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.