English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2C.

2C: Line 2, after “affairs” insert “and coastal communities”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E, E1, F and F1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.

On Motion A, relating to Amendment 2, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke so clearly on the importance of rural affairs during our last debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her contributions. As your Lordships will know, the Government’s position has been that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we have heard the concerns put forward by noble Lords that rural affairs may be marginalised or ignored. We recognise that, as devolution is extended beyond the predominantly urban areas of England, it will be necessary for strategic authorities to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wider range of geographies, including rural and coastal areas. The Government have therefore accepted the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I hope that, on this basis, your Lordships will feel that their concerns have been addressed and that we can proceed in a spirit of consensus on this matter.

On Motions F and F1, relating to the amendments regarding the ministerial powers of direction, the Government have been clear that we will work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. To that end, we have already committed not to commence powers to direct the establishment of a combined authority or a combined county authority for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have listened and responded to concerns from noble Lords in this House about the scope of backstop powers set out in Schedule 1. We recognise that it will be important that non-mayoral authorities will have the opportunity to build capacity, capability and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For this reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. I hope that noble Lords can see that the Government have listened to concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.

89D: Because national planning policy already ensures that brownfield land is prioritised for development.

89E: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 89B to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words restored to the Bill by that non-insistence on Amendment 155.

155H: Schedule 27, page 281, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Before moving to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with subsection (2), the local authority must—
(a) secure that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at its principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(b) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—
(i) states that the authority will be moving to a leader and cabinet executive,
(ii) states the date on which the change is to have effect,
(iii) describes the main features of the change,
(iv) states that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at the authority's principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(v) specifies the address of the authority's principal office.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C and I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 91 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 91C to 91E in lieu.

91C: Clause 60, page 61, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In making appropriate arrangements in relation to a neighbourhood area in which there are one or more parish councils, the local authority must engage with the parish council or councils about parish representation under those arrangements.”

91E: Clause 60, page 62, line 9, at end insert—
““parish representation” means representation of any parish council or councils within a neighbourhood area;”

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.

Motion D agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 94B and 94C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 94D and 94E.

94D: Because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.

94E: Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 94B to which the Commons disagree.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.

123C: Schedule 1, page 91, line 18, leave out “, (4)”

--- Later in debate ---

123K: Schedule 1, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 3

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by