English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on what was—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before we were interrupted, I was just saying that we are very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on 11 February—it was as far away as that, and we have not met since then. If noble Lords think back, it was quite a substantial debate on quite a detailed group. It exposed three central questions, which the Government must answer before the Committee can be satisfied with Schedule 29. First, is community right to buy being strengthened, or is it being quietly diluted? Secondly, will the new way of doing it be workably practical? Thirdly, are we broadening community value or are we narrowing it?
I will begin with Amendment 222A in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. However carefully drafted Schedule 29 is, community right to buy will not function without progressive funding, and that is simply a fact. Under previous Administrations, community right to buy was not merely a legislative gesture; it was always backed by dedicated financial support. That funding was increased year on year. It was recognised that if communities are to compete with commercial purchasers, they require practical backing and not statutory wording.
I ask the Minister directly: what funding will operate under this regime? Will there be a National Lottery partnership funding, or are communities now expected to rely entirely on their own fundraising capacity?
Schedule 29 makes significant changes to the way assets of community value are defined and protected under the existing localism framework. A number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly step back and ask a more fundamental question: are we improving the system that communities rely on, or are we making it more fragile? Her amendments probe whether protections could fall away too easily, whether designated periods are being weakened and whether the balance is shifting away from communities and towards expediency. At the heart, this is about certainty for communities.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, take us to valuation and compulsory purchase. If market value is assessed in a way that takes into account speculative planning uplift, communities will often be priced out right from the very outset. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was designed to deal with precisely that issue. Therefore, I would like the Minister to explain why the Bill does not address this directly and whether the current drafting leaves community purchasers at a structural disadvantage.
Finally, Amendment 234B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, raises a practical but important point about maintenance. What is the point of designation if an asset can be allowed to decay beyond viability into the future? If local authorities are to hold these powers, do they also have the tools to prevent deliberate neglect?
This group of amendments reveals a consistent concern across the Committee. We support the principle of community right to buy. We introduced, funded and strengthened it. But Schedule 29 represents a significant rewriting of that framework. The Committee is entitled to clear assurances that we are not, through complexity or technical adjustment, weakening the very protections that gave the right meaning. The Government must now demonstrate three things: that the right will be properly funded, that protections are not being eroded and that the definition of community value reflects modern community life in all its cultural, environmental and sporting dimensions. If those assurances cannot be given, this House will inevitably return to these issues at a later stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments on the community right to buy and assets of community value, which I will refer to as ACVs. I know we debated this as far back as 11 February and, if it were not for the magic of Hansard, it would be a considerable memory test as to where we got to.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the determination of our Government to strengthen community right to buy and make it work. I will turn first to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject of funding for the purchase of ACVs. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we are already putting record investment into communities, supporting them to take ownership of valued local assets and ensuring that they can make effective use of the new community right-to-buy powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that if you do not do that, there is little point in having a community right to buy at all. Our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places to regenerate and improve their communities. The Pride in Place impact fund will also provide £150 million of funding for up to 95 places to support the development of community spaces, as well as revitalising local high streets and the public realm.
The Government launched the £175 million community wealth fund in September last year as part of our commitment to put power in the hands of communities and deliver on the Pride in Place strategy. The community wealth fund is funded, as the noble Baroness indicated, through dormant assets and match funding from the National Lottery Community Fund, our delivery partner. Disadvantaged communities will receive funding pots of between £1 million and £2.5 million each over a 10-year period, building community power in the places that need it most. Local people will have a say on where the funding should be spent, be that community cooking classes, after-school clubs, improvements to the look and feel of neighbourhoods, sports facilities or many other projects that have come forward for that funding. We believe that providing funding directly to the most in-need communities and putting them in the driving seat is the right approach. Communities can use their funding on the projects that are most important to them, including protecting local assets.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand all that money coming in, but it is targeted to certain communities. The community right to buy was for communities across the whole country. They had the ability to ask for support to save their pubs, or village or town amenities. I worry that those not in the schemes that the Government have now set up are going to be left behind.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The point is that many communities have managed to raise funding for schemes themselves. We are trying to target those communities that are less able to do that, and that is the point of the way in which this is funded.
Turning to Amendment 222D, I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to ensure that communities do not lose local assets that are important to them. She tabled an identical amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and, as she will be aware from the debates on that amendment, it is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings that may be designated as ACVs. This includes pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and so on. Local planning authorities are able to use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area where they consider it appropriate to do so.
However, as the Minister for Housing and Planning acknowledged during Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill,
“we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 362.]
The Minister has, therefore, already committed to consult on this matter. We intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish in due course.
I turn now to Amendment 222E on the listing period for ACVs, which was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Under the provisions in the Bill, a local authority must remove an asset from its list of ACVs after a period of five years, with the Secretary of State able to amend this period through regulations. Although we want to ensure strong protections for ACVs, we do not think that it would be appropriate to remove this requirement and thereby make the listing period indefinite. Our intention is to empower communities at the same time as protecting the rights of asset owners. Indefinitely subjecting asset owners to the sale restrictions created by community right to buy would not be justifiable, given that the value of an asset to a community may diminish over time. There is also a risk that local authorities would be incentivised to make tougher judgments on requests from the community to list ACVs if listings are indefinite. This would conflict with the intention of the policy to allow communities to protect as many locally important assets as possible.
The noble Baroness pointed out that sporting assets of community value will, by contrast, be indefinitely listed. This is to provide sports grounds with longer-lasting protections, in recognising their inherent value to communities as places that foster local pride and identity and promote healthier lifestyles. It also reflects the low take-up of sports grounds under the existing regime for ACVs. Eligible sports grounds will also be listed automatically, meaning that there is not a similar risk of indefinite listing resulting in tougher listing decisions by local authorities.
The current five-year listing period for ACVs recognises that the needs of the community can change over time and that an asset may not retain the same value for a community in future. The policy must be responsive to this, but I will of course reflect on the noble Baroness’s proposal to ensure that this period is the right length.
I turn now to Amendment 222F. I agree that the scheme should not be limited to assets with a current use that furthers the economic or social well-being of the community. There are many assets that have had a community use in the past and continue to hold significant value for a community. It is right that these assets are also in scope of the policy. That is why proposed new Section 86B already allows buildings or land that furthered the economic or social well-being of communities at any time in the past to be listed as ACVs. We believe that Amendment 222F is, therefore, not necessary.
I turn now to Amendments 223, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 on assets of cultural value. I agree in this case with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—I nearly always do—that it is important to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They ensure that artists can thrive and play an important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas. However, a broad range of arts and cultural assets will already be in scope of the protection through community right to buy, provided that communities are able to demonstrate a social or economic value to the community. Indeed, the provisions are clear that the social interests of the community include cultural interests. Statutory guidance will make clear the types of assets that we expect to be listed by local authorities if they are nominated; I welcome the noble Earl’s feedback on its development. This guidance will also be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy, with examples such as the spaces I have already mentioned.
The noble Earl will also be aware that the planning system already offers protection for cultural assets and that there is a range of other government support available for both these assets and the artists who use them. I hope he will agree that, taken together, these measures provide strong support for valued cultural spaces.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Is the department still looking for feedback on this? It may not be complete yet, so I thought I should ask that question.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Indeed, I would very much welcome the noble Earl’s feedback as we start to develop the statutory guidance on that. He is very welcome to comment further on the issues around this use of cultural assets.
Amendments 223A, 224A, 225, 226 and 228 are on assets that further the environmental well-being of local communities. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Freeman of Steventon—I am sorry that she cannot be here today but I will send a draft of my speech to her—that the community right to buy will empower communities to protect a broad range of assets that are important to local life. That includes environmental assets. Communities will be able to nominate an extensive range of environmental assets, where they further their social or economic well-being, through the current provisions in this Bill. This could include allotments, playing fields, woodlands and farms, to name but a few. Statutory guidance will make clear that local authorities should accept nominations for such assets that meet the criteria.
However, the scheme is not intended to be used as a vehicle for general environmental protection. While excluding land allocated in local development plans will be helpful in preventing the scheme being used to block development activity, it is important that it remains focused on those assets that have an existing or historic role in community life. Environmental problems are best tackled through effective regulation, and this scheme should not act as a fallback or proxy for that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I feel that, once you have left the environment out of the legal safeguards on this particular aspect, you are inviting people to ignore them. I am very concerned about that. I am not just talking about sorting out problems; opportunities for local people could be completely disregarded.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, there is a whole range of safeguards in the planning system for environmental purposes. This asset of community value is there for communities to enable them to protect particular assets that they find of value in the environment. We will be developing the guidance for this and I hope the noble Baroness will take part in that guidance. She asked me earlier today if I will meet her and I am of course very happy to do that.
I turn to Amendments 232A and 232B. I agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment that as many assets as possible should come into the scope of the policy; however, we have to recognise that there are some types of land that it will not be feasible or justifiable to designate as ACVs, as other interests may take precedence. That includes private residences and operational land used for statutory undertakings such as water, gas and electricity. It is right that the policy prevents the listing of land in these limited circumstances, which is why the Secretary of State has the power to set out land that is not of community value in regulations. We will continue to keep the list of exemptions under review to ensure that it is not unnecessarily restrictive and that communities can protect a wide range of assets.
Amendments 234ZA and 234A seek to broaden the definition of a sporting asset of community value. The current statutory definition of a sports ground in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 explicitly states that the ground must have a spectator facility, so that provides a clear objective framework to help councils assess eligibility for listing as an SACV. There is no comparable alternative legislation that provides a comprehensive or universally applicable statutory definition. Broadening this definition would place a considerable burden on local authorities to identify grounds they consider to be eligible for SACV listing and to retain up-to-date lists of them. Any ambiguity could lead local authorities to being less confident about listing these vital assets.
The current definition of an SACV, which encompasses the majority of grounds that have a spectator facility, will significantly increase the number of assets that communities can take ownership of under the new community right-to-buy scheme. Furthermore, a spectator facility is a sensible and objective indicator of community value. A ground with a built space for spectators is clearly designed for shared organised use and already serves a wider community purpose. Grassroots-level grounds that do not meet the definition under the 1975 Act will still be eligible for listing under the regular ACV scheme.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
If a council decides to designate, say, Hackney Marshes or some other area like that and it is clearly for sporting value, will it then get the same protection even if the council has not initially designated it because it did not have spectator facilities? Will it then get the same protection for life?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a very good question. Because those are sporting facilities, I would imagine that they come under the ACV scheme or the SACV scheme. I feel that they should be because they are all sporting assets but I will check that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.
In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?
We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody for their patience while we have had to adjourn the Committee several times for voting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his Amendment 222C and for his engagement on this matter. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for his very careful consideration and constructive efforts to address the issue at hand. We need a mechanism to close this lacuna in the law, while ensuring balanced decisions can be made in the public interest. In my view, Amendment 222C does just that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out, and as we discussed during debates on what is now the Planning and Infrastructure Act, there is currently no way of releasing such statutory trust if the statutory advertisement procedure is not followed. This means that the land is bound by the trust in perpetuity, which can risk holding up important developments that may be in the public interest—for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The amendment would provide a practical solution to this issue, while still ensuring that balanced decisions are made in the public interest. The noble Lord helpfully set out the safeguards enshrined in the qualifying conditions, which the Secretary of State will have to consider to make a discharge order.
The issues around community rights are, of course, very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this but the amendment would embed a robust public interest test and significant transparency safeguards. Before any statutory trust discharge order can be made, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all six of those qualifying conditions are met, including full compliance with the new publicity requirements and a broad public interest test. I remind the Committee that the conditions are: nature conservation, landscape conservation, public rights of access, features of historic interest or archaeological remains, development proposals, and economic, environmental or social benefits, which the order would facilitate, if made. This is a transparent, evidence-based process and it would ensure that trusts can be discharged only where it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so.
The purpose of Amendment 222C is to provide clarity for those who are already impacted by this lacuna in the law. It does not address past failures to follow the advertising procedure. However, it places additional requirements on local authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State to identify if this procedure has not been followed. Most importantly, the application process and advertising procedure in the amendment would maintain the core elements of the Local Government Act 1972 by ensuring that communities have opportunities to make representations, should they object to the release of the statutory trust held for public recreation.
The proposed amendment also provides that a statutory trust may be released only where this is in the public interest, which the advertised provision in the Local Government Act does not specify. I feel that, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has misunderstood the narrow focus and purpose of this amendment, and the rigorous guardrails that have been placed around it. We need a method of resolving an issue. This amendment effectively allows that public consultation to be responded to in a Secretary of State process where it has been omitted originally.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate, which goes to the heart of both public safety and the need for flexibility within our transport system. The proposed introduction of national minimum standards has an important role to play in delivering consistency across the country, but it is to be run alongside a system where local licensing authorities can add to those standards, as local flexibility and responsiveness is of course important. The Government’s responsibility in this context must be to ensure that such variations do not place unnecessary burdens on operators.
There is also the issue of cross-border services, which are essential for many passengers. While these services continue, they raise legitimate concerns about how they are to be regulated. In her report, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended more rigorous standardised statutory requirements across all licensing authorities in order to close the loophole whereby a driver can be licensed in one area but work exclusively in another. Ultimately, it is important that the Government recognise the need for a licensing framework that comprehensively deals with abuses, supports operators and keeps public safety at its core.
Regarding the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Borwick, he is right to point out that all London taxis are accessible. He has long been a consistent and principled advocate on this issue. Over many years, he has drawn attention to the importance of ensuring that those with disabilities are not left behind by our transport system. His work has helped keep accessibility firmly on the policy agenda. The case he advances appears to be both practical and fair. He makes a compelling argument: accessibility should be viewed not as an aspiration but as a standard that passengers across the country can reasonably expect. Although achieving this may present challenges in some areas, the progress made in London demonstrates what is possible in the right circumstances. As I say, my noble friend has made persuasive arguments as to why this requirement should apply more widely, strengthening independence for disabled passengers and promoting a more inclusive transport network. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to this important point.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on taxi and private hire vehicle national standards, licensing authorities and enforcement powers, and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
For me, this is a bit of déjà vu because, as the commissioner of Transport for London 15 years ago, I personally, with others, worked very hard on the Law Commission’s work on taxi legislation, but, sadly, nothing was done as a consequence. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, remarked, the work is, sadly, substantially out of date, principally because, in those 15 years, the growth of the private hire sector of this market, which many users regard as interchangeable, has been enormous. I will come back to that.
I will begin with Amendments 235A, 235D and 260A. The Government recognise the pressing need to reform the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles. The current legislation is archaic and fragmented. I am absolutely aware of the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, and of the huge variation in the supply and use of taxis and private hire vehicles across both urban and rural areas in the country.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm to the noble Baroness that I will do exactly that. It is a very important subject.
Lord Borwick (Con)
On taxi accessibility, is the Minister arguing that the local requirements of disabled people might be different in one area from those in another? Surely, that is completely wrong, because the whole purpose of this is to organise transport—that a disabled person in London should be able to travel to Penzance and know that in Penzance there are the same standards of accessibility. It is in the nature of travel that people change their location; therefore, they surely need to have the same standards. It is the job of the Government, as was put in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that they set the regulations that can be met by as many disabled people as possible. That I would approve of, but saying that we cannot do anything just in case there is a difference in the local arrangement seems to me more in the nature of an excuse than a plan for the future.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am certainly not arguing that the needs of disabled people are different in different areas, but—and some noble Lords have heard this in the course of meetings that we have already had on this Bill—I am expressing that there are extraordinarily different sets of local circumstances across the country and that what the park of vehicles in local areas consists of is very different in different places, and serves quite different purposes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.
This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amendment, for all the work he continues to do on tackling gambling harms—it is much appreciated—and for raising this very important topic. I assure him the Government are committed to introducing cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing. Once introduced, these will help local authorities take evidence-based decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. They will also create a presumption against new gambling premises licences being granted in specific areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, this is not about banning gambling premises; it is about assessing the harms and being able to deal with those.
Anyone who has been a councillor will know the issue, how this works and how it can cause detriment to high streets, so I absolutely support the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. As drafted, it would introduce cumulative impact assessments to guide planning decisions. However, the cumulative impact assessments will be most effective for local authorities when specifically applied to the licensing process and licensing applications, rather than simultaneously applying to planning and licensing. This would match the approach already taken by licensing authorities when using cumulative impact assessments in relation to the licensing of alcohol premises, which the noble Lord mentioned. The planning and licensing regimes are separate legal frameworks. This amendment risks creating inconsistencies between a local authority’s planning process and licensing process.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require the planning authority to consider a cumulative impact assessment published by the licensing authority during the planning process. By granting this power to the planning authority, the amendment risks conflating the licensing and planning regimes. The noble Lord is quite correct to say that licensing is in the scope of the Bill. However, this amendment would not allow local authorities to use cumulative impact assessments in the most suitable and effective way and risks creating conflict between the planning and licensing regimes. That is our concern.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on these matters. Our national parks are now in their 75th anniversary year. Some 10% of our land and most of our SSSIs are part of our protected habitats in national parks. National parks are key for protecting our ecosystems and adapting to climate change, and they provide untold social, health and cultural benefits to the nation. They are an extremely important part of national cultures and psyche. I support the noble Lord; we need further clarity on these matters. I absolutely support his call for the Minister to provide greater clarity and guidance on these matters between now and Report, so that we can properly examine them between now and then.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to the question. His intention is not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation but to probe an important constitutional question: how powers exercised by the national park authorities will intersect with those newly empowered devolved authorities. National parks occupy a distinctive position within our public framework. As devolution evolves, and as mayoral and combined authorities acquire broader strategic competences, clarity of responsibility becomes ever more important.
We would therefore welcome the Minister’s reassurance on two points. First, how do the Government envisage disputes of competence being resolved where priorities differ between the national park authorities and devolved bodies? Secondly, how will the statutory purposes of national parks be safeguarded within the new governance structures? This is not a question of resi1sting devolution but of ensuring that, in our enthusiasm to devolve, we do not dilute clear lines of accountability or the protection afforded to some of our most precious national landscapes.
This are sensible probing clause stand part Questions, and we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising them today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for opposing Clause 73 and Schedule 30 standing part in order to encourage a debate on the role of national park authorities in the production of spatial development strategies. We have discussed this issue during the passage of both this Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I know it is a matter of great interest to him.
As they are not strategic planning authorities, the legal duty to prepare a spatial development strategy does not apply to national park authorities. That means that they cannot be constituent members of a strategic planning board either. They remain local planning authorities with responsibility for preparing a local plan. Although national park authorities are not formally part of spatial development strategy governance, we still expect them to play an active role in preparing the strategy. This could be as a non-constituent member of a strategic authority or as a co-opted member of a strategic planning board.
Strategic planning authorities will be under a legal duty to consult any local planning authorities within or adjoining the strategic development area and affected by the strategic development strategy, including national park authorities, on their draft spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining a spatial development strategy will want to make sure that any views expressed by consultees have been properly taken into consideration.
During a previous Committee debate, I confirmed that the Government intend to publish guidance to support strategic planning authorities in engaging effectively with national park authorities on their strategic development strategies. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government still intend to publish guidance on this matter alongside other guidance to support the implementation of the new strategic planning system.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that guidance will set out how protections are in place for the statutory purposes of national parks, how that can be conveyed as part of the strategic planning process and how park authorities can contribute to the development of strategic plans in that way, and it is the same with the competencies.
With this confirmation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did ask about this: if there is a disagreement between the national park authority and the mayor, who takes precedence?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When it comes to drawing up a strategic development strategy, it will be for the planning inspector—as they would, in the normal way, if there were a dispute between two of the parties engaged in that process—to work through that and determine whose view holds sway in the strategy.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Can the noble Baroness give me a little more comfort on the timescale for the emergence of this guidance? Without asking her to commit to it, roughly when does she expect it to appear?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will have heard me respond with frustration from the Dispatch Box many times when I cannot give specific dates. Once the Bill has reached Royal Assent, we will aim to make sure that the pieces of guidance that I have referred to throughout the passage of the Bill are dealt with as quickly as possible but, inevitably, there will be consultations to take place. I cannot give him a specific timescale for that. As soon as we have any idea about when that will be, I will let him know.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that answer, as far as it went.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the valuable contributions of noble Lords in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing this amendment forward. As has been highlighted, local area energy plans could be helpful in addressing how local energy infrastructure can cope with the pressure of increased housing and commercial targets from central government in the context of a changing energy environment in their local areas.
Paragraph (d) would also require that the Secretary of State’s report includes,
“proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives”
to ensure that local authorities are capable and well-equipped to introduce local area energy plans. In addition, the amendment insists on clear evaluation, criteria and success metrics for any pilots carried out.
I commend the noble Lord on his amendment, which rightly recognises that authorities must have the means to ensure that the local energy infrastructure can meet the needs of economic and housing growth and provide resilient energy. However, I would hesitate before introducing a statutory requirement for local area energy plans. If we are serious about community empowerment and trusting local representatives to determine what is right for the areas, it should be up to individual local authorities to set targets for which local area energy plans might be needed. There is also the question of the resources and powers that would be given to local authorities, without which plans would be undeliverable.
Finally, and crucially, energy systems are part of a broader national energy system, where all parts must work together in an integrated manner. This cannot be looked at in isolation, although those plans will obviously be a hugely helpful contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for Amendment 241 and for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government continue to work in partnership with local government, recognising the important role that local authorities play in reaching net zero and achieving our clean power 2030 mission.
We recognise that in support of local and national net-zero targets some local authorities have developed local area energy plans and have found them very helpful. We also welcome the work that many local authorities have already undertaken to incorporate planning for future energy needs into work such as the development of local growth plans and their contribution to the development of regional energy strategic plans.
Perhaps there has been a slight misrepresentation of the fact that there is no co-ordination to this. It is being co-ordinated. In fact, NESO published the transitional regional energy strategic plan on 30 January 2026. These plan for energy needs over the next few years at a regional level but include a lot of energy-related data at a lower super output area—that is, neighbourhood level. This will influence business planning for distribution network operators across the country. NESO recently consulted on the methodology for enduring regional energy strategic plans, which will be developed in partnership with local communities and implemented by the end of 2028.
However, the amendment, as drafted, risks duplicating or constraining current activity in this area. For example, the recently published transitional regional energy strategic plans contain a wealth of data on energy at local authority level and neighbourhood level as well as an assessment of regional energy infrastructure need consistently across all regions.
The local net-zero hubs have also worked with Energy Systems Catapult on Ready for RESP to support local and regional stakeholders to help deliver energy system planning aligned with investment plans and planning needs. This work included updating which places have already developed local area energy plans. Local net-zero hubs’ most recent report, published on 5 February, sets out some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to local decarbonisation plans. I welcome that as a very helpful approach to take. In parallel, the Government are aware of work undertaken by the Local Government Association to consider options for a statutory duty that we plan to discuss at a future, ministerially chaired, local net-zero delivery group.
We are sympathetic to the points raised in this debate and in previous debates on energy planning by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We are yet to be convinced that a national statutory requirement to produce local area energy plans would support local authorities rather than reducing their flexibility to produce plans that meet their needs. We continue to discuss with the Local Government Association and others the benefits of statutory duties on net zero, and we will continue current research in this area. I hope that, with these reasons and explanations, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I have one amendment on its own in splendid isolation in this group. It is, as I hope noble Lords will agree, on an important topic: the use of social media in local government. This is an important topic for several reasons. One is that social media is so central to how local government and mayors may or may not choose to communicate with residents. It is also a crucial part of how elected public officials, whether they are councillors or mayors or, indeed, at the national level, experience politics. Often, that is an unhappy experience in terms of harassment and threats, but it can also be a very positive experience in terms of being able to engage more effectively with members of the public.
Of course, social media is important in many respects for its wider impact on society. That is why it comes up so often in debates and Questions on other topics in our House. In that respect, local authorities and local government in general have an important leadership role in setting some of the practical realities of how the social media landscape plays out. Sometimes, we are all collectively a bit too passive in assuming that the social media landscape is set by a combination of tech bros in California and Ofcom getting to grips with the Online Safety Act, but there is a practical degree of leadership at all levels of government that can encourage and help bring out the best of social media while downplaying the worst of social media.
There is an important role at local government level, in particular, because local government is the original source of information on so many topics that people love discussing, debating and sharing information about, whether it is which days you should put your bins out or which days schools are being closed due to snow in the winter or often controversial issues regarding, say, planning applications. Local government can make decisions on how and where to share information on all those things. Even if, in a sense, people think that they are not making those decisions but are simply following by default the social media channels that they have always used or that other parts of government use, that in itself is a decision.
The intention behind my amendment is absolutely to respect the discretion and flexibility that there should be—different places will wish to make different decisions, as appropriate—but also to show that there are two benefits to giving an explicit strategy a bit of a nudge. One is making sure that people are thinking through these issues sensibly and appropriately, and the other is enabling democratic accountability for the decisions that are being taken. Many of us probably have a wide range of views on how appropriate or not it is for people at any level of government to use Elon Musk’s social media channels, but, crucially, for the democratic accountability element to play out effectively, it is important to know what decisions are being made, how they are being made and what the rationale for them is. Different voters in different places may come to different decisions about which approach they prefer, but having a social media strategy that is explicitly published will make that democratic process much more effective.
Of course, I appreciate that if the Minister were to kindly accept my amendment, all the issues that it mentions, such as disinformation and public trust, would not suddenly be solved by it. On the other hand, they are difficult issues that we need to try to tackle, using all the different levers available to us. In that sense, I hope that the amendment would be a small contribution to that overall challenge, and therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely understand the intention behind this amendment. Social media clearly brings its challenges, particularly around misinformation, public confidence and data security—all serious matters. However, we do not agree that this is an appropriate statutory duty to place on local authorities.
Councils are already under immense operational and financial pressure. Their focus must be on delivering front-line services: social care, housing, waste collection, planning and public health. Requiring every authority to draft, publish and continually review a bespoke social media strategy, complete with formal risk assessments, would impose additional administrative burdens at a time when capacity is already stretched.
Local authorities should of course act responsibly and lawfully online, as they already must, but mandating a specific statutory strategy in primary legislation is neither necessary nor proportionate. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 241A, which would require local authorities to prepare and publish a social media strategy. When he talked about the values of social media, it reminded me that my local authority has recently introduced food waste recycling. The bin arrived on my doorstep, and I did not know what the system was—I am not the leader of the council any more, strangely, so I did not know it was going to do it. I did not think to open the bin. Inside was a lovely set of bags that you put your food waste in and a little bag you put on your worktop. I managed to get all that from the website before I actually opened the bin and found all the relevant information. As we know, not all social media is as helpful as that.
Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment is well intentioned, we believe it is unnecessary, given the existing legislative requirements that all local authorities must have regard to when using social media. All local authorities are already required by legislation to consider the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in coming to any decision on publicity, which is defined as
“any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public”.
That definition clearly includes any communications posted on social media. Given that the proposed amendment would, in effect, replicate aspects of the publicity code, to which every local authority must already have regard, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments on my amendment. Although I do not agree fully with them all, I welcome the recognition of the importance of social media for local government and the importance of getting it right. Reflecting the views that I have heard in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which concern the proposed local audit office. Having read the statement of intent and the consultation on local audit reform, we recognise that the Government have identified three systematic challenges. Two are particularly pertinent. First, on capacity, there is a severe shortage of auditors and too few firms in the market. Secondly, on complexity, financial reporting and audit requirements are overly complex and difficult to deliver on time. They are modelled largely on corporate auditing, rather than tailored to local public bodies. That encourages risk aversion and delay.
We do not dispute that there are real problems, but we want clarity over the proposed solutions in this Bill and in the transition plan published last November. Our opposition to Clause 74 standing part is not an attempt to frustrate reform; it is a probing step to understand the necessity and design of the proposed local audit office. What specific problem does a new statutory body solve that reform of the existing framework could not?
Regarding capacity, how does establishing a local audit office increase the number of qualified auditors in the system? Will it expand the training pipeline and make local audit more financially viable or attract firms that have previously exited the market? The Bill provides that the office will determine audit fees, while audit firms must nominate a lead partner for each audit. On what basis will the fees be set, and will local authorities and firms have any input at all? If fees remain inadequate, capacity constraints may persist.
There is also the question of delivery. If public provision is intended to sit alongside private provision, what scale of direct audit activity is envisaged for the new body? If it begins conducting audits itself, what impact would this have on competition and the long-term health of the market?
We are also told that the local audit office will reduce the audit backlog and strengthen relationships between local bodies and their auditors. Will this be achieved through simplification of reporting requirements, reform of risk and liability expectations and the adjustment of fee structures, or simply through centralised oversight? We need solutions to underline market weaknesses, not just structural governance reform.
The proposed local audit office will have regulatory functions, including maintaining a register of firms qualified to conduct local audits. Amendment 244 probes why a register is proposed while the office is also able to designate another organisation as an external registration body responsible for holding such a register. How many more bodies do we need in this landscape? At the same time, it may have operational functions. How will a clear separation between those regulating and operational roles be maintained? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest if both bodies regulate and potentially participate in the market?
That concern lies behind Amendment 246, which is explicitly a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify why the local audit office should be given the powers to acquire interest in audit firms or to provide assistance to them. What is the rationale for allowing the regulator to act as a market participant? Under what circumstances would it exercise those powers? Would it provide financial support to prevent market exit? What principles would guide such decisions?
Amendment 247 seeks assurance that the local audit office undertakes local authority audits itself and that its works will be subject to the same standard, scrutiny and independent oversight as private firms. Therefore, will the local audit office be subject to equivalent inspections and ethical standards when acting as an auditor? We would quite like a yes or no on that point.
Finally, Amendment 248 probes how rotations of key audit partners will work in practice and how independence will be safeguarded. If the local audit office undertakes audits directly, what arrangements will ensure appropriate rotation of the individuals acting as the key audit partner? What rotation period is envisaged? What process will govern handover and continuity? What safeguards will be put in place to prevent overfamiliarity and to protect professional scepticism? Just as importantly, where will these requirements sit? Will they be set out in the legislation, in regulation or through reference to an external ethical or professional standard? If an existing framework will apply, which one, and how will compliance be ensured in practice? The principle of rotation matters for independence but requirements that are too rigid risk worsening capacity in an already stretched system. How will the Government therefore balance independence with operational resilience?
These are not wrecking amendments. They are intended to provide clarity to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I will start with the clause stand part notice for Clause 74 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which questions why a local audit office is required at all. The local audit office is critical to overhauling the local audit system. The Kingman review, Redmond review and Public Accounts Committee all recommended a new independent oversight organisation to simplify the system and drive change. The current model of dispersed functions across different organisations has not delivered for the system, local bodies, taxpayers or government. As someone who was involved for many years with the LGA resources board and as a spokesperson for finance in Hertfordshire County Council, I felt sometimes as though I were watching this audit problem occurring like a car crash happening in slow motion—you could see it coming along.
While audit can seem like the dry and dusty aspect of local government, it is of course, as both noble Baronesses have said, absolutely vital to ensuring that members, officers and the public can have confidence in their local authority’s financial systems. That is why when we came into government I was so determined that we would fix this. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has set out some of the reasons why this is even more vital and urgent now, as we enter the new era of devolution. The local audit office will play a crucial role in ensuring that the reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers.
The missing data and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of government accounts for the past two years, providing no assurance to Parliament and a general loss of public accountability and trust. That is just not acceptable and we cannot carry on like that. Significant steps already taken by this Government mean that the backlog has been cleared and assurance is being built back. However, without the establishment of the local audit office and our wider reforms to tackle the root causes, the situation could recur.
To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I will come to some of her other questions as we go through, but the local audit office will support and enable our wider audit strategy, which tackles capacity and capability issues among auditors and account preparers, as well as overly complex financial reporting and audit requirements. Without the establishment of this office and the wider reforms to tackle the root causes of these problems, we could end up back where we were a couple of years ago. The local audit office will be pivotal in rebuilding that transparency, accountability and public trust in local government and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred.
Amendment 243 would give the local audit office an additional function to investigate risk management issues identified by audit committees within local authorities. These committees play a vital role across all local authorities. That is precisely why this Bill requires every local authority to establish an audit committee and ensure that it includes at least one independent member to provide robust scrutiny.
If audit committees identify risk management issues within a body, they should ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address them effectively, escalating serious issues to full council where necessary. The statutory guidance for audit committees that this Bill will enable is the appropriate mechanism to consider such issues. While the local audit office will have an important role in overseeing the local audit system, the statutory audit committee framework will remain with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of local government and, crucially, is directly accountable to Parliament. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate for the local audit office to have statutory responsibility for investigating risk management issues identified by audit committees.
Amendment 244 seeks to remove the statutory requirement for a register of local auditors to be held. The local audit register is a proven and effective regulatory mechanism for audit providers that has been in place since the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Currently, the register is held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, overseen in this role by the Financial Reporting Council. Audit providers that join the register agree to its rules and fund its regulatory activity through their fees. In the short to medium term, we expect the local audit office to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms.
New Section 6A replicates that arrangement for the new system, with two changes. First, the register-holding body will be overseen by the local audit office, not the Financial Reporting Council, meaning that the local audit office will have the final say on enforcement where serious quality or professional conduct issues occur. Secondly, there is provision for the local audit office to hold a register itself, and regulate audit providers directly, in case this becomes a more suitable mechanism at a later stage. In the unlikely event that a register-holding body became unwilling or unable to continue in its function, this provision would also enable the LAO to step in at pace to maintain regulation. This arrangement strikes a sensible balance between independent regulation of private firms and the local audit office providing oversight and taking the final enforcement decision in the rare cases where serious infringements of quality or professional conduct occur.
Amendment 245 would remove the provision enabling the body responsible for maintaining the register of authorised local audit providers to charge a fee to applicants and registrants. The register will be both a statutory requirement and a critical regulatory mechanism, supported through a range of activities that need to be properly funded. It is right that the cost of maintaining the register should be borne by those applying and registered to receive public funding for undertaking local audit work, not through the public purse. It is also unreasonable to expect an external body to assume responsibility for the registration and regulation of the local audit market without a clear mandate to charge for the range of activities required to do so. While it would be possible for the local audit office to rely on more generic fee-charging provisions elsewhere in the Bill, it is more suitable for the register to be set up and maintained by an external registration body. Registration costs covered through fees is current practice, and continuing this is the most appropriate approach, at least in the short to medium term.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I have taken a scythe to my speech, so it might come out a bit disjointed. The short version should be directed to noble Lords at the other end of the table: I understand their position because turkeys do not vote for Christmas. It depends on which lens you look at this through.
So it is no surprise that I rise to oppose the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34. They are the mechanism by which the Bill ends upward-only rent reviews for new and renewed commercial releases. Removing them would preserve the system that has been quietly hollowing out our high streets and small businesses for years. The noble Lord talked about evidence and there is plenty of evidence to show that. The real-world effect of upward-only rents is very simple: when trade is good, rents go up, and when trade is bad, rents go up. Rents do not come down. That might look neat in a contract but, on the ground, it has meant businesses paying yesterday’s rents in today’s economy.
We have all seen what that looks like: a shop where footfall has dropped, but the rent is still set at pre-pandemic levels and is going up; a café that has survived lockdowns, energy shocks and staff shortages, only to be hit by a rent review that moves in one direction regardless of takings; or a small local business doing everything right but that is forced out because the lease allows rents to rise but never to reflect reality. I confess to my hairdresser being exactly in that position: after 40 years of work in Watford, she is no more. “The rent rise”, she said, “was the final straw”. This is real.
Clause 85 matters because it allows rents to move down as well as up, so that they can reflect what is actually happening on a street, in a town centre or in a local economy. Markets work both ways and leases should be able to do the same. If we remove Clause 85, we are not defending the market; we are defending a one-way ratchet that has already failed our high streets.
I will blot out a big paragraph here. That does not mean that we should ignore the risks. Markets will adapt and some landlords may try to push the risks elsewhere through higher initial rents or shorter leases. This is why scrutiny, monitoring and review matter, but they are arguments for refining Clause 85, if necessary, not for removing it altogether. Perhaps the Government might consider this on Report.
Likewise, a small caveat: this is a broad reform applying across all commercial sectors, not just retail and hospitality, where the effects and problems are most visible. I would be interested to know what work has been done to understand the impact of this change on commercial property investment, particularly in struggling town centres and regeneration areas. How do the Government justify the big-bang breadth of this measure? Have they considered whether a more targeted approach might have achieved the same aims over time?
If we are confident that this is the right direction—we believe it is—we also have to be confident enough to measure its effects. Therefore, we have some sympathy with Amendment 254 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but we feel that 12 months would not be enough time to measure the true effects of this significant change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for Amendment 234. I will start with the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34.
Upwards-only rent reviews have been a long-standing issue for businesses throughout England and Wales. The British Independent Retailers Association and UKHospitality gave evidence in the other place about just how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. The practice of upward-only rent reviews has an invidious effect on the efficiency and accessibility of the commercial property market—not to mention the impact on our high streets and town centres that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined. It is designed to ensure that landlords and investors are insured against market conditions, but there is a cost to this, which falls chiefly on the business tenants left paying excessive rents when they are already stretched to breaking point, unable to invest or improve their productivity, or, in times of hardship, to keep the lights on or pay their staff wages.
Ultimately, these clauses make running a business less viable, damaging the competitiveness of the economy. Alongside reform of business rates, banning these clauses will help make commercial rents fairer and more efficient, help businesses invest and give them greater resilience to economic conditions. In recognition that these clauses can provide some security to investors, we have committed to consult on how caps and collars could be used. I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to work carefully and closely with the property industry and others to implement this policy, help manage risk and maintain confidence in the market, without relying on one-sided mechanisms such as upwards-only rent review clauses.
I turn to Amendment 254. I understand the desire to consider the impacts of legislation once it has passed. However, 12 months is too limited a period to see the ban fully implemented and the market adjusted. The Bill’s impact assessment also finds that the ban is likely to have a net positive impact on the UK economy because it will make the commercial property market more efficient, reducing rents for tenants who can instead invest in their businesses and help keep consumer prices low. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Our key point is that this is a very significant change to the commercial property market, and it has not been done with the industry. The Minister said that she would “work carefully and closely” to implement it. It would have been better to have worked closely and carefully with the industry in developing it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Our issue is with a blanket ban rather than looking at how we can come up with a potential system that works better for all parties. I am glad that she is more supportive of our amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is not the first time I have found myself getting in the way of the last part of a Bill, usually in talking about territorial extent. The last train that would get me to Saltaire tonight leaves King’s Cross just after 7 pm, so I will try my best to be brief.
This is about terminology but also about honesty. My amendments would provide some tighter definitions of “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. Having seen the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, tabled on “parish”, perhaps I should have also included one on that. I note that his definition of a parish council includes anything that may have the same population as Greenland. The intended ideal size for a “local authority”, which this takes us to, is about the same as the population of Luxembourg. That is not really local government and it certainly is not local democracy.
I grew up believing that all politics is local, and that citizen engagement is a fundamental part of what politics should be about. This would take politics away from the local community and neighbourhood representative model, with references to community groups that are not representative but are entirely self-formed from civil society. I would not only regret that but think it a deep step back away from the principle of democratic self-government.
I know from my early experience with the Labour Party in Manchester that there are many within Labour who regard the relationship between the party and local people as one in which Labour delivers services and the local people are supposed to be grateful for them. The Liberal approach to democracy is one in which we work with people, and we expect and encourage citizens to be engaged in local and community politics.
This is a Bill that abuses the terms “community”, “neighbourhood”, “parish” and “local”. It sets up sub-regional strategic authorities and reduces the number of local elections and councillors. If I understood the answers to the Question yesterday, it is intended that, following this legislation, the next thing will be to reduce the number of local councils and borough councils in the Greater London Authority so that we have local authorities in London that are roughly the size of Luxembourg.
I regret this; as I have sat through Committee on this Bill I have found the whole Bill deeply distasteful and weakening of our democracy—but there we are. However, I wish that the Government would at least be a little tighter in their use of these important terms than they have been, and those are the intentions of my amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this final group of amendments, beginning with Amendment 251 in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, which would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act after five years and to report before Parliament. This report would assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this legislation have been achieved, and whether objectives and measures remain appropriate.
This amendment speaks to a broader concern throughout Committee on this Bill. It is simply not clear what the Government’s objectives are in the Bill, as it does not follow through on its title—as we tried clearly to explain with the purpose clause in the first group of amendments on the first day of Committee. I cannot remember how many weeks ago that was. As we have said before, the financial implications are unclear, as well as whether local authorities will have the capacity to deliver on their responsibilities. But I do not think that we should wait to find that out in five years’ time; we need, and indeed your Lordships’ House deserves, that clarity now about the finances and the geographical configuration of these new authorities.
Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, intends to repeal the statutory provisions, which have never been enacted. I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to do this to simplify the statute book, unless the Minister can outline reasons as to why these provisions must be kept or announces a timeline for their commencement.
Amendment 264, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would ensure that the provisions in this Bill will be enacted within five years of its receiving Royal Assent. Again, we must have the assurance that the Government intend to follow through on legislation agreed in this House, and to be clear on what their exact plans are for the powers contained within it.
Amendments 257 to 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to divine more clearly in law what is meant by “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. That has been a crucial debate throughout Committee; we need to ensure that newly reorganised authorities and local government structures are not just areas neatly drawn on a map for the ease of those in central government. We on these Benches believe that they must also reflect local people’s wishes and be in keeping with local history and traditions. However, we have to be realistic—these new authorities are also going to be responsible for delivering not just very local services, which are now delivered by the district councils or by the town and parish councils, but the big services of social care, SEND, highways and so on. This legislation must not be based on a shallow understanding of what constitutes local communities and neighbourhoods. If anything, I am not sure that the noble Lord’s proposed definition of “local” as
“an area suitable for shared government, linked by easy communication”
goes far enough. People do not think of their local communities and neighbourhoods as districts or from the top-down perspective of governance structures.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Norton and Lord Wallace, for their amendments in this group.
Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not specify how the objectives of the Bill are to be identified and, as such, it is not clear from the amendment what the Government would be required to report on. The Government already produce the annual report on English devolution, which covers many of the key elements of this Bill, including the establishment of new strategic authorities, and the functions and funding devolved to strategic authorities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 256, and I appreciate his desire to see primary legislation which passes through both Houses commenced following Royal Assent. I commend his desire to tidy up the statute book—I am a bit of a tidy-upper myself, so I appreciate that. However, it is my view that the Government should not prioritise parliamentary time and resource for the repeal of uncommenced provisions in existing Acts which have no impact on the effective running of local government.
Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that legislation which passes through both Houses is then commenced after Royal Assent, this amendment would not be appropriate and risks unintended consequences. Most provisions in the Bill will be commenced either at the point of Royal Assent or two months after it. However, some provisions will need to be commenced by Ministers after Royal Assent using commencement regulations, and some of these provisions will require secondary legislation or guidance to be published before the provisions can come into effect.
The automatic commencement of all provisions in the Bill risks unintended consequences, especially if powers are devolved to strategic authorities and communities without the necessary guardrails in place. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set an arbitrary date at which all provisions need to have been commenced. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to delivering on all the reforms in this Bill, so I ask that he does not move his amendment.
Amendments 257, 258 and 259 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Taken together, they would introduce definitions of the terms “community”, “local” and “neighbourhood” into Clause 86. The Bill already provides definitions where they are needed to interpret provisions effectively. Through regulations, we will define what a neighbourhood area is and set out the criteria for these arrangements. However, we recognise that there are differences between places and communities across England and we want to ensure that regulations include an element of local choice. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Turning to the government amendments, Amendments 261 and 262 remove the subsections on the publication of councillors’ addresses and the extension of the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority from Clause 92(4), which would commence them upon Royal Assent, and insert them into Clause 92(6), so they will commence two months after Royal Assent, as was the original intention for these measures.
Amendments 265 and 267 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 265 changes a reference from “regulations” to “secondary legislation” to ensure that order-making powers are also covered by the commencement provision and to be consistent with references elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 267 changes the Long Title of the Bill to replace reference to “local councils” with “local authorities”. This reflects the Bill’s application to authorities other than just “local councils” following an amendment made in the other place to extend the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I am sure that will be a great comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect.
I will move the government amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in Committee. We have had some great discussions, and I have really appreciated the contributions that have been made.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but extraordinarily worrying. It suggests that the Government do not know what they are committed to. All I am seeking is to put in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do anyway. By the sound of it, the Minister is reflecting a view that does not fully understand what the Government have themselves agreed to do. It sounds as if departments are acting in silos, because the response today is very different from the response of the Minister in Tuesday’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was very constructive and welcome. I was simply replicating more or less the provision that the Government accepted to that other Bill. As I say, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but very worrying in what it conveys. It reflects very badly on the department and is therefore something I shall most certainly come back to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have to take issue with what the noble Lord is saying. I pointed out quite clearly that we already produce an annual report on devolution. Most of this Bill relates to the provisions that we are putting in place for the devolution agenda, so they will be covered in the annual report on devolution. It is not that the department thinks that we do not need to report on what is being done; it is that we already have a provision to report on an annual basis on the devolution agenda.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, there is a difference between reporting what is happening and actually reviewing an Act in its totality and—as my noble friend mentioned when we started this Bill, and as she referred to today—identifying what it is designed to achieve, its objectives, and therefore something against which it can be measured. That is why I think it is so important, and certainly something to which we will return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment of clause 92(6) which would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.
“(z1) section 62 (publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers);(z2) section 73 (and Schedule 30) (extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make subsection (8) consistent with subsection (1)(c) (so that they both refer to the wider concept of “secondary legislation”).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would change the long title of the Bill to refer to “local authorities” instead of “local councils”. This would reflect the inclusion of clause 73 and Schedule 30 in the House of Commons (which relate to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority).