English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

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

[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 speak also to Motions B and C.

What a privilege it is at the end of this Session of Parliament to bring back the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place. This landmark devolution Bill will deliver the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster to England’s regions and communities for a century, sparking growth across our regions. New powers for communities will give local people the power and ability to protect their treasured local assets, such as pubs, provide a stronger voice for them in their place, and give increased powers to local leaders to deliver regional growth.

For each of the issues that are before us again this evening, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place. The amendments tabled today by the Government respond to the concerns that have been raised. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on these amendments. That House has endorsed the Government’s proposals, and I urge noble Lords to do the same.

I begin with the amendment concerning the ministerial powers of direction in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, the Government introduced new backstop powers for the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances to provide directly for devolution in an area where all other options have been exhausted and it has not been possible to agree a viable devolution proposal. Alongside these powers, we have sought to provide a simplified and streamlined route for creating new combined authorities, or combined county authorities, that will in turn become strategic authorities.

It remains the core objective of the Bill to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so devolution can be delivered more efficiently. For this reason, the Government cannot accept the amendments made previously by noble Lords to remove all Secretary of State-directed powers. However, we have heard the concerns from some noble Lords about the scope of the powers previously included in Schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying progress of the Bill and of ensuring communities can benefit from the powers that I know all of us wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in Schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral authority.

In addition, I am happy to repeat the commitment given by my ministerial colleague in the other place that the Government will not seek to use remaining Secretary of State powers to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that we have discussed at length, including application of the usual statutory tests and secondary legislation to effect the expansion that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, providing Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise any potential use of this power to expand an existing combined authority or combined county authority.

As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government’s policy and practice are clear. We are working with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their areas. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions that the Government have made in the other place put that commitment beyond doubt.

I turn now to brownfield land. The Government fully recognise the importance of prioritising brownfield land for development. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. It is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place. Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. The Government also consider the amendment proposed by this House to be unworkable. It would undermine effective plan-making and unduly constrain proper consideration of local circumstances. It would also create inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and other strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities.

However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development, and to further reinforce a “brownfield first” approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making power to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has previously been developed. This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues in the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s commitment to a “brownfield first” approach.

I turn now to the issue of local authority governance. As your Lordships will know, the Bill sets a clear default position. Councils currently operating the committee system, and which are not otherwise protected, will be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. This remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns from some noble Lords that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could potentially create challenges for some councils—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal during the transition period for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals. The government amendment agreed earlier today in the other place responds to those concerns.

The amendment allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. It provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution so that it is not required to undertake significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform. Instead, it provides a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points raised over the pace of change.

In conclusion, this is now the third round of parliamentary ping-pong. I hope noble Lords will consider that the Government have recognised their concerns—we have had very good and thoughtful debates on all the topics and many others that I have spoken about tonight—and are attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. I urge noble Lords to endorse the positions of the elected House and allow this Bill to be concluded as soon as possible.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to thank the Minister for introducing this third round of ping-pong and for her willingness to listen to alternative points of view and effect numerous changes to the Bill. The Government have demonstrated that willingness to compromise and alter. For me, this has been an example of the House of Lords doing a very good job that it is supposed to do, and that examination of the Bill has been a success.

As the Minister knows, I have said a lot during the stages of the Bill about the governance of local authorities; indeed, we have voted several times on those issues. I have come to accept that the time has come for the primacy of the House of Commons to be acknowledged. They are the elected Chamber; they have considered the issues we raised around governance, and they have concluded they want a single system based on a cabinet model. I remain convinced that local people should have a choice of governance models and that the 38 councils currently operating a committee system should be allowed to continue to do so for as long as they wish to do that. I also think that councils operating a cabinet model that wish in the future to change to a committee system should have the right to do so, led by local people.

As the Minister has heard several times, I have been critical of the Short Title of the Bill. It is called a devolution and community empowerment Bill; it is actually a Bill about decentralisation and does not do a great deal for community empowerment. But we have what we have, and we can build on it. I said at the very start of the passage of this Bill at Second Reading that I wanted it to succeed, and I really do. England is, with 56 million people, overcentralised. It is a process, not an event, when you devolve power to others. We all have to do that, and I think we can build on it. It requires all parties to work together to give a reality to the desire for greater devolution in England. As the Minister said a moment ago, this is about sparking growth, and a test for whether this devolution is a success is whether growth is sparked.

I hope the Minister will take seriously the commitment the Government have entered into for an annual review and update as to the success of the Bill. There was also a proposal in Committee or on Report for a five-year review in some detail, and I think the Government will have to do that as well. The jury is out on whether the Government are fulfilling the objectives they set for the Bill—within the Bill itself and in the White Paper on which it was built—and they will have to do a lot of work to make sure that they are.

I am aware there has been a long debate around brownfield and I am going to give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who will talk about that in greater detail since she led on that amendment. But I hear the reasons that the Minister has given. It is clear to me that there is a will to build on brownfield first. I think we all share the ambition to deliver housing targets and to deliver the development that the country needs. There is a protection in the amendment that the Government have brought in, and I am hopeful that the compromise that has occurred will be a productive one.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been managed. It has, in my view, been a model. I have appreciated that personally and I know my group have. We are in the midst now of creating a list of all the changes that have been made to the Bill. It is substantial, and that is due to the way in which the Government have entered the debate that we have had about how to improve devolution and community empowerment in England. I thank the Minister very much for that.