affected by the Grenfell fire.

We on these Benches are clear that the Government must make good all their commitments on funding, so can the Minister confirm that all the funding pledges will be delivered on time and in full? On a related note, the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate for those still living there is an essential project to ensure that the estate is fit for the 21st century, and as a lasting legacy from the bad times to a better time in north Kensington.

Will the Minister update the House on progress on the refurbishment? This work is ongoing, but there is still not clarity on the level of further financial support that may come from the Government. Will the Minister confirm when that final detail will be available? If she cannot, will she at least give your Lordships’ House a commitment to expedite this in the interests of local residents who would benefit from urgent clarity? It is clear that any further delays will only be for the worse for that community.

We have debated the Grenfell inquiry in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, and we know that there are people who bear some responsibility for the fire who have not yet been held to account. That is very important to the community. Will the Minister please provide the House with an update on progress towards delivering on the recommendations of the inquiry? How are Ministers furthering efforts to ensure that all those who bear responsibility for the events of 14 June 2017 are held accountable?

Before I sit down, I want to reiterate our firm support for this important Bill which will enable the delivery of the much-promised Grenfell Tower memorial. Ministers are right to continue the work of previous Governments to deliver a memorial that will serve the entire Grenfell community and indeed the nation. We wish the project godspeed, with the hope that it will give some closure and peace to the north Kensington community. We will support the Government in everything they are to deliver on promises made to the Grenfell community.