English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

Relevant documents: 45th and 50th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 16th Report from the Constitution Committee

16:01

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, before the first group of amendments is considered, I want to remind the House of the previous guidance on conduct during Report stage. This is the final day on Report, and proceedings on this Bill need to conclude today. I therefore urge all noble Lords to apply good discipline to ensure we can conclude business at a reasonable time. First, the House has generally resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and particularly relevant, the Companion states that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report. Contributions should not summarise or repeat points made at length by others, and debates must be relevant to the precise amendment being debated. Thirdly, although interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification, and lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. As this is Report, and not Committee, a continued collective focus on these points will help us to make progress.

Clause 57: Single tiers of local government

Amendment 187

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

187: Leave out Clause 57

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the first group of amendments in my name, which reflect the concerns that we have repeatedly expressed during the passage of this Bill about imposing top-down reorganisation of local government without local consent. Amendments 187 and 194 oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 outright. Schedule 26 as drafted enables the Secretary of State not just to invite but to “direct” local authorities to propose mergers of single tiers of local government. This throws into serious question whether the Bill does in fact enable community empowerment, or if it just gives the Secretary of State more power to bring councils into line with central government’s plans.

Many local people do not want their rural and urban areas to be merged under the same local government jurisdiction, or for councils which have been doing their jobs well and kept taxes low to be merged with other, less well-performing councils. Nor do they want to disaggregate district councils into pieces to suit the Government rather than the people, adding them to urban areas—in order to allow more greenfield development, we believe, and that again takes the pressure off use of brownfield.

Amendment 188 would remove “or direct”, allowing the Secretary of State only to make an invitation to local authorities. Amendment 189 would then require the express consent of all relevant authorities affected by the proposed reorganisation. Alongside the significance of local consent, it is important that democratic oversight of the changes occurs at national level too, and not just in the corridors of Whitehall. Amendment 190 would require the Secretary of State to show Parliament that any direction was in the interests of effective and convenient local government, while also representing the views of the affected authorities. Similarly, Amendment 191 would strengthen the requirement on the Secretary of State not only to believe that the direction was in the interests of local government but to be

“satisfied having regard to the views of affected authorities and local electors”.

We return to the point that we have made consistently throughout this process. Changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent. Can the Minister confirm whether the purpose of this legislation is truly to advance community empowerment? Can she also explain how these provisions will save taxpayers’ money, improve local service delivery and strengthen existing local geographic identities? These are questions that we will ask now and continue to ask as this project moves forward and this Bill becomes an Act. It is not clear why Schedule 26 has been drafted in this way, without stronger democratic safeguards. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on local government reorganisation. Before I comment on the amendments, I wonder if the House would indulge me for one moment so that I may pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham, who died during recess.

Jeremy Beecham’s passion for local government, his wisdom, kindness, fierce intelligence and sharp wit, as well as over 55 years of service to his community in Newcastle, with 17 years as leader of Newcastle City Council, made him a powerful and committed ambassador and advocate of local government, including when he came into your Lordships’ House. My thoughts are with his family, the people of Newcastle—to whom he committed a lifetime of service—and our local government community, where his legacy will be enduring and powerful. There was a wonderful levaya yesterday in Newcastle which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I attended, along with other Members of this House. I hope that Jeremy will rest in peace. May his memory be a blessing.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is very clear—stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to benefit from strong unitary—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Is the Minister winding? A number of us wish to get in as part of the debate. I would hate to cut her off, but I think there are some contributions to be made.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was my understanding that we had moved on to winding speeches.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I did not realise that we had moved on to winding speeches. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister said about the late Lord Beecham and add my condolences.

With the leave of the House, I would like to comment briefly on Amendment 187, tabled by my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson. I support the intentions of their amendments, which seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to direct mergers of single tiers of local government to cases where all the local authorities concerned have given their consent. I strongly agree with that. Of their amendments, I prefer the two which are more far-reaching, Amendments 188 and 194, because the provision for local authorities to merge exists already. Clause 57 and Schedule 26 are there only to implement the power of the Secretary of State to enforce such mergers, without the consent of the authorities involved.

The addition proposed by Schedule 26 of the Bill to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 concerns a

“district or county council for an area for which there is currently a single tier of local government”.

I understand that a county council can be a single tier, but I cannot understand how a district council can be a single tier. I would observe that the Bill is concerned with mergers of principal authorities. Can the Minister tell your Lordships if it also provides for the dismemberment or breakdown of principal authorities into smaller units, such as is happening under the current local government reorganisation? This is seeing many counties being divided up into smaller unitary authorities, which will certainly result in a massive increase in costs, which will have to be borne by hard-pressed council tax payers.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in the strongest possible support of the amendments tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. I would like to make two introductory remarks.

First, I was the leader of a council for 20 years and had a ringside seat for LGR in my own area and as part of my chairmanship of the District Councils’ Network. I saw at first hand that, far from saving money, LGR has precipitated the bankruptcy of Somerset and in Yorkshire created a so-called local council spanning the whole width of England at that point, bar 9 miles, encompassing Skipton, Selby and Scarborough.

Secondly, I note that a lot has changed since we were in Committee. The Government have published their LGR proposals for Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire. The lofty ideals of strategic leadership, better value for money and economies of scale, together with the published criteria, which the public took at face value and responded to, have been dashed on the rocks of partisan gerrymandering. I do not know why I am surprised that the party that sought to rig the local government elections would seek to pervert the process as it has, but we can see what has happened here. The Labour authorities that connived with the Government to cancel the election on the flimsiest grounds—so weak the Government would not take their chances in the court—have been rewarded with small unitary councils designed to fail. The goalposts have been moved. That is why Amendments 189 and 191 in particular are so important. They would stop the abuse of process whereby the public, who play by one set of rules, are stymied by Ministers playing by another.

Let us compare what Ministers advertised in the current round of LGR against what has been delivered. It was said that LGR proposals should, in all but the most extenuating circumstances, respect and be based on existing councils as building blocks—themselves grounded in the historic county boroughs, Poor Law unions and ecclesiastical hundreds. There were good reasons for this. The Government are in a hurry, and easy building blocks make aggregation simpler, better value and quicker.

While there always might have been extenuating circumstances, perhaps to bring the awkward extremities of a national park within the ambit of a single unitary, we have been served by a gerrymander, where cities have been given the choicest parts of their neighbours, ignoring travel to work areas, breaking communities of interest and making the process more expensive, longer and disruptive at precisely the moment councils are meant to be delivering growth, not shuffling the deck chairs.

In the case of Norfolk, we see the announcement of a conversion of seven districts into three unitaries. It will not just merge seven into three, which will be hard enough as it is; in this proposal, which breaks up the existing councils as building blocks, we will see 14 disaggregations and weldings together in a cut and shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. Of course, the consequences of all that are only just becoming clearer: breaking long-term contracts for refuse collection, orphaning leisure centres and disrupting the local plan. There are unknowable permutations around allocating staff, who will need to think which of the 14 functional parts of our county, each of which delivers 136 council activities, they will need to stitch together contractually, financially and legally, and in terms of software and staffing, in just a few months without even being clear about the parishing in the former county boroughs. It is designed to fail.

People were told to propose new councils based around a population of at least half a million. We were told that was the economic optimum that combines scale with efficiency. I know we cannot be precious. Counties are not exactly in 500,000 increments. I would not have been surprised to see a 10% or 15% variation around that 500,000 figure—in other words, perhaps anywhere between 425,000 and 575,000. But we have been served a set of councils, many of which will see a population beginning with a “2” by as late as 2040— Condemned by design and scale to that special council death zone with populations similar to the existing unitary cohort that is in trouble in are places such as Swindon, Slough and Stoke. If that is what the Government had in mind, they should have been up front and open at the outset. It would have stopped the nods and winks to the counties that are clearly doomed but whose consent was required to endorse the mayoral elections.

The Government have acted dishonestly in their dealing on this. They have said one thing and done another. They have abused their position and spoken with forked tongue. They told us it would strengthen democracy. I led South Norfolk Council for nearly 20 years. Norwich is to be inflated like a balloon, but not by so much that Labour’s client vote will be diluted. A few wealthy parishes will be peeled off here and there to pay off the city’s historic debts without regard to the rump authority left behind. Labour’s unthinking approach has been that the rest of the countryside can go hang.

16:15

Labour’s proposal in Norfolk will create Britain’s poorest council in east Norfolk on the altar of shoring up Labour’s prospects in Norwich. It is the same in Suffolk and Essex. The proposed east Norfolk unitary will comprise North Norfolk, which has England’s oldest population, the greatest social care needs and the lowest economic population; Great Yarmouth, my hometown, which has some of the country’s most deprived wards; and essential parts of South Norfolk, outside the Norwich fringe, where the main industry is agriculture, with miles of open fields and little wealth-generating industry. It is all the cost and none of the revenue. Norwich and its gravitational pull will be excised from this territory, leaving a rural rump bisected by the River Yare and a mile-wide marsh from east to west without a crossing save for the two-car chain ferry at Reedham that closes at 10 pm and does not open at all in January. The Boundary Commission would not be able to lawfully create a parliamentary constituency given that fact. So, I have no idea how the Government thought that this would wash for a council, unless it was on the basis of: “I’m all right, Jack, in the City, and Diss better get used to being chucked in with Wells-next-the-Sea, two hours away by car”—there is no bus.

Then we were told that only proposals that could demonstrate value for money would be entertained. But there has been no published cost analysis. Nobody knows what council tax might be in the new arrangements. Nobody has a clue about council tax harmonisation or debt apportionment or the pension fund strain costs, which the Times said could cost as much as £1 billion, as the staff with the longest service can retire on grounds of efficiency, typically at a quarter of a million pounds a pop. The people who told us in 2020 that LGR would save a fortune now say that it will not save a bean. They were suckered, but the Government have not published any financial analysis at all. We know that they have not published that analysis because they do not have the first idea of the costs, because they have split the districts by not following the rules that they set at the outset to use the districts as building blocks—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Forgive me for interrupting. The noble Lord is giving us a lot of very interesting information, but we are on Report and I just wonder how much more he has to give us.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The answer is not very much. I am getting to the nub of the point.

The Government have said one thing and done another. That is an important legal point, because in 2007 when they tried to use these same provisions that they now seek to rely on under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Mr Justice Ouseley, in his judgment in January 2010, found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had changed the decision-making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said:

“the Secretary of State set out repeatedly the basis upon which he would refuse proposals, and without any warning adopted a wholly different approach, and reached decisions which, on the original approach, he would not have reached. … On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State … made a mockery of the consultation process”.

This amendment would stop the jiggery-pokery and the changing and moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today. Furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits alongside a full plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man on the street, which included a full statement of the total forecast cost to the council tax payer had not been done—and of course it has not been done. Our counties, subject to LGR in this round, are being pushed into a financial leap in the dark—brought to you by the same people who told the nation that business rates would not be put up for pubs.

I hope that my learned friends run the rule, following the 2010 judgments by Justice Ousley and Justice Cranston as a guide, but it is now clear that the Government never intended to follow the rules and have not even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man’s land of councils being too small to be big or too big to be small. We were promised better than this. I strongly support the amendments because we have seen gerrymandering in this process. That is not good enough, and these amendments would prevent it happening in future. I hope councils do not waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because they sorely need to.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there were an awful lot of questions there for the Minister to answer. It would be better for the House if she responds to them, in particular to the nub of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

I hope the Minister will not mind if I pay tribute to the late Lord Beecham. He was a councillor in Newcastle for 55 years, 17 of which were as leader of the council. He was the first chair of the Local Government Association. I spent a number of years as leader of the opposition to Jeremy when he was leader of the council, and we enjoyed sparring, as indeed we continued to do after 2010 across the Floor of this Chamber. He was a new broom in the late 1970s in the era after T Dan Smith. He was young. He created the social services department. He fought an unrelenting battle against poverty, creating a welfare rights service in Newcastle, but he also understood the importance of growth in the city. We discovered yesterday—I did not know—that he convinced the Chancellor that there should be bus passes for older and younger people; I am particularly pleased about that.

I know that Jeremy’s family have appreciated the large number of tributes that have been paid to him nationally, locally and in the media. There is a book about what he did in those 55 years—there is a copy in the Library and, I think, in the Government Whips’ Office—to which I was privileged to contribute chapter 2. It is an interesting work on the history of local government over the past 40 years. I add my tribute to Jeremy’s huge contribution to Newcastle and to the country as a whole.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his comments. Indeed, we learned about the bus pass yesterday, for which I am eternally grateful, as was my dad, who loved his bus pass. That was just another of Jeremy’s achievements that many who knew him did not know about.

As I have said before, this Government are committed to fixing the foundations of local government. Our vision is clear: stronger local councils that are equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities. We want all residents to be able to benefit from strong unitary councils. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is a powerful advocate of this from her time in Wiltshire. In response to her specific questions, value for money and the strengthening of geographic identity came out very clearly in the submissions made by local authorities in response to the call for proposals for new local government structures.

On the community empowerment side of the noble Baroness’s questions, the neighbourhood governance proposals we have set out in the Bill will provide the most powerful basis for community empowerment in a generation. I look forward to further discussion about them, and we will provide further regulation to set out exactly how that will work.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I am not going to go into all the details of the Norfolk process but it was extremely rigorous. Locally submitted proposals were considered very carefully against the clear criteria that had been set. We have always said that the 50,000 population limit was a guideline, not a hard line that had to be met. When we looked at the proposals, it was clear that we needed to be flexible on that in some areas. We made our decisions against the criteria, and they are now back with the priority programme areas for them to have a look at.

We are not seeking to force reorganisation on areas. The power to direct councils to submit a proposal for reorganisation will be held in reserve and exercised only where an area has been unable to make progress in response to an invitation. Instead, the Bill creates a new route for unitary councils to be invited to submit proposals for merging with neighbouring councils. This will align with the existing reorganisation process for two-tier areas and ensure a consistent approach. As devolution and local government reorganisation progress simultaneously in some parts of the country, it is important that we have tools that allow these processes to operate smoothly and effectively. Without the power to convert a combined county authority to a combined authority for the purpose of implementing a proposal for the establishment of new unitary councils, there would be no efficient way to maintain the effective operation of existing devolved bodies where reorganisation proposals are also being implemented.

The power to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority is tightly constrained. It provides a necessary safeguard so that where a reorganisation proposal would make a strategic authority redundant, that proposal can proceed and the strategic authority can be dissolved accordingly. I stress that any proposal that might require the use of this power must first be assessed for its implications for future devolution in line with the Government’s reorganisation criteria. This will ensure that areas are not left without a viable route to secure devolution arrangements. I hope that with these points in mind the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches also align with everything that has been said about the great Lord Beecham. I wrote down a number of things to say, but it has all been said. He was a hero in local government. When I became a new young councillor, his was the one name that I was always a bit scared of, to tell your Lordships the honest truth. We from these Benches send our thoughts to his family and all his friends. May his memory be a blessing.

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller. I know he spoke for a long time, but he was explaining what has happened on the ground from local government reorganisation that started even before the Bill has finished its passage through Parliament. It is important that we hear what is happening on the ground. I happen to live in Norfolk at the moment, and I can tell noble Lords it has gone down like a lead balloon there. We are where we are and Norfolk will make it work, because that is what most local authorities do, but it certainly does not reflect what I hear from local people as to what they wanted or expected.

As I have said, our concerns with Schedule 26 reflect our wider concern about the true purpose of the Bill and its impact on local communities. As drafted, it shifts the balance of power in favour of the Secretary of State rather than local people when it comes to their local government and their services. This is contrary to the aims of a Bill titled “community empowerment”. Local government reorganisation should genuinely have the consent of all the parties it affects, in consultation with the local communities they are elected to represent. We are not here to try to frustrate reform. As the Minister said, I am an advocate of unitary authorities. I led one for 10 years and I led it into a unitary, but that was with the people of Wiltshire all the way through.

16:30

As I have said, the first tranche of LGR seems to us to be contrary to that way of doing things. I therefore hope that the Government will give serious consideration, as they move forward, to the approach they are taking to reorganisation. We know it is going to happen, but I ask them please to listen to the people more than they perhaps have done with the first tranche. It seems to us that some of it is for political purposes and some is for quick, cheap housebuilding. We have talked about adding district councils on to urban areas, but this just takes up more of our precious green fields rather than making both councils and developers do a bit more work to deliver on our brownfield sites. However, at that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 187 withdrawn.

Schedule 26: Arrangement relating to single tiers of local government

Amendments 188 to 191 not moved.

Amendments 192 and 193

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

192: Schedule 26, page 281, leave out line 15
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment of this provision in my name would limit the regulation-making power conferred by the new section 11A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. They would remove the ability to amend Acts other than the 2007 Act.

193: Schedule 26, page 281, line 18, at end insert—
“but it does not include an Act other than this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other amendment of this provision in my name would limit the regulation-making power conferred by the new section 11A of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. They would remove the ability to amend Acts other than the 2007 Act.

Amendments 192 and 193 agreed.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Amendment 195

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

195: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to review parish and town councils(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils in England to assess their number, functions, and effectiveness in local governance.(2) In carrying out that duty, the Secretary of State must, in particular, take steps to ensure maximal geographical coverage of parish and town councils as a form of local democratic representation. (3) The Secretary of State must, annually, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), including any action taken or proposed to achieve the purpose in subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils and take steps to maximise their geographical coverage, with an annual report to Parliament.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments neatly follows the previous group as it concerns further empowerment to be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 in my name would ensure that Governments had a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils, and would require an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding that democratic footprint.

The creation of large unitary authorities by the Government, as we have just heard, resulted in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focused on the narrow remit of being the service delivery arm of national government—for instance, the delivery of adult and children’s social care, which constitutes three-quarters of a budget of a unitary council. The focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide.

My own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority that serves 450,000 people supports that view, hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, a small town or even a suburb of a large town. A failure to do so will result in people being disfranchised and more remote from decision-making at a large local level. They will feel that their voice does not count, and that is a danger for our democratic institutions.

Those of us who care about local democracy care that people’s voices are heard. Amendment 196 follows that, because it would create a statutory duty to consult. Where parish and town councils have been created or exist, under this amendment the local authorities would have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications, parks and open spaces and other very local services and amenities.

Amendment 196 says that a local authority must—I stress the word “must”—have regard to the representations from those councils before a final decision is reached. Consultation has become rather a dirty word in local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box indicating that local people have had a say, and then it is disregarded. This amendment would make it statutory. People would have to listen and take note of representations.

In supporting these amendments we would ensure that the promise of community empowerment in the Bill is a reality. So I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that we can give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 216 and 318 in this group, which relate to parish and town councils. Amendment 216 makes provision for unparished electors in the unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by Clause 60 to petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept-raising parish councils. Separately, my Amendment 318 applies to the largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part district billing authorities before, but which henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.

I turn first to Amendment 216. In Committee the penny dropped for the first time that those parts of England that were former county boroughs—20% of the land mass, so much greater by population—such as Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage, which is home to the Minister, would be for the most part unparished, and thus second-class citizens in the new arrangements. That is recognised by Amendment 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely. I have no problem with it. But I think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the right for unparished areas to become parishes if the measures in Clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory.

The Government tell us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops, with no resources, capacity or status. This is what we discovered in Committee. People literally from out of town will try to sweep up the crumbs left over, once social care has feasted on the precept, to find what money is left to sweep the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two-thirds of the precept, what resources will those toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do, with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.

I make no apologies for talking about Norfolk. There are 900 parishes there, and some 10,000 nationally. But when Labour gets its way, 20% of England will be disfranchised and have no parish at all—no money or say, for the most part, in how England is run. That includes the whole of Ipswich, for example, or Oxford. The so-called strategic authorities and the mayor are not going to be interested in the carnival floats, the local antique street market, the food festival or those local culture groups that town and parish councils spawn. The civic life of town mayors will evaporate altogether, with their soft convening and ribbon-cutting powers. No, they will go the way of the local pub, the park café and the high streets, in the vandalisation of high-street Britain.

Do not talk to us about Pride in Place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life, with the sheriff and the burgesses, that illuminates our nation’s story. No, under the dismal and undemocratic Clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards—the budget, the representation and the staff—to hold everyone else over a barrel, because there is no parish council. Of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either, and all the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.

My amendment offers hope to these places: to reject the way in which the Bill creates sock-puppet sinecures for out-of-town councillors from miles away. Where an appointed community council is established, those residents can petition to incorporate—creating the empowerment that the Bill purports to foster and encourage—to create a town or parish council with proper elections, a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, so as not to rely on cast-offs after the social care monster, LGR costs, the recast debts and pension fund liabilities have eaten the rest. I want to help people make their part of England better: more local, more responsive and more accountable. My amendments give hope for democracy for these places, including the cathedral cities, coastal communities and new towns—places such as Stevenage and, for the other part, Gorleston, from where I take my territorial designation, within the historic county borough of Great Yarmouth.

I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and may signal my intention to divide the House on this. The requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.

Moving on to council tax for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities and districts may become parishes under the new arrangements—or perhaps not, if my Amendment 216 is carried. By charging council tax where they have been districts, they have been able to benefit from formula grant, redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there is a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast-offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost-shunt. Parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped on to these parishes. They will need to find space in their precept to pay for them, but they will be on their own because they will have no central support and will be living hand to mouth.

My noble friend Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax under Salisbury City Council is up 44% in just four years and its band D is £383. In my own district, South Norfolk, where I am a councillor, we collect the bins, clean the streets, house the homeless and have built a new generation of housing for just 180 quid—less than half of the parish. The problem with the Bill is that it lumps tiny little Howe, a hamlet of 50 souls in my own ward, in with the village of Hempnall, where next week we will welcome a new vicar, the Reverend Austin Uzoigwe—gosh, I should have practised this—and which has perhaps 1,000 people, together with Horsham, a district of 146,000. In law, all places of 50 to 150,000 will be equivalent. That is crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham, but the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.

My amendment would create a new sub-class of third-tier authority where there is a population of 50,000 or where the precept exceeds £1 million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. I do not want your Lordships to think that this is anti-town or anti-parish. In fact, it is quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb and create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to the parishes. My amendments would strengthen parishes’ hand in the negotiations, as part of LGR, so that they will be able to push back and say no. If they think they cannot afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they would not have to take them on.

I am seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability by putting the largest parishes on a proper financial footing, so that they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This is not a dig at parishes; they do a lot of valuable work at the level closest to the people. With this amendment, I have their back, as it would stop those councils with the broadest shoulders imposing liabilities and cast-offs on those with the most limited means.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I looked last night at Labour’s 2024 manifesto and would like to quote, extremely briefly, a few phrases from it. It said:

“Labour is committed to strengthening our democracy”.


It attacked the Conservatives for failing to encourage

“full participation in our democracy”

and said that Labour was committed to encouraging such participation in our democracy and to increasing

“the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy”.

If we do not have local councils and local elections, we have no way of increasing participation, of gaining a real sense of active citizenship or of encouraging the sort of people many of us are now going around to talk to in schools, who will have the vote for the first time. This is why local councils, throughout the country, are extremely important in maintaining and strengthening the sense that every citizen in this country can take some part in public life.

16:45

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be living through the reality that my noble friend Lord Fuller has just outlined: in Eastbourne, we will be completely unparished. The people have been consulted and, having listened to my noble friend beforehand, decided that they do not want an unlimited precept in a town of 150,000, thank you very much. The proposals for smaller parishes, based on wards which have been designed to be equal in population and nothing to do with the actual community boundaries, really do not work. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her amendment, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, but I would add that people must have a usable mechanism to decide what the boundaries of their parish should be. This must be a local conversation, and there must be options and support for that debate. It should not be something that is imposed.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock for making most of the points that I would have liked to make myself, so, given the need to move on, I will try to be brief.

This Bill is about English devolution and, in practice, decentralisation from Whitehall to mayors. There is actually very little community empowerment as proposed, because powers are going to move upwards from Whitehall to mayors, and therefore mayors will simply get increasingly important. I have tried twice to convince the Government to devolve powers from mayors to local authorities with an annual review, and from local authorities to town and parish councils, which are closer to local people and, crucially, closer to local taxpayers—but so far, to no avail.

This is a fundamental group and my name appears on several of the amendments. There are huge dangers in the Government’s planned changes to local government, not least, as we have heard, that decision-making will get more remote from people as local authorities get larger. Town and parish councils have neighbourhood expertise and knowledge, and that must not be lost in the upwards drift of decision-making. Neighbourhood area committees should have mandatory representation from town and parish councils; they must not duplicate existing structures or behave as if town and parish councils do not exist.

The Bill as it stands appears to remove a right which is currently held by parishes under Section 293G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. I am advised that this is what is about to happen. This is a serious omission. Parish councils are responsible for neighbourhood development plans, which are part of the statutory planning framework, and to omit parishes is to disregard and marginalise neighbourhood development plans. I understand that Ministers have said that they do not wish to do that, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the Government’s intention and tell us further what the Government might do about it. It will not be enough simply to consult parish councils; it should be for planning authorities, which are going to be highly centralised, to act fully on any matters of local knowledge and experience that parish councils highlight.

I am looking for the Minister’s assurance that the Government understand what they are doing in terms of the powers of town and parish councils. I think that they need empowerment. All the amendments in this group are justified, including a number in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, which I support. Governments must strengthen the role of town and parish councils, given the large councils that the Government seem intent on creating. There must be meaningful involvement with parish and town councils, and neighbourhood-level decision-making in planning needs to be protected. I hope that weight is going to be given by the Government in the Bill to the crucial role that town and parish councils can perform. If there are any amendments in this group on which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would be minded to test the opinion of the House, she would have our support.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. It is an extremely important group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling her amendments and, as always, making the eloquent case for them. These Benches are united with the Liberal Democrat Benches in wanting to see an expansion of parish and town councils, as well as a strengthening of their role in local government. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, it is much more important now than ever.

We have brought Amendment 213 in my name forward from Committee, with the support of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to secure the role of town and parish councils within what the Government are calling neighbourhood governance. As we have said previously, town and parish councils are the closest to local people, with unique insight into their needs and wishes. The Minister said in Committee that there ought to be more flexibility to design neighbourhood governance, but these are long-established, familiar and democratically elected bodies which deserve more of a role in the Bill. That said, I appreciate that the Minister has verbally recognised the crucial work that parish and town councils do for their communities.

This brings me on to my Amendment 214 to encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas through existing processes and supportive guidance for principal authorities. If the Government are serious about valuing the work of town and parish councils, why do they oppose this amendment? It would require the Secretary of State to develop a strategy for parish governance for unparished areas in England, including the issuing of guidance on how to identify areas where this might be most appropriate, as well as examples of best practice when it comes to establishing those town and parish councils.

I do not believe that town and parish council governance has a proper place in the Bill. We believe this to be a balanced amendment to provide a reasonable way forward. If I do not hear the right decision to move forward from the Government, I intend to divide the House on Amendment 214. But I hope that the Minister will see, or has seen, the merits of this amendment and that we can rely on the support of not just noble Lords across this House but, perhaps, the Government.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for their amendments on neighbourhood governance, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Lucas and Lord Shipley, who have spoken on these issues.

I will begin with Amendment 195. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that both the Government and I understand and value the very important role that parish councils across England play in their communities, and we recognise that this amendment is seeking to ensure that their effectiveness is maximised. However, I reject the amendment’s implicit assumption that central government knows best about the ideal coverage and role of town and parish councils in every local area. Through the community governance review process, local authorities are already empowered to evaluate parishing arrangements in their area. These are locally led and responsive to communities’ priorities, and they ensure that new town and parish councils are created only where there is a genuine local appetite. I hope that that responds to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of localism: local authorities are best placed to understand and respond to the needs of their communities regarding the creation of new town and parish councils, and to make decisions on how best to support these councils where they already exist.

I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 196, which seeks to ensure that where they exist, local authorities take into account the views of town and parish councils in their area. I recognise that given their proximity to their communities, as all noble Lords have said, town and parish councils are well placed to understand the priorities of their communities. They can therefore offer deeply valuable insight to principal local authorities when designing services and making decisions that affect their area. We want to see good partnership working between local authorities and town and parish councils to help ensure that decisions made about their areas reflect the priorities of their communities.

However, the wide-ranging duty to undertake consultation with town and parish councils on any decision which may affect their area would create an unnecessary bureaucracy that would restrict the ability of local authorities to make effective decisions in their area. The approach to mandating consultation is at odds with effective partnership working. It would create an excessive administrative burden for local authorities, leading in turn to further financial burdens for local taxpayers.

On Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, let me be clear: the Government really value the role of town and parish councils; where they exist, they play an absolutely vital role in local democracy and in championing the priorities of their communities. I therefore appreciate that the intent behind this amendment is to make sure that their role is reinforced through the new duty on local authorities to have in place effective neighbourhood governance arrangements. I reassure the noble Baroness that town and parish councils already have statutory functions and powers under existing legislation, and nothing in Clause 60 seeks to remove or diminish these; this amendment is not needed to retain their role and function.

However, requiring neighbourhood governance structures to strengthen the role of town and parish councils over other models of community partnership would constrain local choice; it would remove flexibility for places to design neighbourhood governance arrangements which will work in their areas and match their own local requirements. In its aim to strengthen local engagement, neighbourhood governance will ensure that all communities, whether or not they are served by a town or parish council, have effective ways to influence the decisions that matter to them in their local area.

On Amendment 214, the Government understand and value the important role of parish councils. However, as I mentioned in response to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, through community governance reviews, there is already a process in place by which local authorities can evaluate parishing arrangements for their area. I must therefore oppose this amendment because it would undermine the principle of local autonomy and that local authorities should come to decisions independently and based on the priorities of their communities.

I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which seeks to ensure that where local authorities are making neighbourhood governance arrangements, they consult and engage with town and parish councils. I recognise the valuable role that town and parish councils play in local democracy and service delivery, and I want to be clear that the neighbourhood governance duty we are introducing aims to complement the work of these councils. We expect local authorities to work with existing organisations in their communities, including with town and parish councils, in delivering effective neighbourhood governance.

However, in introducing statutory requirements to formally consult town and parish councils in their area regarding neighbourhood governance arrangements, this amendment would create unnecessary bureaucracy that would hinder the ability of local authorities to develop locally tailored approaches. We absolutely welcome and encourage collaboration between principal local authorities and town and parish councils. But for central government to dictate how this happens in local areas would be counterproductive to true partnership working.

17:00

I turn to Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Like the noble Lord, and as I have said many times, we value the role of town and parish councils. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The community governance review process already enables local people to petition their local authority to consider the creation of a new town or parish council. The amendment proposes a flat threshold of 5% of local electors’ support, instead of the existing staggered thresholds which account for differences in population size. The current approach ensures that the community governance review process is proportionate and that petitions lead to a review when this accurately reflects the will of the community. This amendment would endanger that approach. The neighbourhood governance duty introduced by the Bill aims to ensure that all communities, whether or not they are served by a parish or town council, have effective ways to influence the local decisions that matter to them.

On the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about Pride in Place, the Pride in Place funding and the project that sits alongside it have put in the resources—that is, £20 million in the case of many local areas. It has not just generated great interest and excitement in our communities but will enable them, at last, to address many of the issues that the noble Lord mentioned and to tackle the neglect that they have suffered as funding was decimated for them over the past 14 years. Far from sidelining these councils, neighbourhood governance aims to complement and strengthen the important work of the parish sector.

Finally, regarding Amendment 318, as I said in response to a similar amendment in Committee, this amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State has the power to set referendum principles for any type of council if he chooses to. This would not be affected by reclassifying some parish councils as major preceptors. The Government’s ability to consider prevailing circumstances and balance the generation of income for local services and the pressure on taxpayers is an important element of the local government finance system. The Government do not support attempts to change it.

Successive Governments have so far decided not to set referendum principles for parish councils. However, this is kept under review each year. As always, the Government strongly encourage councils to consider the impact of council tax on residents and to mitigate the need for increases whenever they can. Parish councils, large or small, are close to the residents and communities they serve; they are already directly accountable to residents for their spending decisions.

Lastly, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about neighbourhood plans, there is no plan for the Government to remove the ability to work on neighbourhood plans.

For all the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased that we have had this debate on this group of amendments about parish and town councils, but I am very disappointed in her response. She cited the community governance review as an example of how more parish or town councils can be created, but this depends on the local authority wanting town and parish councils to be created. If—as in my own council, currently doing a community governance review—they do it in a lowest possible key, then, guess what, there is not much of a response. This is why it is important that the national Government take responsibility for all our local democracy by encouraging it rather than doing it diminuendo. Town and parish councils are important, and they become more important as large unitaries are created.

We will not be dividing on Amendment 195 or Amendment 196. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, there is agreement in principle between us that this layer of very local councils is important. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is likely to divide the House on Amendment 214, and if she does, we on these Benches will support her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

Amendment 196 not moved.

Clause 59: Local authority governance and executives

Amendment 197

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

197: Leave out Clause 59
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I shall speak also to Amendment 212 in my name. I should say at the outset that, unless the Minister can give a very convincing response about the rights of a local authority and local people to adopt a committee system if they want to in their governance structure, I am minded to divide the House. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who spoke on the value of a committee system in Committee. It has proved very popular and successful in Sheffield, and in other places. Basically, my case is that it is for local people to decide the governance structure that they should have, as indeed they have done very successfully in Sheffield.

The Bill, as I keep repeating, is about devolution and community empowerment. So, I ask the Minister: why can a community and its local authority not decide for themselves their own model of local democracy? It is surely for the people who pay taxes to that authority to make a decision about the governance structure that runs their local area. That is a quite fundamental issue for me. It is not for central Governments to make those decisions; it is for local people.

I was very surprised when I first read—well, each time I read—the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill’s Explanatory Notes. In paragraph 98 on page 23, I found the argument very surprising. It is, in essence, a set of assertions by the Government that:

“The committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities, particularly the larger, unitary councils. It suffers from more opaque and potentially siloed decision making, a lack of clear leadership and accountability, with decisions taking longer to be arrived at”.


At previous stages of the Bill, I have asked the Minister for the evidence base on which that statement in paragraph 98 has been written. Where is the research that tells us that about a committee system, which is apparently very successful in a number of places—notably Sheffield, where the people decided to reintroduce a committee system? How does anyone know in London that a committee system is a less effective form of governance? Is it not for local people to make that decision? Anyway, might the Government consider that the quality of decision-making where the decision has been reached by a committee might be better than where it has been taken within the leader and cabinet model, when many fewer people are involved in it?

For those who may be less familiar with the number of committees I am talking about, I should say that these are committees on housing, the environment, social care, economic development, transport, and so on. It is about whether you have a number of people, cross-party, working on a specific area of governance, or whether you have individuals making decisions.

I think we get more considered decisions from a committee structure. The scrutiny system that underpins the leader and cabinet model comes after the event—it comments afterwards on whether something is successful—but a committee is assessing policy proposals before they have been agreed. Since the committee system was invented under the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, it has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together and engaging all elected councillors in the decision-making processes of their local authority.

If anyone has any doubt as to whether a committee system is a good thing, we just need to look at ourselves: we operate a committee system when a Bill goes through your Lordships’ House. Imagine what it would be like if there had not been a Committee for this or any other Bill. I submit that having a committee structure can lead to better decisions. I accept that it can be slower—sometimes, too many people may be felt to get involved in an issue—but I think democracy is enhanced when that happens. I also believe that the quality of decisions by a committee is generally better. At its heart, it is not for central government to control the decisions of local areas on the governance model that they prefer. We have to trust the people better than the Government seem to want to do. For that reason, I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support every word that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. This amendment is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. I point out the title of the Bill we are debating: the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. So many of its clauses actually remove responsibility from lower parts of our governing system. I really urge the Government to see clearly that this would be a sensible move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, particularly given my noble friend Lord Shipley’s comments on Sheffield. I found it ironic that in Committee we were talking about not allowing others to have a committee when we in your Lordships’ House have Committee stages.

As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the title of the Bill is about community empowerment. I am about to finish my 20-odd years on Sheffield City Council in the next fortnight, having joined in 2004. When I and my good friend—my noble friend Lord Scriven, who is sitting next to me—took control of the council in 2008, it was under a strong leader model. I remember my noble friend saying that a test of whether we have been successful is to ask: do we have the same amount of power when leaving as we had when we inherited the role? That was because we were about devolving powers. At that time, we set up a committee system to devolve down to what we called community assemblies. That was about devolving power down to a local level and taking it out of our hands: my noble friend Lord Scriven was the council leader and I was the cabinet member for parks, the countryside et cetera. We genuinely believed that local decision-making was far better.

Looking at this Bill, I am surprised that we think we should centralise power and that Whitehall should tell all councils that there is only one governance model. If we do that, I think we will end up in the situation that Sheffield was in. Since the Committee debate in the Lords, a plaque has gone up at Sheffield City Council:

“In recognition of the courageous campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council, and as a reminder to all that such failures in leadership must never happen again”.


That happened under a strong leader model. Out of 84 councillors, just 10 people picked by the leader at the time—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Not me.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

Not my noble friend Lord Scriven; it was the leader at the time. They basically rammed through decisions to fell healthy street trees. It took thousands upon thousands of signatures for an inquiry to ultimately find that they went wrong.

It was said that there was scrutiny, but the problem was, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Shipley and others, that scrutiny looks at decisions already made. When you have such a powerful executive on a council, the scrutiny boards were often chaired by the same ruling group. If you wanted to keep that job, you were never going to take on your leader.

17:15

Based on that experience, I urge the Minister to look at the experience of Sheffield, where 90,000 people voted in a referendum—two to one—to change to the current governance model of the committee system. We have a system where we have councils from all parties that are able to contribute and do what we do best in your Lordships’ House, which is to amend and improve legislation. I say to the Minister: please learn from some of the mistakes that have happened elsewhere in the country, not just in Sheffield. Look at what has happened in Birmingham. What has the strong leader model there led to?

Therefore, let us just let go of the power in Whitehall. Let locally elected members, through their communities, decide on their governance model. If they say that they want a strong leader model, that is fine by me, but at least let them have a say. If they want a committee system, let them have it. Ultimately, the local voters will judge them, and if they get the committee system wrong and they cannot deliver for local residents, elections—as we have just around the corner—may result in different politicians. I hope the Minister considers the experience of Sheffield and the lessons learned, because I do not want to see such plaques outside many other town halls.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, which goes to the heart of what we mean by devolution and local choice.

On this side of the House, we believe in democracy and devolution. Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises the fundamental question: do we truly trust local authorities to determine the governance arrangements that best serve their communities? This is not a radical approach. Rather, it is rooted in the simple, democratic principle that decisions about how councils are run should, wherever possible, be made locally and not prescribed from the centre.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other noble Lords extolled the virtues of the committee system, and we can debate whether that is the best system. I was the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, and we very successfully ran a leader and cabinet model. The fundamental principle underlying all this is that this should be a local decision involving local residents. That is why the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to reinforce an equally important principle: respect for local residents. Where a community has chosen through referendum to adopt or retain a particular governance model, it cannot be right for that decision to be set aside without further direct consent.

Amendments 198 and 200 in particular are designed to ensure that where a referendum has taken place, its outcome cannot be overridden. If we are to ask the public to engage in these decisions, we must be prepared to honour the result.

Similarly, the amendments adjusting the relevant time periods from one year to three years are not about obstruction; they are about stability. Constant churn in governance structures serves neither councils nor the communities they represent. A longer period allows new arrangements to bed in, to be properly assessed and to deliver for residents.

Taken together, these amendments and Amendment 197 form a coherent and principled case, one that champions democracy, devolution and stability in governance. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, presses his amendment, we are minded to support it. If the Bill is to live up to its title of community empowerment, it must do more than devolve powers in name only; it must embody a genuine trust for local towns, cities, rural areas and the people they serve.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I would like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey, Lord Faulks, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their constructive engagement during the Committee debate on the requirement for local authorities to publish notice of any proposed change to their governance arrangements. I think these issues have been debated for the whole of the 30 years that I have been in local government, and I am sure they will continue to be so.

Following that debate, the Government have reflected carefully and brought forward government Amendments 210 and 211. Together, these amendments will maintain the current requirement and align the policy with the Government’s recent commitments set out in the Local Media Action Plan, published last month. As part of that plan, a wider review of all statutory notices will be carried out by the Government to explore whether action is needed to better ensure that communities have access to journalistic scrutiny of local decision-making. To ensure that government policy on statutory notices is developed coherently and consistently, we will maintain the current requirement in this specific area, and in order to allow the review to determine the best long-term approach. This will ensure alignment with the Government’s wider work on the role of statutory notices and local media, rather than pre-empting any decisions that are properly a matter for that broader review.

Turning to Amendments 197 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the issues the noble Lord has raised were explored in some detail in Grand Committee, and the Government’s position remains unchanged. Clause 59 and Schedule 27 are intended to promote greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. At present, arrangements vary significantly, which can make it harder for residents to understand who is responsible for decisions and how accountability operates. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government continue to favour executive models of governance. In our view, the leader and cabinet model, now used by more than 80% of councils, offers clearer leadership, stronger accountability and more streamlined decision-making. Certainly, when my own authority moved to that model, it did all those things.

On scrutiny, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of course, councils can use their overview and scrutiny committees for pre-scrutiny of decision-making if they wish. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, all decisions of cabinet in the leader and cabinet model are subject to review by scrutiny. We also know that good practice suggests that overview and scrutiny should not be chaired by the ruling party. I know that many authorities do not operate that system, but that is recommended as good practice.

The experience of individual councils helps to illustrate why this matters. When Cheshire East moved to a committee system in 2021, a Local Government Association corporate peer challenge found that the resulting structure was extensive and meeting- heavy, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving almost the entire membership of the council. That same review also highlighted ongoing difficulties with co-ordination, pointing to a siloed organisational culture and weak joint working across departments, which in turn affected service delivery and internal communication.

There are also examples of councils that have trialled committee arrangements and subsequently concluded that they were not delivering the intended benefits. Brighton and Hove’s decision to return to a leader and cabinet model in 2024 is a recent case in point. Repeated structural change of this kind is costly, disruptive and not in the interests of effective local leadership. Finally, where decision-making is dispersed across multiple committees, it can become less clear where responsibility ultimately sits. In my work as a peer reviewer, as I was for the LGA for many years, that was certainly my experience. It was less clear where the responsibility ultimately sat in most councils with complicated systems.

I turn now to Amendments 198 to 209, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government cannot accept these amendments as they run contrary to our aim of promoting greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. However, where the Government do agree with the noble Baroness is on the case for treating differently councils that have adopted the committee system more recently. As your Lordships will know, where a local authority has adopted the committee system following a council resolution or a public referendum, there is generally a moratorium on making a further governance change for a period of five and 10 years respectively, under the Local Government Act 2000.

Where local electors or councillors have voted proactively to adopt the committee system, following a public referendum or council resolution respectively, it is reasonable that they should expect those arrangements to remain in place for the duration of those so-called moratorium periods. The Government have therefore provided in this Bill for protections from the requirement to move to the leader and cabinet governance model for those councils that are currently operating a committee system and are still within their statutory moratorium period. This includes Sheffield City Council, Bristol City Council and the Isle of Wight Council. These councils will be protected from the requirement to change governance models for the duration of their current moratorium period. At the end of this period, they will be required to undertake and publish a review, setting out whether they intend to move to a leader and cabinet executive and, if not, why they consider the committee system to be an appropriate form of governance for their local authority, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in their area.

The Government believe that a one-year decision period provides sufficient time for a council to carry out the necessary work to support that assessment and to pass any resolution needed to continue operating the committee system. This is comparable with the time allowed in existing legislation when moving to or from a non-mayoral model, which provides by default for the change to take place at the next annual meeting of the council. Protected committee councils will also have the remainder of their protected moratorium periods to prepare for this review.

Separately, all new councils established as part of the local government reorganisation will be required to adopt the leader and cabinet model. For all other councils not subject to these committee system protections, the Bill requires a move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant provision in Schedule 27 coming into force. Here again, the Government believe that a one-year period provides sufficient time to allow for a smooth and orderly transition, in line with equivalent statutory processes, enabling councils to undertake all necessary preparatory work.

For all these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I commend government Amendments 210 and 211 to the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lord, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and for reminding the House that the Government have agreed that three councils— Sheffield, Bristol and the Isle of Wight—can stay with the committee system temporarily. However, I remind the House that we are talking here of only three councils.

This is a simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it central government or local people? I submit that it is a matter for local people to decide what is best for their area. For that reason, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

17:27

Division 1

Amendment 197 agreed.

Ayes: 247

Noes: 187

17:39

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the House has agreed Amendment 197 to leave out Clause 59. Clause 59 introduced Schedule 27. Amendments 198 to 211 are amendments to Schedule 27. I remind the House that our Standing Order 46 says:

“An amendment to a bill must not be inconsistent with a previous decision given on the same stage of the bill”.


It would perhaps be helpful for me to add that Amendment 212 would leave out Schedule 27. I understand that, as Amendment 197 has been agreed to, the Government will not oppose Amendment 212, so Schedule 27 will be removed from the Bill. Noble Lords may wish to bear this in mind in considering Amendments 198 to 211.

Schedule 27: Local authority governance and executives

Amendments 198 to 211 not moved.

Amendment 212

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

212: Leave out Schedule 27
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in Lord Shipley’s name removes the requirement to retain a leader and cabinet structure in local government, instead allowing local authorities the choice of determining their own governance models.

Amendment 212 agreed.

Clause 60: Local authorities: effective neighbourhood governance

Amendment 213 not moved.

Amendment 214

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

214: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Promotion of parish governance(1) The Secretary of State must develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England, particularly for areas that are currently unparished. (2) In carrying out this duty, the Secretary of State must—(a) issue guidance to principal authorities on identifying areas where a community governance review may be appropriate,(b) encourage principal authorities to consider establishing parish or town councils where doing so would strengthen neighbourhood representation and community engagement, and(c) publish information and examples of best practice on the establishment and operation of parish and town councils.(3) Principal authorities must act in accordance with guidance issued under subsection (2) when exercising their functions under Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. (4) In preparing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including representatives of parish and town councils.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas by promoting the use of existing community governance review processes and supporting principal authorities to consider the creation of parish or town councils where appropriate.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I was really disappointed with the response from the Minister to my amendment. All that it asked was for the Government to promote parish governance and to support principal authorities to consider the creation of town and parish councils where appropriate. We did not get anything positive from the Minister. Therefore, I wish to divide the House.

17:42

Division 2

Amendment 214 agreed.

Ayes: 257

Noes: 180

17:53

Amendments 215 and 216 not moved.

Clause 61: Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: supplementary vote system

Amendment 217

Moved by

[Lord Pack]

217: Clause 61, page 64, line 4, leave out “supplementary” and insert “alternative”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the voting system for five types of local government election to the alternative vote. Currently, Clause 61 and Schedule 28 changes the voting system from first past the post to the supplementary vote. This amendment is connected to others to Schedule 28 in the name of Lord Pack.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill proposes to replace first past the post for some of our elections with the supplementary vote, which is a step forward, but it is not a great step forward, which is why I propose Amendment 217, along with the consequential Amendments 226 to 241, to replace the supplementary vote with the alternative vote. Having the right system in place for mayors matters all the more with the Government’s vision for more mayors with more powers. That makes this the right moment further to improve their democratic accountability.

For single-member vacancies, such as for mayors, and indeed for police and crime commissioners, both first past the post and the supplementary vote rely in part on voters being able confidently to predict who will finish in the top two in a contest and therefore being able, if they wish, to cast a tactical vote, in effect, under first past the post, or with the supplementary vote being able to cast a second preference that has a chance of actually counting.

The problem is that in the multiparty world we are in, one populated as well by many independent candidates, neither of those systems is well suited for our politics. The reality with the supplementary vote is that often people cast a first preference for someone who does not make it into the top two and a second preference for someone who also does not make it into the top two and therefore end up impotent. It is as if the voter had only first past the post to use.

That is not a rare or theoretical problem. It is a widespread one that we have seen repeatedly with the previous use of the supplementary vote in England. I referred at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage to research by the Make Votes Matter coalition carried out a couple of years ago covering 217 elections conducted under the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that more than half—54%—of people’s second preferences that were due to come into play after the first round had to be discarded because they were not for a candidate who made it into the top two. That research note is for elections using the SV since 2000. For many of those years, we had fewer large and medium-sized parties jostling for contention than we do now. Even in those more favourable circumstances in the past for the supplementary vote—those more favourable circumstances for people successfully to second-guess who would be in the top two—more than half of all second preferences, correctly filled out on the ballot paper and that should have been used, none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the top two. That is quite simply a flaw with the supplementary vote.

It also runs counter to what the Minister said in February in Committee, that

“the Government believe that mayors should have a broad base of support among their electors”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 173.]

Alas, discarding more than half of secondary preferences in the way that I talked about does not sit at all well with that aim of a broad base of support among electors. So often, for so many voters, supplementary vote ends up being the same as first past the post.

It is not only in local government elections for mayors in England that voters suffer from the limitations of first past the post; hence my other amendment in this group calling for the use of the single transferable vote. As well as its use in Northern Ireland, STV has been used successfully for nearly 20 years for local government elections in Scotland. As I suspect we may hear from some noble Lords opposing STV, I point out that it is used in Scotland with broad support across different parties, including those parties that oppose its introduction for local elections in England. I hope that, mindful of the widespread acceptance across the political spectrum of STV in Scotland for local elections and of its successful use over such a long period of time, perhaps noble Lords will consider that if it is good enough for Scotland, if it works in Scotland, why not have it in England as well?

I return to mayors. We are in a political world of more candidates, more parties and more confusion over who is going to end up in the top two, and that is why the alternative vote, not the supplementary vote, is the right voting system. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, different voting systems have different advantages and disadvantages. As the Minister knows, first past the post is simple and allows the winner to be representative of all those who voted for them and of those who did not. It reduces the chance of minority-led, unstable Administrations. It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats did better at the previous general election under first past the post than they would have done under a proportional system.

The Bill seeks to change first past the post in mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections to the supplementary vote system. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, argues that in a multiparty contest, the alternative vote system is fairer, but I think there are stronger arguments for retaining the system overwhelmingly preferred by the public, as shown in the 2011 referendum. I do not think there is much evidence that views have changed dramatically on this question since then. Besides, the alternative vote system is not used for any elections in the United Kingdom, as the Minister pointed out in Committee.

I think it is undesirable to have many different electoral systems for different elections, so I support my noble friends in their Amendments 218 and 242 to retain first past the post. As my noble friend Lady Scott said in Committee, moving to a supplementary vote system would add complexity, increase the chances of confusion and risk more ballots being rejected. Besides, I am a bit puzzled about the application of these amendments to PCC elections because I thought the Government were going to abolish PCC elections and replace elected commissioners with those appointed by mayors, at least in mayoral strategic authorities. Can the Minister explain when she expects the last elected police and crime commissioner to leave office?

18:00

I strongly support my noble friends in Amendment 220. The public outrage that followed the now reversed decisions to delay many elections was predictable. I also support Amendment 221. In their Amendment 223, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seek to require local government elections to be conducted under the single transferable vote system. This would require the establishment of multimember electoral wards for councillors, which would confuse many voters and is quite different to our strong tradition that the elected representative represents all his or her voters. I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller in his Amendments 224 and 225.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I will speak in favour of Amendment 217 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pack, who has set out clearly why it is so important to have the right voting system in place for mayors, given the growing powers that they have and will have in the future. Democratic accountability is really important.

As one of a handful of Members of this House who have run for Mayor of London, I want to highlight the impact of the supplementary vote system on the London mayoral elections. I thank the Electoral Reform Society for its figures. In the London mayoral elections in 2000, 2004 and 2021, the winning candidate received 36% to 40% of first preferences. Between 11 and 20 candidates were standing and, as we have seen, the number keeps going up. We have calculated that if we remove people who used their second preference for the same candidate, which happens, or those who chose a candidate already in the top two so their vote would not transfer, around half of valid second-preference votes were non-transferable, so basically wasted, in each of these London mayoral elections. Their second preferences were non-transferable as they had been cast for candidates who did not make the top two. In each of these elections, hundreds of thousands of votes were wasted—between 49% and 53%—and a mayor was elected without the majority support that we all desire.

That is why I fully support Amendment 217 bringing in the alternative vote for mayoral elections, which would mean that every vote and transfer will genuinely count. We would be able to engage communities far more in these elections. It is a better system to ensure genuine democracy in action.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I note the dedication of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to this issue, but he will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support him on this group of amendments. The issue of electoral reform has been debated time and again. I do not believe it would be appropriate to insert these significant provisions in this Bill now. Our position on these Benches has been consistent in favour of first past the post as the preferred voting system.

As my noble friend Lord Trenchard highlighted, in 2011 a UK-wide referendum was held and 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal to introduce alternative vote. That result cannot be ignored. I recognise that this referendum was with regard to the voting system for Members of Parliament in the other place, but there is no basis to simply assume that there would be a majority in favour of AV if it had focused solely on local elections, or indeed a majority in favour of a supplementary voting system for councillors. Voters clearly stated their preference for first past the post, and it would be inappropriate to ignore them through amendments to this Bill now. I appreciate our differences on this issue, but I urge noble Lords to think carefully before supporting these amendments, regardless of their personal preferences for electoral reform.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this group of amendments. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic and I respect his great knowledge and expertise.

We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially for single executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is precisely for this reason that we are planning to reintroduce the supplementary vote system for these polls. This system has a proven history of successfully meeting the needs of the electorate and is well understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the referendum that was held in 2011 with regard to parliamentary elections. I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come—I do not think it is going to go away—but it is true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about our devolved Administrations, the voting system used for elections to devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of those devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. For historical reasons the single transferable vote has been used for local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is appropriate for different voting systems to be used for different polls, but we believe that the supplementary vote is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors.

I noted the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the elections for police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I have not had a definitive answer, but I assume that we are putting in the provision for PCC elections in case a by-election needs to be held between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time those posts will go. We therefore do not support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but succinct and apposite debate. As several have said, this is a long-running topic of discussion that I am sure we will return to on occasions in the future. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but given that reference was made to whether the supplementary vote or the alternative vote might be too confusing for people, I simply point out that the single transferable vote, which is a more complicated ballot paper than either a supplementary or an alternative vote, is used successfully without a problem by voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I certainly would not want to suggest in any way that if people in Scotland and Northern Ireland can manage it, somehow voters in England would not be up to the task.

We have rehearsed the main arguments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in particular, had some apposite comments about the practical experience we have of how problematic the supplementary vote can be when it is used in London. Given the importance of the democratic point, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

18:09

Division 3

Amendment 217 disagreed.

Ayes: 69

Noes: 332

18:23

Amendment 218

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

218: Leave out Clause 61
Member's explanatory statement
This removes the provisions which re-introduce the supplementary vote system for the elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group covers three substantive issues: supplementary voting for the election of mayors, election delays and flexible voting pilots.

On supplementary voting, the Conservative Party has long supported first past the post, which allows voters to vote out top politicians who do not deliver, both locally and nationally. We introduced it for the mayoral elections; that was a manifesto commitment in our 2017 manifesto, and we recommitted to first past the post in our 2019 manifesto and our 2024 manifesto. We are committed to maintaining that important link with the local voter, and we stand by our changes to mayoral voting, which had manifesto backing. In contrast, Labour’s proposals on supplementary voting for mayoral elections are not backed by manifesto commitment. Therefore, we do not support this reintroduction of supplementary voting, and we intend to test the opinion of the House at the conclusion of this debate.

The amendments on flexible voting challenge the Government on the parliamentary procedure that will follow if Ministers seek to roll out flexible voting. We are clear that flexible voting must not be rolled out without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point in her response.

The important issue of local election delays has been a topic of deep controversy over the last year, and it has caused enormous problems within local government particularly. I am very pleased that, in the face of campaigning by those on this side of the House, the Prime Minister chose to U-turn on plans to deny millions of people a vote this May. It is right that those elections are now going ahead, but we must not get into a place where this can ever happen again. My Amendment 220 would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying any local government elections by more than one year, if the delay resulted from local government reorganisation. That is the right approach, and I thank the Minister for her engagement on this. I am pleased that the Government have listened to our case and have tabled their own Amendment 218A, which delivers the same legislative outcomes as our Conservative amendment. This is an important achievement, and we support the Government’s Amendment 218A.

Before I conclude, I should briefly mention Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, which we have considered carefully. I think the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have much the same concerns as we do about local election delays. But we do not agree that Amendment 219 is a workable proposal. We believe that the principle behind government Amendment 218A is the right one, and we will support that amendment to prevent future denials of local democracy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

We have discussed the issue of the Government’s power to cancel elections several times, and as has already been mentioned, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Government have responded, with their plans being put forward in this group. However, for reasons I shall set out, I do not believe they go far enough, which is why I wish to speak to my Amendments 219 and 222 in this group. Given where everyone’s views currently appear to stand, I shall concentrate on Amendment 219 and simply note that Amendment 222 perhaps offers an alternative route to address some of the points raised previously by noble Lords, if that would find favour.

The reason for my amendments, and why I would suggest they are preferable to the Government’s new plans, is that there is an important point of principle here. It is that Governments should fit their plans around people’s democratic rights, rather than mess around with people’s democratic rights in order to fit them around the Government’s plans. Democracy, in that sense, should come first.

Although the Government’s amendment in this group would absolutely be a step forward from the status quo, it still would, alas, leave many steps not taken. The full protection of primary legislation should be required to axe a scheduled polling day or, as Amendment 222 offers, only in very tightly constrained circumstances should it be done by secondary legislation. Parliament can legislate, at pace if needed, due to a crisis that requires elections to be put off, but primary legislation means full scrutiny. It means the ability to make amendments, the ability to probe neglected consequences properly, and the knowledge that the Government, to get their measure through, have to be supported not only in the Commons but in this House.

We have seen in other countries how quickly people can lose what were thought to be very basic democratic norms. Our democracy should have full legislative protection for our elections, because there is a fundamental weakness in relying on secondary legislation, as do both the Government’s amendment and the amendments proposed by noble Lords in the Conservative Party.

With such secondary legislation we run into the difficulty that on a point of principle, which we can leave to debate another time, whichever of Labour or the Conservatives is in opposition in this House, those parties are committed not to support fatal Motions on secondary legislation. Any Government therefore know that however controversial their proposal on a piece of secondary legislation is, this House will almost never oppose it. That is a fundamental problem: if the idea of the safeguard is a piece of secondary legislation and that safeguard is also one that the two largest groups in this House are essentially committed never to using, it is not much of a safeguard at all.

18:30

Beyond that important point of principle, two other aspects of the Government’s proposals are less than ideal. One is that the Government’s amendment does not cover all scenarios—as, to be fair, the Minister was very up front and clear about in her letter to all Peers. There are still circumstances, as the Minister’s letter set out and illustrated, in which elections could be put off by more than a year. The Government’s amendment is limited in its scope; it is not a general across the board protection for our elections.

Lastly, and I readily admit that this is very much the least of my three points, the proposals in government Amendment 218A are worded in a less than clear way. When we read the amendment, we are told the circumstances in which election orders are invalid before what election orders even are. Whatever else happens today, if this wording progresses, I hope the Government will look again at it and the sequencing in their amendment, bearing in mind that it is useful to have law about elections that is clear to everyone, not just the specialists. It is certainly possible to make that wording clearer, so that you are not told when something is invalid before you even are told what it is.

I return to my main point of comparing the Government’s plans with those in my Amendment 219: under the Government’s plans there are still too many ways in which it would be too easy for a Government to delay too many elections for too long. I hope noble Lords will support the stronger, clearer protections for our democracy in Amendment 219.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, of course, I support all the points on elections made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, but they focus on council elections and LGR, ignoring the simple truth that local mayors, as in my Amendment 225, and police and crime commissioners, in my Amendment 224, are also part of that local government landscape. My amendments would bring the mayors and PCCs into scope of the wider changes that the Government have been dragged to Parliament to repent.

Democracy is important. We know that; we sit in the mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who represent them, in pursuance of better lives and all those other things that the state should provide. That consent lasts until the next election, but I concede—this is where I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, on his Amendment 219—that there may be some quite exceptional circumstances, perhaps because of war, where a delay, subject to parliamentary consent, of course, would be justified. In those circumstances, my amendment would ensure that the powers existed on the statute book for a two-step super-affirmative process, where permission must be sought and received from both Houses and then only an affirmative resolution would be laid before the House. In the circumstance of war, for example, there would be some much more important things to sort out than passing a Bill to cancel local government elections.

I do not go entirely against what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, but, to echo the words of my noble friend Lady Scott from the Front Bench, I think it is unworkable. My amendments would remedy those matters but, in any event, my resolutions would be to cancel the elections no less than three months before the date of publication for that election, simply so that parties and individuals could have enough time to prepare the manifestos, select candidates, raise funds and address all those practical points. My amendments would ensure that preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choice clearly on the ballot, with lots of notice—not just for the councils, but for the mayors and PCCs—without hog-tying Parliament to pass primary legislation when super-affirmative secondary legislation can achieve the same outcome more quickly, more cheaply and in the right way.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I want to say one thing in response to this group and will try not to repeat anything that anybody has said. I am very puzzled by the Conservative Party’s stance on our first past the post electoral system. I think it has passed its use-by date. It is hopelessly out of date and inappropriate for candidates to be elected, as will happen a great deal in the local elections coming up, with less than 30% of the vote. Candidates who get elected and are then trusted to spend public money should have the confidence of a much larger number of people at the poll. To count on a system which is simply about the person who comes top in that ballot, when that could be on between 25% and 30% of the poll, seems totally out of date these days given the multi-party system that we now have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments on elections. I will begin by discussing the government amendments in this group.

The history of reorganisation under the previous Government, as now, has taught us that the process typically gives rise to circumstances where there are strong reasons for postponement. Early on in the process, postponement can release vital capacity, as well as avoid the cost and disruption of elections to councils which are likely to be abolished. Later on in the process, structural changes orders provide for elections to new councils and avoid the confusion and waste of resources on parallel elections for councillors who would serve terms of less than 11 months.

The reorganisation process is not always predictable. For this reason, the Secretary of State’s flexibility to consider such an important question at each relevant point during the process should not be constrained by an arbitrary number. It must be considered on the particular merits of the question at that moment. The length of postponement will, of course, always be a consideration but should not be the sole consideration.

The Secretary of State said on 23 February that the Government would reflect carefully on the amendments that had been tabled at this stage and the concerns raised, and that is exactly what we have done. We have tabled an amendment that would prevent double postponement for reasons connected with reorganisation. Our amendments achieve the same aim as Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but within the requirements of legislative drafting.

I will set out in more detail shortly why the Government cannot agree the amendments tabled by your Lordships. We consider that it would be wholly disproportionate to remove the powers entirely or to be overprescriptive as to their use. However, the Government have listened to and understand your Lordships’ concerns about the use of powers to postpone elections to a council undergoing local government reorganisation for more than one year. We have heard, in particular, the concern that multiple delays to elections can reduce the democratic mandate of councillors. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which I will move in due course.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 219 and for his continued engagement on this issue. The amendment before us would significantly restrict the Government’s ability to change the year of local elections by requiring such changes to be made through primary legislation, except in very narrow circumstances. The amendment would require councils which are to be abolished in the current round of reorganisation to hold elections to seats that would be abolished less than 11 months later. This is because the current reorganisations are proceeding under existing powers rather than under the local government reorganisation, which will be enabled under or by virtue of this Bill, including amendments to existing legislation, as required by subsection (2)(b)(i).

The restrictions also rule out the use of powers in any other context, including, of particular concern, best value interventions in failing councils. These interventions require speed and agility. It is simply not proportionate to require primary legislation to implement the recommendations of statutory inspectors or commissioners. The Government fully appreciate that noble Lords have concerns about the postponement of elections. That is why we have introduced government Amendment 218A, which I have already explained.

Turning now to Amendment 220, I first reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement on this issue. I know I have said this before, but it is an important point: the Government’s position remains that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise, and I hope that government Amendment 196A means that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendment.

Amendment 222 offers a disproportionate response to the concerns we have heard. In many time-sensitive situations, such as best-value interventions, primary legislation would simply be impractical. Even the narrow circumstances where secondary legislation would be permitted are over-prescribed. It would not, for instance, be possible to align parish council elections with those of newly created councils without fresh primary legislation. The resulting stand-alone elections would be at the expense of those parish councils, both financially and in terms of turnout.

The amendment does not define “local government election”. This creates an unhelpful ambiguity with regard to the use of the power to change a council’s scheme of elections, which necessarily involves changing the timing of council elections and has been critical to some best-value interventions. I gently remind the noble Lord of the well-established constitutional principle that a Parliament should not seek to bind its successors, which the final provision appears to attempt to do. In the light of these arguments and the Government’s own more proportionate and practical amendment, I hope he will feel able not to press his amendment.

I reiterate the Government’s position that elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. That said, there have been and will continue to be exceptional circumstances where that high bar is met, in the context of government intervention in councils failing the best-value duty as well as during reorganisation. This is why Parliament has on many separate occasions granted the Secretary of State powers to act if and when the need arises. We have reflected very carefully on our debates on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for such legislation. The Government’s priority is to ensure that arbitrary deadlines do not prevent the flexible use of these powers where this is essential, while of course meeting the concerns that have been expressed. The super-affirmative procedure is unsuited to statutory instruments, which implement a simple yes/no decision. There will be no meaningful recommendations that a committee could make as to the drafting of such legislation, beyond agreement or disagreement with the Secretary of State’s decision to change the timing of an election. It is sufficient that this question be considered once by each House under the affirmative procedure, as the Government are proposing with our amendment.

I remind noble Lords that last year, the Government announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished at the end of their current term of office in 2028, and that police and crime commissioner functions will be transferred to mayors wherever possible, or to local leaders. There will be no further ordinary elections of PCCs, and legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. The provision in the Bill is to allow for the situation where a by-election may occur before 2028.

Turning now to Amendments 218 and 242, I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government’s priority is to equip mayors with the means and the authority they need to drive the growth and ambition of their areas. These leaders will be responsible for serving millions of residents and overseeing budgets worth many millions of pounds. Elections for these important roles must be built on a system the public can trust. After the May 2026 elections, the Bill will return mayoral and PCC contests to the supplementary vote system, ensuring clear accountability and a stronger personal mandate for those elected. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions.

Turning to Amendment 221, the Government are committed to improving participation in our democracy. To support this goal, we must continue to ensure that our democratic processes keep pace with technology and with the way people live their lives. The ability to test innovative electoral procedures in real polling environments, understand how voters use them and gather robust data on what works well is crucial. The power given to the Secretary of State to make pilot orders allows for a level of flexibility and working at pace in what is often a shifting landscape of local election timetables and technological advances. The legislation requires that at all times, pilots are designed and delivered in collaboration with the relevant local authorities. The Electoral Commission also has a statutory duty to evaluate pilots following their conclusion. There are therefore sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that pilots remain safe and secure and do not impact on the security or efficacy of the elections during which they are delivered.

The purpose of this amendment is to require such pilot orders to be made by an affirmative statutory instrument. This would add considerably to the timeline and severely impact the ability for electoral pilots to be delivered flexibly and at pace. The amendment would also repeal the Secretary of State’s order-making power to apply piloted procedures to other local government elections. Let me reassure noble Lords that there is already sufficient parliamentary scrutiny if we decide to roll out piloted changes at local elections—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, specifically asked me about this—as any changes must be made via affirmative secondary legislation. However, there is a strong precedent for keeping voting rules consistent across different election types unless the specific election specifically supports a different process, so we would be more likely to roll out changes to UK parliamentary elections at the same time, and this would require primary legislation.

18:45

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 223, which would introduce a single transferable vote system for electing councillors within English local authorities. The Government recognise, as I said earlier, that the voting system used to elect our representative sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, and I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic. We will no doubt continue to have many debates about the different voting systems that are available, but the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. We believe that first past the post is a clear way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters and while not perfect—no voting system is perfect—it provides for a direct relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. We therefore believe it is appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as council elections, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views will be elected. With the explanations I have given, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for her useful response on flexible voting. It is right that the Government have committed to proper parliamentary scrutiny, but we may return to the issue of flexible voting when we consider the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before the other place.

We are pleased to have secured an important concession on local election delays in the form of government Amendment 218A. That is a good step forward that will safeguard local democracy for the future. That said, I am afraid I have not been able to achieve consensus on my Amendment 218. We on these Benches agree with the Minister that the first past the post voting system maintains a strong link with local voters and allows local people to vote out politicians who are not delivering. That is why I have not been convinced by the arguments I have heard in response to my amendment, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:48

Division 4

Amendment 218 disagreed.

Ayes: 178

Noes: 231

18:59

Amendment 218A

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

218A: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation(1) An election timing order (the “invalid order”) has no effect if—(a) the order relates to an election of councillors of an English principal council (the “affected election”), (b) the order is made for a reason which relates to a process of local government reorganisation affecting that council (the “reorganisation process”), whether that process is proposed or has begun at the time when the order is made, and(c) the order would delay the affected election by more than 53 weeks.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “process of local government reorganisation affecting” an English principal council means—(i) the Secretary of State giving that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007, or(ii) the Local Government Boundary Commission making a recommendation for a boundary change relating to that council to the Secretary of State under section 8 of LGPIHA 2007;(b) it does not matter if the reason which relates to the reorganisation process is the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made;(c) the circumstances in which a process of local government reorganisation affecting a council “is proposed” include circumstances in which the Secretary of State has notified the council that the Secretary of State might give that council an invitation or direction under section 2 or 2A of LGPIHA 2007;(d) an election timing order delays an election by more than 53 weeks if, as a result of the order, the election would take place after the end of the period of 53 weeks beginning with the original election date;(e) it does not matter if the delay by more than 53 weeks would result—(i) solely from the invalid order, or(ii) from the cumulative effect of the invalid order and one or more previous related election timing orders;(f) an election timing order is to be regarded as delaying the affected election even if the election would not actually take place on the date to which it is delayed because of the eventual outcome of the reorganisation process.(3) In this section—“election timing order” means an order under—(a) section 87 of LGA 2000 (power to change years in which elections held),(b) section 7 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of proposals by order), or(c) section 10 of LGPIHA 2007 (implementation of recommendations by order);“English principal council” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a district council, or(c) a London borough council;“original election date” means the date on which the affected election would have been held, ignoring the effect of—(a) the invalid order, and(b) any previous related election timing order;“previous related election timing order” means an election timing order which—(a) delays the affected election,(b) was made for a reason which relates to the reorganisation process (whether that was the only reason, or one of several reasons, for the election timing order being made), and(c) was made before the invalid order.” Member's explanatory statement
This would prevent elections of English principal councils from being delayed by SI for more than 53 weeks for reasons which relate to a process of local government reorganisation under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

Amendment 218A agreed.

Amendment 219

Moved by

[Lord Pack]

219: After Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on powers to change years of local elections(1) In the Local Government Act 2000, for section 87 (power to change years in which elections held) substitute—“87 Restriction on changing years of ordinary elections(1) The years in which ordinary elections of any local authority councillors or mayors are held may be changed only by an Act of Parliament.(2) No provision may be made under this Act enabling the Secretary of State or any other person to change the years in which ordinary elections of councillors are to be held by order, regulations or other delegated legislation.”(2) In section 88 (separate power to make incidental provisions) omit “or 87” in both places it occurs.(3) In the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in section 50 (ordinary elections), after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) An order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of Police and Crime Commissioners would otherwise be held.”(4) In the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007—(a) in section 7 (implementation of proposals by order), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority or mayors would otherwise be held.”;(b) in section 10 (implementation of recommendations by order), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Except where an order provides for the dissolution of a local authority, an order under this section must not include provision to cancel, postpone or otherwise change the year in which an ordinary election of councillors for a local authority would otherwise be held.”.(5) Any existing power in any other enactment which permits the Secretary of State by order or regulations to change the year in which a local government election is held shall cease to have effect in relation to that power.(6) Any Act whose effect shall include or solely be the changing of the years in which ordinary elections of councillors, mayors, or Police and Crime Commissioners are to be held, shall not be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, unless and until the Secretary of State has—(a) made a statement to both Houses of Parliament certifying that due regard has been given to the impact of the proposed change on the administration and costs of any other elections or referendums scheduled to be held on the same day, (b) made such relevant financial provision as is necessary to ensure that parish councils, town councils, or other smaller authorities do not incur additional financial liabilities resulting from the loss of cost-sharing arrangements with the cancelled or postponed election, and(c) laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the arrangements for ensuring that the democratic mandate of any authority not subject to the change is not undermined by the administrative separation of the polls.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the years in which ordinary elections for local councillors, mayors, and Police and Crime Commissioners are held can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The Minister described this amendment as one that would significantly restrict the powers of Ministers, which I agree with. The question is obviously whether that restriction is a good idea or not. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on the matter.

19:00

Division 5

Amendment 219 disagreed.

Ayes: 65

Noes: 173

19:10

Amendments 220 to 225 not moved.

Schedule 28: Mayors and PCCs: supplementary vote system

Amendments 226 to 242 not moved.

Amendment 243

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

243: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterGrants to joint committees of London councilsPower to pay grant to joint committees of London councilsAfter section 32 of the Local Government Act 2003 insert—“32A Power to pay grant to joint committees of London councils(1) A Minister of the Crown may pay a grant to an eligible London joint committee towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred—(a) by the committee, or(b) by an eligible sub-committee of the committee.(2) The amount of a grant under this section and the manner of its payment are to be such as the person paying it may determine.(3) A grant under this section may be paid on such conditions as the person paying it may determine.(4) Conditions under subsection (3) may, in particular, include—(a) provision as to the use of the grant;(b) provision as to circumstances in which the whole or part of the grant must be repaid.(5) Where a Minister of the Crown wishes to pay a grant towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by an eligible London joint committee or an eligible sub-committee, the Secretary of State may pay a grant under this section to one or more persons (other than the committee) to hold and use in respect of the expenditure by the committee or sub-committee.(6) The powers under this section are exercisable with the consent of the Treasury.(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) make provision for determining the question of whether a committee, or sub-committee, is “eligible”, including provision about conditions that must be met for a committee or sub-committee to become or remain eligible;(b) make provision about the constitution, procedures, administration and oversight of London joint committees, or their sub-committees, that are eligible.(8) Regulations under subsection (7)(a) may (in particular) make provision about conditions that relate to— (a) the power under which, or way in which, the committee or sub-committee is established;(b) the functions or purpose of the committee or sub-committee;(c) the kinds of persons who are members of the committee or sub-committee;(d) the constitution, procedures, administration or oversight of the committee or sub-committee.(9) Regulations under subsection (7) may amend any Act passed before, or in the same session as, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026.(10) No regulations under subsection (7) may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether containing them alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(11) In this section—“eligible” has the meaning determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (7)(a);“London joint committee” means a joint committee established under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 by—(a) all the London borough councils, and(b) the Common Council of the City of London.””Member's explanatory statement
This would enable UK Government ministers to pay grants to joint committees of all the London boroughs and the City of London.

Amendment 243 agreed.

Amendment 244

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

244: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: meetings(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish arrangements where, in circumstances specified in those regulations, a meeting of a local authority is not limited to a meeting of persons who are all present in the same place.(2) Circumstances specified may include circumstances affecting—(a) individual councillors, such as illness or disability, or(b) a council as a whole, such as adverse weather or flooding.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities can hold council meetings online, for example if travelling to the council chamber was made difficult by heavy snowfall or flooding.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to speak briefly on this revised amendment, which I have brought back from Committee. At the outset, I would like to echo the words of the Minister on the loss of Lord Beecham, who was a very charming colleague and a very hard-working and assiduous Member of this House. He will be missed, but his legacy, as the noble Baroness said, lives on.

In response to the amendment in Committee, I was delighted to get such warm and encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. He accepted entirely the issues of sparsity of population and distances to travel, and the introduction of combined authorities in counties such as North Yorkshire has compounded them. I took great encouragement from this response to the amendment, and it is why I have sought to echo the wording used by the noble Lord. I would like to quote from his comments. He said:

“The Government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise … engagement and make elected roles more accessible. In-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult. That is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online, or in a hybrid format … Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver this flexibility in a way that is robust, inclusive, and properly scrutinised”.—[Official Report, 11/2/26; col. GC 183]


Well, this is the time; this is the place, and this is the legislative opportunity. I am completely baffled as to why the Government are not seizing this opportunity, having responded formally to the consultation last year, to grab this issue and enshrine it in statute. Parliamentary time permits this today, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look favourably on this new Amendment 244.

This Bill, on English devolution and community empowerment, is the right time to implement such legislation. I would like to understand from the noble Baroness why in the Government’s view this is not the appropriate legislation to introduce what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, so eloquently set out in his response to my amendment in Committee. I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to commit to this amendment. Were they not to, will the noble Baroness confirm that such legislation will be announced in the King’s Speech? I beg to move.

19:15

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. I recognise my noble friend Lady O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and many others from those Covid conversations, including the Minister.

Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Who could not remember Jackie from Cheshire, who had no authority, but she still managed to press the “off” button for the chap who was needling her? Some councillors—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—fell asleep in Covid. I saw some clips on YouTube where others had gone to the toilet or left to shower or where children bumbled in, but for all those mishaps, by and large, it worked pretty well. So, yes, it can work.

In Committee, I found it difficult to support all the various remote working amendments. They were widely drawn and somewhat nebulous, but I am very taken with my noble friend’s Amendment 244 because it constrains it to certain circumstances that encourage participation and engagement, that limit it to those cases with disability, bad weather and other emergencies, which could happen—foot and mouth, war. I am also persuaded by the amendment because we need to recognise that in local government there are different types of meeting, each with different consequences and purposes. Yes, there is the full council meeting where everyone gets together, and it is important that everyone has their vote. There are executive meetings, like cabinet meetings, and there are scrutiny meetings which are not executive but sit on the other side of the scrutiny/executive divide. Then there are policy formation committees which are not for decision-making, are part of scrutiny but do not often vote. So we have the distinction between what is decision or non-decision-making. And then there is quasi-judicial planning and licensing. In-person attendance is really important for those; the decisions taken in those meetings carry the weight of law. This amendment allows for all that texture to be captured and limited so we have the best of both worlds. As I say, I favour it.

Also, we need to recognise that local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly the need to travel more, particularly in the large authorities such as North Yorkshire, home to my noble friend. There are more combined authority meetings. Upon the passage of this Bill, there will be an even greater need for people on a much wider canvas to come together more frequently over long distances. One has to account for, and allow for, remote meetings in some of those circumstances. In my own authority, we have trading companies where councils, which may not necessarily be neighbours, club together at arm’s length. They are not the council, but they are owned by the council. We have to take that into consideration too.

On that last point, we cannot just leave this to the councils alone. In the case of a trading company, with these regulations, what would happen if one council in the partnership permitted remote meetings and the others did not? How on earth would that work? Having the sort of regulations contemplated by my noble friend is therefore really important.

This is a big improvement on the proposals that came forward for Committee. They are now capable of going forward. I support them, especially with the affirmative safeguards proposed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment, and to all noble Lords—well, my noble friend Lord Fuller—who have contributed to the debate.

We recognise the intention behind this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, I look at many faces in 3D here, having seen them in 2D on a screen during Covid. Flexibility is important in exceptional circumstances, and when those exceptional circumstances arose, we had the powers for remote meetings. But we are not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They are not simply an administrative exercise; they are forums for debate, scrutiny and accountability, conducted in public and rooted in the communities they serve. There is real value in councillors being physically present, in engaging directly with one another, officers and members of the public.

We are also mindful that existing arrangements already allow for a degree of flexibility in truly exceptional circumstances. Moving more routinely to remote or hybrid meetings risks diminishing the quality of debate, weakening transparency and weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her usual thoughtful submission of the amendment and her moving of it. This is an important issue about how local authorities conduct their meetings, and the Government, as the noble Baroness will know, are very sympathetic to the aim of her amendment, that local authorities should have the flexibility to hold meetings online where it is appropriate to do so.

The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.

Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response. On behalf of councillors in North Yorkshire who have approached me on this, I have to say I am deeply disappointed, for all the reasons that we have given. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure there will be other opportunities to bring this back.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

Amendment 245

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

245: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterPavement parkingProhibition of parking on footways and vergesSchedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) makes provision about the prohibition of the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.”Member's explanatory statement
This would introduce the new Schedule that would be inserted after Schedule 29 by another amendment in my name.

Amendment 245 agreed.

Amendment 246

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

246: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section—“agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities);“provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a local planning authority construed in accordance with Part I of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities)(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this was debated some time ago, but if my memory serves me well, I believe it is an unacceptable position that we find ourselves in. We have heard from the music industry and from licensing and planning legal practitioners about how unsatisfactory the current situation is. It is actually delaying the Government’s own growth strategy timetable, because it is leading to unnecessary delays and tensions in planning decisions. As Scotland has now established on a statutory basis the agent of change principle, I believe if it is good enough for my homeland then it is good enough for England. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

19:24

Division 6

Amendment 246 agreed.

Ayes: 214

Noes: 156

19:35

Amendment 247

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

247: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority acquisition of dormant assets(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 16 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A (inserted by Schedule 29 of this Act) for five years continuously,(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 16 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, earlier we discussed the words “community empowerment” in the title of the Bill. We have not had sufficient discussion about what that will mean and how it will be included in the Bill and made a reality for communities. The word “empowerment” in the Bill is without meaning if communities are left powerless to save the very assets they value the most.

Amendment 247, in my name, addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. That could be, for example, a local village pub that is no longer in use, or a village shop or community centre that is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value. That means that the local community has already made the effort to gather the necessary names to support making that building, that particular asset, one of community value. A dormant asset of community value, to which this amendment refers, arises when a fair offer is made on a professionally determined value price, but the owner rejects it and proceeds to let the building sit empty and decaying, and therefore dormant, for years, refusing to sell to the community or anybody else.

This amendment seeks to provide a necessary backstop for those situations. It would empower a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been, in effect, abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public. That would not happen immediately, as the amendment sets out stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is used only as a last resort. The land has to have been on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years. A notice of disposal must have been issued, with the owner having rejected a fair market offer. The owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that sale period.

When those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant. It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, the amendment would ensure that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. The amendment would give communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them—the pride in place that we have heard about throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope the Minister will welcome the amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 251, 263ZA and 263ZB in this group. I start by giving my general support to Amendment 247, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just set out. Councils already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them, so I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.

On Amendment 251, it may seem like Groundhog Day. I am grateful to noble Lords who voted for this in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. At the time, there was a concession from the Planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I reminded the Minister then that I would bring the amendment back if necessary, because we had not heard anything about what was going on with this. The issue, as addressed in Amendment 251, is that, at the moment, only a handful of asset types are protected from demolition. In my experience as an MP in a local community, when owners of places with an asset of community value designation decided to demolish them rather than allow anything further to happen, I felt that was unjustifiable.

I hope the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she said in Committee, when we were told that apparently the consultation would happen “in due course”. For those of us who have served in government, we know that that is basically speak for “never”. That is not encouraging. That is why I want to hear what the Minister has to say today in response to whether any further consideration has been given of when there might be a timely consultation and, ideally, legislation. On that, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House subject to the answer of the Minister.

Amendment 263ZA may seem familiar. It was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but it was not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. Currently, the greater protection given to sporting assets of community value is, in effect, available only to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. It has been designed for non-league and league football clubs where, as we have seen in the past, things suddenly have gone wrong after the owner has gone bankrupt or similar. I felt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this should go further, and take the approach of considering for protection community and playing fields. Such protection is available today in the same way, but not with the same proactivity from the local authority as is currently required under what is proposed for sporting assets of community value.

In Amendment 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough to go further again. We already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat. It is an expressed view of the Government that they wish to no longer have Sport England be a consultee when it comes to planning applications covering existing playing fields. That went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the Government. Amendments 263ZB and 263ZA would, in effect, marry, and bring Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities consider and designate particular areas as sporting assets of community value.

The Government have been surprised at how communities right across the country have, and rightly so, stood up and supported Sport England in its response to the consultation. I am conscious that there are relevant aspects in the NPPF, but the reason I am seeking to put this here is to make sure that we continue to have, for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, the statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation. That could be done in a proactive way.

I am interested to hear further from the Minister about why “sporting ground” has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage on Report, because we have not covered that, and where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come. That is why I will press my amendments.

19:45

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 247. My noble friend Lady Bennett supported the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this amendment. I will speak also to Amendments 255 and 257. I am grateful to the Minister for the time she took to meet me following Committee; that was very generous. However, I am much less grateful about the fact that what I asked for is still missing from the Government’s Bill. I had hoped that that discussion might lead to some movement on the issue of environmental interests, but they are still missing from the legal definition of assets of community value.

In Committee and again at our meeting, the Minister expressed a concern that including environmental assets could turn this scheme into something of a proxy part of the planning system. I want to address that directly, because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of what these amendments would do. Assets of community value give communities a fair chance to come together and buy a valued asset if it comes up for sale. They are not a backdoor planning system, they do not grant a right to veto development and they do not override local plans. That is already true for social and economic interests. No one suggests that allowing a community to buy a pub, shop or community centre turns this scheme into a proxy for regulating the economy or blocking development, so why is the environment treated differently?

This is where the Government’s position gets very difficult to follow. On the one hand, Ministers say that environmental assets—woodlands, allotments, green spaces—can already be nominated where they further social or economic well-being; on the other hand, they stop allowing communities to refer explicitly to environmental interests in the same way. I do not think that communities think like that. They do not say, “We value this woodland only for its social benefit”, or, “We want to retrofit this community building only for economic reasons”. In practice, we pursue social, economic and environmental goals together, just as every part of our planning system already recognises. However, as the Bill stands, a community could nominate a woodland but would not be able to properly articulate the environmental outcomes that they want to protect or enhance; they could seek to acquire a community centre but could not refer to plans to improve energy efficiency or biodiversity as part of their case. That weakens their chance to make a credible case.

The Government’s answer remains that this may be addressed in statutory guidance, but guidance is not law: it can be changed and it carries less weight. As the Committee debate showed, this risks embedding the very confusion that we are trying to resolve—the confusion between the asset itself and the interests it serves.

Finally, I return to the broader principle. Everywhere else in policy—planning law, national frameworks and sustainable development—we recognise that social, economic and environmental goals belong together. The Bill, in many respects, seeks to devolve power and to trust communities, but in this one area it holds back. Leaving environmental interests out of statute is not being neutral; it is a signal that they matter less, which does not surprise me coming from this Government, because that is what we have seen again and again on environmental issues. It risks missed opportunities and poorer outcomes for communities.

I thank my colleagues on the other Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, for supporting these two amendments. I hope that they will say something in support. I reserve the right to ask the House to vote on this, because, quite honestly, it is a principle that the Government have missed completely. As a Green, that distresses me hugely.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my amendments in this group, concerned with cultural assets of community value—the same amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for these amendments. I have done so primarily to allow me to thank the Minister for the encouraging reply she gave in Committee that such assets will be explicitly recognised in statutory guidelines. The Minister has kindly invited feedback on that guidance, and my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I have drawn up a more comprehensive list of categories of possible cultural assets than we have discussed, in the hope that this may be of practical use. I have forwarded this in a letter to the Minister over the weekend, so she may not yet have had time to have a look at it. It is a longer list than the examples contained in my Amendment 262, which then would be cited in the Bill. In the interest of completeness, it contains perhaps some unusual examples, but it may be the unusual that a local community wishes to maintain.

One outstanding concern which occurred to us in drawing up this list is about potentially moveable cultural assets, such as archives or furnishings, or even a single object of cultural value; of course, this will be a particular concern for heritage sites. It may be a question of whether or not such assets are integral to the property in which they are housed. This is not something we have previously discussed, but I hope nevertheless that this dimension might be acknowledged within the guidance, so I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. Of course, with historic buildings of national significance, one would hope that other measures come into play, and the conscious inclusion of cultural assets within the scheme should not negate responsibility to others, particularly that which local councils ought to have with regard to many of our cultural assets. However, the great thing about the scheme as it stands is that it is about people power. The local people are often the first to recognise an asset’s importance. In that sense, the scheme is not a replacement for, but an important additional part of, the armoury.

The rest of my amendments raise the status of cultural assets within the legislation; they are not less important. I still protest against cultural being treated as a subset of social and being less important rather than equal to sporting assets within the legislation as it stands, but I am not going to press this at this stage. Rather, I will congratulate the Minister and her team on the clear progress that has been made, ensuring that cultural assets will be much more widely recognised as potential candidates for this scheme.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 263A and 263B. I also support Amendment 263ZB on the consultation with Sport England, which I think is very important. We must not remove Sport England as a consultee. I declare an interest as the honorary president of the London Playing Fields Foundation, the charity that was founded way back in 1890 to protect, promote and provide playing fields at a time when the pressure to build on open green spaces was intense. Very little has changed since then. However, the activities that can take place on well-managed playing fields, I think we all know, can improve lives, especially when we know how the situation is with young children and obesity.

Sport can provide the motivation to be more active and encourage confidence and social skills. Of course, none of this would be possible without a pitch to play on in the first place, and it is therefore vital that we protect playing fields so that they remain accessible, affordable and attractive to current and future generations. Getting rid of our fields is a false economy. Research commissioned by the London Playing Fields Foundation showed just how much money could be saved. An impact study on the activities at the Douglas Eyre Sports Centre in Walthamstow over a 12-month period found that the minimum saving to the public purse was £4.8 million, mostly in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Let us not forget: once a playing field is lost, it is lost for ever.

I turn to my amendments. First, I say to the Minister that I support government Amendment 252, which is very important, and also the new category of indefinite sporting ACVs in the Bill, which is most welcome. It makes it clear that once a playing field, always a playing field. Thousands of playing fields have been lost to speculators, and the Bill’s right to buy for sporting assets of community value has the potential to ensure that our remaining playing fields become community-owned assets in perpetuity. The right-to-buy mechanism could be a game-changer in saving playing fields, but there is a flaw in the Bill. It is silent on hope value, which, if left unaddressed, means that communities will always fail to compete with speculators.

The Minister said in Committee:

“We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets and are not priced out by inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential”.—[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. GC 517.]


She was so right; “inflated sale prices” is the lay definition of hope value that Amendments 263A and 263B seek to remove from assets of community value valuations. The principle of removing inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential is accepted by the Government; “inflated sale price” is a non-legal term or definition for what we all call hope value. You could also say that it is the key definition. Hope value is the amount of inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential. Hope value is so big in playing fields because the valuation of a playing field is low, because a playing field run by community sports clubs is usually dependent on volunteers, and that is a break-even social asset. Of course, the same acreage with planning for housing is worth many millions.

In Committee, the Minister dismissed amendments very similar to these on the grounds of “striking the right balance” between communities and asset owners. I agree with that, and I think we all agree with that, but there are two scenarios where a speculator owns a sporting asset of community value with the intent of change of use for abnormal profit. A speculator who owns a playing field that is subsequently determined by the local authority as an ACV has a right to appeal the designation of ACV. A speculator can also afford a judicial review of the council decision. Moreover, a speculator who buys a playing field that is already a sporting ACV does so at their own financial risk, speculating that they can remove the ACV designation to enable change of use for profit. My amendments do not disrupt the right balance. The historic loss of playing fields has proven what we all know: it still favours the speculator. The speculator has more funds and more specialist knowledge to pursue their aims than the community has to protect sporting ACVs at risk.

My Amendment 263A presumes that the new right-to-buy process is working and removes the inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential from the valuation process, and so gives a community charity a chance to buy a playing field at a valuation based on its use as a sports ground. Amendment 263B is the back-up if the right-to-buy process fails as the speculative owner is unwilling to sell an ACV to a charity. The Crichel Down rules for compulsory purchase already provide a path to CPO to tackle obstructive owners, but this amendment makes sure that inflated sales prices based on redevelopment potential—hope value—are removed from CPO valuation for sporting ACVs.

Why do so many groups working to protect playing fields feel so strongly and support these amendments? Let me lay out starkly why these amendments are needed. I use Udney Park in Richmond as a reference case. It was opened in 1922 as a war memorial sports ground by Old Merchant Taylors’ Football Club and was re-donated under covenant in 1937 to St Mary’s Hospital Medical School, which then merged with Imperial College London in 1988. In 2014, Imperial decided that Udney Park was surplus and put it on the market. In 2015, Imperial sold it to a UK speculator who gazumped the £2 million community bid with a £6 million winning bid—so £4 million of hope value, or inflated sale price based on redevelopment potential, probably about £30 million. The UK speculator took five years then to get their planning application to a public inquiry, spending a further £4 million on professional fees. Udney Park became an asset of community value in 2016, thanks to all the campaigners. In 2020, the planning inspector refused the change of use and the UK developer then put Udney Park back on the market in 2021.

However, the current asset of community value right-to-bid process failed. The community bid £1 million. The park was now dilapidated and the war memorial pavilion closed and vandalised, so there was a reduction in value as a sports ground since 2015. Unfortunately, an offshore speculator bought the park in 2022 for £3.5 million, so that was now £2.5 million of hope value or inflated sale price based on redevelopment. If hope value is removed, this offers a path to community ownership for Udney Park and other playing fields at risk.

As the Minister must know, local people in all cases of playing fields being threatened put huge voluntary effort into trying to save them. I pay tribute to the Udney Park Playing Fields Trust, led by Mark Jopling, who has also written to the Minister and the shadow Minister, and has been working closely with the Liberal Democrat MP for the area. The trust has been tireless in its efforts, but faced with the wealth of this developer, it has virtually no chance of saving the playing fields for their children’s children to play on if we do not even up the situation on hope value. That is why these two simple amendments are so important.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 263ZA and 263ZB. I declare that I am chair of Sport Wales, I have recently been appointed to the board of Active Travel England and I am a patron of Fields in Trust. Sport England is notified only if there is loss or damage to sports fields. While I admire the Government’s ambition to increase housebuilding in an attempt to stimulate growth, it is important than people, especially children, have a place to play. The work of Sport England in safeguarding these areas is really important.

20:00

The Sport and Recreation Alliance has done some work in this area. These places contribute more than £2 billion a year to improving well-being, impacting 4 million adults and around 1 million children. While as a country we celebrate big moments of sporting success, such as the Red Roses, the Lionesses or the recent Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, most athletes start their career in a playing field. That is where my career started. Protection of playing fields goes beyond the elite pathway. It is thinking about how people can be active.

In the 1980s and 1990s, national planning policy alone proved completely insufficient to prevent building on playing fields. Between 1980 and the mid-1990s, about 10,000 playing fields were lost. Planning policy guidance note 17 in 1991 failed to protect the playing fields. Sport England being given statutory consultation status in 1996 was an important move forward. Sport England currently protects around 1,000 playing fields every year and objects to only 0.001% of planning applications, so of around 300,000 planning applications a year it objects to just three. It responds to 99.2% of planning applications within 21 days. Removing Sport England as a statutory consultee will not speed up housing delivery but will risk losing more fields. Fields are also being targeted as windfall sites if local authorities struggle to meet their housing needs. Local authorities may also allocate their own fields, especially as rules on capital receipts have changed.

This is not about pathway or about elite athletes. It is about the vital role that Sport England plays in protecting the health of the nation.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name. I have also added my name to Amendments 255 and 257.

The amendments tabled by the noble Earl do two simple things. Amendment 262 defines “cultural interests” with clear examples, while the remaining amendments correct the anomaly of cultural assets sitting subordinate to sporting assets in a way that DCMS’s own cultural policy does not intend. I also associate myself with the email sent yesterday by the noble Earl to the Minister, referred to in his speech, offering suggestions for the statutory guidance on cultural assets. Can the Minister confirm that there will be feedback on this and that comprehensive guidance will be published before the Bill commences?

Amendments 255 and 257 deserve particular attention. They would extend the community right to buy assets that further environmental well-being, but they would do so carefully. The Minister raised a concern in Committee that amendments should not become a vehicle for general environmental protection. The amendments’ wording addresses that concern directly because land already allocated in local development plans is excluded. That is a precise and principled limitation, meaning that what is left is exactly what should be protected—the green spaces, woodlands and riverside walks that communities have already identified as central to their way of life. The Minister’s alternative, that such assets should be captured through guidance under the existing social and economic well-being criteria, does not provide equivalent security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, put it in Committee, once you leave something out of legal safeguards, you invite people to ignore it.

Guidance is precisely what gets set aside when other pressures arise. A green field matters to a community just as much as a music venue does. It deserves the same legal footing, not a footnote in statutory guidance. Yet recognition alone is not enough if an asset can simply be demolished. Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, addresses that gap. I supported that on the planning Bill, as she knows. The Minister confirmed that the Housing Minister has committed to consult on this in the next review of permitted development rights, but a commitment to consult is not a commitment to act. A future consultation offers cold comfort to a community watching its assets face demolition now. The Government have acknowledged that there is a justified argument for this to change. The time for it is in this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendments 255 and 257. I will not repeat what has been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, environmental assets can be included in the register of assets of community value if they are shown to support social and economic well-being. But I am very concerned that the wording of this clause—that these have to be “non-ancillary” uses—will rule out many areas of green space. We know how important green and blue spaces are to communities.

For example, a row of trees or hedgerows between a road and a community would be an important filter for health, filtering noise and visual amenity. But none of that would be easily captured in a way that would allow a community to defend in a legal context that this was a social or economic well-being matter. It is a matter of environmental well-being, mental health, physical health and all sorts of things that would not come under this.

I strongly feel that guidance and using the existing clause as worded will not work for many of the purposes that the Government set out and wanted this clause to capture—all the derelict areas that communities could take up and adopt as green spaces within their community areas. I hope the Government look at this clause again. I will support the noble Baroness if she takes this to a vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, at its heart this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental—the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together. Whether they are pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces, these are important spaces for local people. They are the places of shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Her proposal to ensure that buildings designated as assets of community value are protected from permitted development rights that would allow for their demolition is both practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a meaningful opportunity to act.

Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets and to involve Sport England as a statutory consultee, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, reflect the importance of safeguarding grass-roots sports and recreational spaces. These are often the very facilities that underpin community health and well-being, yet they can be among the most vulnerable to loss.

We also recognise the intention behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of so-called dormant assets. While these are important questions to consider around the use of compulsory purchase powers, the principle that communities should not be indefinitely frustrated in their efforts to acquire valued local assets is one that deserves careful attention by the Government.

The amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others, seek to expand the definition of community value to include culture and environmental well-being. We acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole Bill, and the important role that such assets play in community life. However, these provisions do not sit in isolation; they depend on a wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on Pride in Place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets. Yet there remains a lack of clarity as to how this funding is being distributed and whether it is truly reaching all parts of the country fairly.

We understand that the Pride in Place programme offers £5.8 billion over 10 years to more than 300 areas. But what then of those communities deemed ineligible for this funding; what financial support is available to them, and how does the department intend to ensure that they are not left behind? Can the Minister also explain the three metrics used to allocate this funding and the rationale behind the weightings applied to them? Transparency in this respect is essential if confidence in the system is to be maintained. There is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding?

If we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it is not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another. Communities need certainty, continuity and a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not replaced. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments regarding community right to buy an asset of community value, which I will refer to as an ACV, and to all noble Lords for participating in a very useful and thoughtful debate.

I will begin with Amendment 247. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I agree about the importance of ensuring that valued local assets can be retained and used for the benefit of the community. However, the ACV scheme is not designed to interfere with how asset owners are using their private property, nor to compel these owners to sell their property against their wishes. It is intended to empower communities while respecting the property rights of asset owners, and we do not consider it proportionate to restrict how asset owners use their property as long as the use is in line with planning requirements.

We also do not believe that the criteria set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment are a fair representation of a dormant asset. Asset owners may continue to own and manage an ACV for the benefit of the community, even if they indicated an intention to sell previously. Under the policy, it is within their rights to change their mind and withdraw the asset from sale completely. It is where asset owners do wish to sell their asset and the benefit to the community could be lost, or there is an opportunity to revive an asset that had value for the community in the past, that we want to ensure the community can take ownership of and protect the asset through the community right to buy.

Local authorities may already use their compulsory purchase powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire ACVs where there is a compelling case in the public interest and negotiations to acquire the land by agreement have failed. Taking the example of the derelict property that the noble Baroness gave, in some circumstances that could be resolved through CPO powers. I am not pretending it is easy; there are steps that need to be taken, but those powers can be used for that purpose.

Placing additional responsibilities on local authorities, which would need to monitor and make potentially complex judgments on whether assets are genuinely dormant, would represent an unreasonable burden. This is especially true given the increase in the number of listed assets we expect to see as a result of this policy.

I turn now to Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It follows the same amendment made in Committee, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. As noble Lords will recall, we do not need primary legislation to amend permitted development rights. We agree with the intention of protecting these important assets of community value, and we have already committed to consult on this. This will follow the proper approach to amending permitted development rights, allowing all interested parties to make representations on the proposals ahead of any secondary legislation needed to make such changes, should the consultation responses support it. There is a slight update on what I said in Committee—we intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish this year.

20:15

I now turn to government Amendments 252 and 264. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising questions in Committee about the appropriate listing period for an asset of community value. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates: that the current five-year listing period is too short and may leave valued assets vulnerable to loss if the community does not successfully re-nominate them in a timely manner. We have therefore tabled an amendment to extend this period to 10 years. This will reduce the risk that an asset of community value falls through the cracks when a listing expires. It will decrease the burden on communities of re-nominating an asset every five years, which includes compiling evidence of an asset’s community value and making an application to the local authority. It will also decrease the burden on local authorities in processing these applications and updating their local lists.

We consider that a listing period of 10 years strikes the right balance between increasing protections for assets while ensuring that they remain of value to the community and that restrictions are not placed on private property ownership unnecessarily. Assets that are already listed when the new community right to buy powers come into force will see their original listing extended for an additional five years, so that they are also listed for 10 years in total from the date they were originally entered on the list. We consider the impact of this extension to property rights of asset owners to be justified under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As mentioned in previous debates, the indefinite listing period for sporting assets of community value reflects their unique value to the community and their particular susceptibility to redevelopment, and is appropriate for these types of assets. Coupled with other provisions in the Bill—such as the requirement for local authorities to notify the community and other relevant partners six months before an asset is due to be removed from their list, so that they have ample time to apply to the local authority to relist the asset—I hope that noble Lords will agree that this 10-year listing period will ensure stronger safeguards for assets.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for Amendments 253, 254, 256 and Amendments 258 to 263. I have not received his letter yet, but when I do I will give it due consideration. We share the desire to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They are essential for artists to work effectively and play an important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas. A broad range of arts and cultural spaces will already be in scope of the ACV definition. Communities will be able to nominate any asset that furthers their social or economic interests, and the definition is clear that social interests include the cultural interests of the community. As set out in previous debates, statutory guidance will be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy. I will look at the email that the noble Earl sent me. We continue to welcome his feedback as we develop this guidance. Together with protections for cultural assets provided through the planning system and other government support, I hope that this reassures the noble Earl that there is already a strong framework for supporting valued cultural spaces.

Amendments 255 and 257, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, propose environmental considerations as part of the community right to buy. The core aim of this policy is community ownership. It is about giving communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets. The key here is “asset”. All noble Lords in this Chamber will know of a pub, community centre or public garden in their local area that is at risk of loss or closure despite being at the heart of the community, and this is what the policy has been created to protect. Many environmental assets will already be in scope given that they would be considered to further the economic or social wellbeing or interests of the community. This could include allotments, playing fields, woodlands and farms. Statutory guidance will make it clear that local authorities should accept nominations of environmental assets where the community can demonstrate social or economic value, whether current or historic.

However, this is not a policy centred on environmental protection, nor is it designed to apply to assets that have no prior connection to the community. The inclusion of assets that further the environmental well-being of communities but have no demonstrable social or economic value to those communities, as the noble Baroness is proposing, would take away from the core aim of the policy. It could potentially allow communities to nominate any piece of private land for environmental well-being reasons, which may have an unjustifiable impact on the property rights of asset owners as well as risking the misuse of the policy to block development. Environmental protections are best delivered through effective planning regulation, and it is important that we keep these systems separate.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment which seeks to extend the scope of the sporting asset of community value—SACV—scheme so that it is not limited to sports grounds featuring spectator facilities. The existing legal definition of a sports ground, set out in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which specifically requires the presence of a spectator facility, gives councils a straightforward and impartial method for determining whether an asset can be listed as an SACV. There is currently no equivalent or alternative legislation that offers an all-encompassing or universally accepted statutory definition of a sports ground. Expanding the definition to include also land that is wholly or mainly used for sporting or physical recreation activities would impose a significant burden on local councils. It would require them to undertake complex subjective assessments, gather additional evidence and manage a larger volume of cases. Moreover, having a spectator facility is a practical and impartial sign of community value. If a venue can accommodate spectators, that demonstrates it is intended for collective organised activities and is already fulfilling a broader community function.

The current SACV definition will markedly boost the number of sports grounds that local communities can acquire through the new community right-to-buy scheme. Sports grounds at grass-roots level that do not meet the criteria set by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 will still be able to be listed under the standard assets of community value scheme if the community considers them to be of value.

Regarding Amendment 263ZB, I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that local authorities make the right decisions on listing SACVs, so that as many eligible sports grounds as possible are given these protections. The provisions in the Bill provide an objective framework for local authorities to make decisions about listing SACVs in their local area. This is clear that land is an SACV if it meets the definition of “sports ground” contained in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975—a place where sports or competitive activities take place in the open air and where spectator accommodation is provided.

Given this clear framework, requiring local authorities to consult Sport England in listing SACVs is unnecessary. Moreover, it would represent a significant burden on both local authorities and Sport England, which would be required to consult on the eligibility of thousands of sports grounds. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we will publish comprehensive statutory guidance to support local authorities in delivering the new policy. This will clearly set out their duties in listing SACVs, including consulting relevant sporting bodies if they consider this to be appropriate.

On Amendment 263A, I recognise the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in seeking to limit the inflation of asset prices based on redevelopment potential. We want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets when they are put up for sale and are not priced out because of this. However, we need to strike the right balance between giving communities strong powers to safeguard their valued local assets and protecting the property rights of asset owners. We consider that the benefits to the public as a whole of removing redevelopment potential in the valuation of individual assets would not be significant enough to justify the interference in the rights of asset owners.

That said, we have sought to protect communities from inflated prices as much as possible through the community right to buy process. In the first instance, the negotiation period will give community buyers and asset owners the opportunity to agree a mutually acceptable price. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the independent valuation process will determine a fair price for both parties based on market value. Community groups will have the opportunity to make representations to the independent valuer to support them in making their determination, and this will be the final price that community groups will have to meet to purchase an asset.

On Amendment 263B, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the community right to buy has not been designed to compel owners to sell their assets. The policy means that if they do wish to sell an asset, the community must have right of first refusal on its purchase. This amendment would provide that local authorities may use powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase ACVs at their market value without paying hope value. Local authorities can already make compulsory purchase orders under that Act, which may be exercised on behalf of community groups or parish councils to acquire assets provided there is a compelling case in the public interest. Introducing a new provision to compulsorily purchase an asset where the owner does not wish to sell would represent an unjustifiable interference with the property rights of asset owners. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 effectively removes hope value from compensation for the market value of land acquired through the use of compulsory purchase powers for a certain category of schemes where this is justified in the public interest.

We agree with the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that communities are not prevented from protecting ACVs due to inflated sale prices, but we must also ensure the property rights of asset owners are upheld. A blanket rule removing hope value from the value of individual assets would not sufficiently protect the rights of asset owners. The independent valuation process will determine a fair price for both parties based on market value, and all parties will have the opportunity to make representations to the independent valuer to support them in making their determination. This will be the final price that communities will have to meet to purchase an asset. If owners do not agree with the price, they can choose not to sell.

On the point about Pride in Place, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, it would probably be more helpful if I wrote to her setting out the detail of how the areas subject to Pride in Place funding have been chosen, and about the schemes available for areas that may not come into the Pride in Place category. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Hoey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, not to press theirs.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, are the Government actually saying that environmental assets, environmental benefits, are secondary to social and economic ones and that they are not all intertwined? I cannot believe such blindness on such an important issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I am saying that if an asset is of value to the community for environmental purposes, that would fit in with the economic and social purposes we have set out.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Will the Minister define more carefully the phrase “market value”? She said many times “market value” and “hope value” and that there could be negotiations about the value of a piece of land. I think that by “market value” she means current use value. Will she explain what market value actually is? What is the market value if it is not hope value and does not include hope value?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This would be a negotiation, as I set out, involving an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on the market value of that asset. That means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them. The final price will be determined by the independent valuation process. Community groups will have to decide whether they want to go ahead with that purchase, and asset owners will decide whether they wish to sell at that price.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

But surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of the Bill. The various issues that have been raised—cultural issues, playing fields, community buildings, assets of environmental value, assets of social value—encapsulate what communities believe to be the value of the place where they live: their pride in place, which they hope the Government will endorse and support.

I welcome the two government amendments in this group that enhance the assets of community value, but there is still much more to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. My friend and colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, has written and urged me to speak on this in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is a good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most. When we come to the next group, that will be reiterated.

Although we have had a good debate, we are not making any progress with the Minister. I will read her detailed answer in Hansard and maybe follow up some points at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

20:30

Amendment 248

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

248: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterLand disposed of by local councilsDischarge of statutory trusts
Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts(1) LGA 1972 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) After section 128 (consents to land transactions by local authorities and protection of purchasers) insert—“Discharge of statutory trusts
128A Statutory trust discharge orders(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to land in England (a “statutory trust discharge order”). (2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory trust discharge order in relation to land unless—(a) a person has applied to the Secretary of State for the statutory trust discharge order to be made in relation to the land, and(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met (see section 128D).(3) The effect of an order being made in relation to land is that the land is freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with—(a) section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds), or(b) section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds).(4) The order has that effect in relation to that land generally (and so its effect is not limited to that land as freehold or leasehold land as held by the applicant for the order).(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision as to the making and determination of any application for a statutory trust discharge order.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may in particular make provision as to—(a) the steps to be taken by a person before making an application;(b) the form of an application;(c) the information or evidence to be supplied with an application;(d) the publication of an application;(e) the holding of an inquiry before determination of an application;(f) the evidence to be taken into account in making a determination and the weight to be given to any evidence.(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may include provision for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to discharge any or all of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to an application for a statutory trust discharge order.(8) The power under subsection (5) to make regulations includes power to make—(a) different provision for different cases;(b) incidental, supplementary or consequential provision;(c) transitional or saving provision.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(10) Section 128G contains further provision about the making of statutory trust discharge orders.128B Applications for statutory trust discharge orders(1) A person making an application must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to how the application is made or to its form or content).(2) Qualifying condition B (see section 128D(3)) limits which kind of person is able to make a successful application.(3) An application may be varied after it has been made (and section 128A, this section, and sections 128D to 128G then apply to the application as varied). (4) The Secretary of State may require a person making an application to pay a fee before the Secretary of State considers the application (the “application fee”).(5) The application fee is to be of an amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made under section 128A(5).(6) The determination of an application for a statutory trust discharge order which relates to particular land does not prevent a further application from being made subsequently in relation to the same land.(7) But the Secretary of State may reject a further application if the Secretary of State considers that there has not been a material change in the circumstances relevant to the qualifying conditions.(8) If a further application is rejected, the Secretary of State must publish notice of the rejection in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128C Applications where land has been divided up(1) This section applies where—(a) a principal council, parish council or parish meeting appropriated or disposed of land, and(b) the freehold or leasehold title to that land has subsequently been divided.(2) An application may be made in relation to the land comprised in any of the relevant titles.(3) A single joint application may be made in relation to the land comprised in two or more of the relevant titles, and, in the case of such an application, the question of whether the qualifying conditions are met must be decided separately in relation to the land comprised in each title.(4) For the purposes of this section—(a) a freehold title is “divided” if either or both of the following occurs—(i) the title is divided into two or more different freehold titles;(ii) a lease (including a sublease) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the freehold title;(b) a leasehold title is “divided” if—(i) the title is divided into two or more different leasehold titles (for example by an assignment of part);(ii) a sublease (including a sublease that is not immediately inferior to the leasehold title) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the leasehold title.(5) In this section “relevant title” means—(a) the freehold title to the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of;(b) the title to a long lease of the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of.128D The qualifying conditions(1) This section sets out the “qualifying conditions” (referred to in section 128A(2)(b)).(2) Qualifying condition A: the application for the statutory trust discharge order identifies land in England in relation to which the order is being sought.(3) Qualifying condition B: the applicant for the order is—(a) the freehold owner of the relevant land, or(b) the tenant of the relevant land under a long lease, whether granted before or after commencement,at the time of the application (whether or not by virtue of the previous appropriation or disposal). (4) Qualifying condition C: a principal council, parish council or parish meeting—(a) appropriated, or(b) disposed of,the relevant land at a time before the application for the statutory trust discharge order is made (the “previous appropriation or disposal”).(5) It does not matter whether the previous appropriation or disposal occurred before or after commencement.(6) Qualifying condition D: the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal.(7) For the purposes of determining whether qualifying condition D is met—(a) it is sufficient that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with;(b) accordingly, it is irrelevant—(i) whether the previous advertisement procedure in fact had to be complied with, or(ii) whether the land was in fact land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with a trust of the kind mentioned in section 128A(3).(8) Section 128F includes provision for presuming that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with; and qualifying condition D must be taken to be met if that presumption is made.(9) Qualifying condition E: the new publicity requirements have been complied with.(10) Qualifying condition F: it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order.(11) The reference in subsection (10) to the public interest includes the public interest in—(a) nature conservation;(b) the conservation of the landscape;(c) the protection of public rights of access to the relevant land;(d) the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest;(e) development proposals relating to the relevant land;(f) economic, environmental or social benefits which the order would facilitate if made.128E The new publicity requirements(1) This section sets out the “new publicity requirements” (referred to in qualifying condition E in section 128D(9)).(2) The applicant must publish a notice of the application in four consecutive weeks—(a) in a local newspaper, and, if there are two or more local newspapers, it must be the main local newspaper;(b) if there is no local newspaper, either—(i) in a national newspaper, or(ii) on a website with a readership in the local area that is comparable to the readership of a local newspaper.(3) If—(a) a newspaper is published in print and on a website, and(b) it is possible to publish notices of the kind required by subsection (2) in both versions,a requirement under subsection (2) to publish a notice in the newspaper can only be complied with by publication of the notice in both versions. (4) If the applicant is a principal council, a parish council or parish trustees, they must also publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on their website (if they have one).(5) The applicant must display a notice of the application for a period of 28 days at the point of entry, or at the main points of entry, to the relevant land.(6) The Secretary of State must publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on the website, or main website, containing information about the Secretary of State’s department.(7) A notice under this section must identify the relevant land.(8) A notice under this section must—(a) state that a person who wishes to make representations about whether or not the order should be made may notify the Secretary of State of the representations, and(b) state the manner in which, and date by which, representations must be notified; and that date must be later than the last day of the period of 56 days beginning with the day when that notice is first published or displayed.(9) When publishing or displaying a notice under this section, the applicant must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to its publication or display or its form or content).(10) In this section—“local area” means area in which the relevant land is situated;“local newspaper” means a newspaper circulating in the local area.128F Previous advertisement procedure: co-operation by councils etc and presumption(1) This section applies if an application has been made to the Secretary of State for a statutory trust discharge order.(2) The Secretary of State must notify the relevant council or parish trustees of—(a) the application,(b) the relevant land, and(c) the information about the previous appropriation or disposal which the Secretary of State has as a result of the application.(3) Within the response period, the relevant council or parish trustees must give the Secretary of State—(a) notice which—(i) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal,(ii) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, or(iii) states that the relevant council or parish trustees are not able to confirm either of those things, and(b) any information relating to compliance, or non-compliance, with the previous advertisement procedure which the relevant council or parish trustees have.(4) If the relevant council or parish trustees—(a) give the Secretary of State a notice under subsection (3)(a)(iii) within the response period, or(b) do not give the Secretary of State any notice under subsection (3)(a) within the response period, the Secretary of State must presume that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the procedure was complied with.(5) In this section— “relevant council or parish trustees” means—(a) in a case where a principal council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(b) in a case where a parish council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish council or parish trustees for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(c) in a case where a parish meeting undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish trustees or parish council for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;“response period” , in relation to a notification given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), means the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is received by the relevant council or parish trustees.128G Making statutory trust discharge orders(1) In deciding whether to make a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State must take into account all matters that are relevant, including these matters—(a) whether, and how, the person making the application has had regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 128B(1) and section 128E(9);(b) any representations about whether or not the order should be made that are notified to the Secretary of State (including any representations made by persons who are freehold owners, or tenants, of land comprised in the previous appropriation or disposal but who are not applying for the order).(2) A statutory trust discharge order may relate to only some of the relevant land specified in the application.(3) A statutory trust discharge order takes effect—(a) on the day after the day on which the order is made, or(b) if the order specifies a later day on which it is to take effect, on that day.(4) In relation to each application for a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State—(a) must publish notice of the decision whether or not to make the order, and(b) if the order is made, must publish the order.(5) That notice, or the order, is to be published in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128H Sections 128A to 128G: interpretation and application to the Crown(1) In sections 128A to 128G and this section—“application” means an application for a statutory trust discharge order;“commencement” means the coming into force of section (Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025; “long lease” means a lease which was granted for a term of 20 years or longer;“new publicity requirements” has the meaning given in section 128E(1);“previous advertisement procedure” means whichever of the following applied to the previous appropriation or disposal—(a) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the appropriation in accordance with—(i) section 122(2A) in the case of an appropriation by a principal council;(ii) section 126(4A) in the case of an appropriation by a parish council or parish meeting;(b) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the disposal in accordance with—(i) section 123(2A) in the case of a disposal by a principal council;(ii) section 123(2A) as applied by section 127(2) in the case of a disposal by a parish council or parish meeting;“previous appropriation or disposal” has the meaning given in section 128D(4);“qualifying conditions” has the meaning given in section 128D(1);“relevant land” means the land identified in the application for a statutory trust discharge order as the land relation to which the order is being sought;“statutory trust discharge order” has the meaning given in section 128A(1).(2) A reference in sections 128A to 128G to the freehold owner, or the tenant under a long lease, is a reference to—(a) the Crown Estate Commissioners, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown and forms part of the Crown Estate;(b) the government department having the management of the freehold or long lease, if it belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown but does not form part of the Crown estate;(c) the government department concerned, if the freehold or long lease belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department;(d) a person appointed by His Majesty in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, or if no such appointment is made the Secretary of State, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of His private estates (which must be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Crown Private Estates Act 1862);(e) the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;(f) a person appointed by the Duke of Cornwall, or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, if the freehold or long lease belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall.”(3) In section 266(1) (orders which are to be made by statutory instrument), for “other than section 261 above” substitute “other than section 128A(1)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make an order in relation to land previously appropriated or disposed of by a council. The order would discharge the land from statutory trusts relating to open land that arise under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 or section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 248 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. Veterans of the early debates on this Bill and on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last year will be more than familiar with the problem that this amendment seeks to address, but given the prospect of Divisions later and in light of the considerable misapprehensions that have been disseminated by opponents of the amendment, I need briefly to outline what it involves.

Open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. The Local Government Act 1972 provides at Section 123(2A) that the local authority may not dispose of any such land until it advertises its intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks and considers any objections received in response to the advertisement. Where that process has been followed, Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post-advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust. That is the existing law and there is no controversy about that.

Where the advertising requirements have not been followed, however, the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case called Day is that the statutory trust continues to exist after the land has been transferred, no matter how long ago that was and notwithstanding the absence of any challenge to the decision to dispose of the land, even if the purchaser was in good faith and was completely oblivious to the issue. Given that the advertising cannot currently be done retrospectively, the land is then permanently blighted by the trust and cannot be repurposed, no matter how strong the public interest in doing so. This issue is causing damaging uncertainty in relation to land purchased from local authorities in good faith, sometimes decades ago, even where the advertising may actually have been done, because in some cases the sale happened so long ago that the evidence about whether the land in question was properly advertised prior to the sale may no longer be readily available. This is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission.

The amendment has been wrongly characterised as being only about the high-profile Wimbledon case. That is untrue. Indeed, the All England Lawn Tennis Club recently won its High Court case concerning whether a statutory trust ever existed in the first place over land on which it has planning permission to expand. So, as things currently stand, the amendment is in fact academic for that case. It is, however, of real importance more widely.

The amendment would fill the gap in the current law in relation to any procedure to remedy the situation where the former open-space land has been disposed of without advertisement, and then is permanently blighted by a statutory trust, without there being any corrective mechanism available in the law. It would do so with the necessary safeguards to ensure that, before former open-space land could be released from such a trust, there was an open process in which the public could participate.

In summary, the freehold or leasehold owner of the land in question must apply for a statutory trust discharge order. The application would then be subject to publicity requirements, including site notice and advertising in the local newspaper for four consecutive weeks—double the existing provision for advertisement—which, if complied with at the time of the sale, would mean under the current law that the trust was already extinguished. That would remedy the original failure to advertise, meaning that there was no consultation deficit.

The four-week period having been followed, there would then be a public law decision as to whether or not it was in the public interest to discharge the trust, having regard to all comments received from members of the public, and indeed from any local authority in question that may respond to the consultation. There is provision for regulations that may provide for additional procedural safeguards, including the potential for a public inquiry in some cases if that was judged to be appropriate.

The safeguards would not simply be procedural; they would also be substantive. In deciding whether the public interest test was met, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following: nature conservation, the conservation of the landscape, the protection of public rights of access to the relevant land, the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interests, development proposals relating to relevant land, and economic, environmental or social benefits that the order would facilitate if made. Only if, having had regard to all those considerations, the Secretary of State was rationally satisfied that it would be in the public interest to discharge any statutory trust may he legally do so. These safeguards would ensure that those statutory trusts that are otiose and serve to frustrate the public interest would no longer blight the land in question following the due process while maintaining any such trusts where there are justified social, environmental or other considerations.

Importantly, the amendment would leave untouched the substantive protections provided for by statutory open-space trusts. All it would do is provide a procedural mechanism for remedying a failure to advertise the disposal of such land.

It is also important to stress that the amendment would leave untouched the planning policy protections for open space. They are set out in paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Statement and I outlined them in Committee. It is very difficult to get planning permission under that policy for open-space land, even if it is currently disused and even if it is in private ownership.

Other substantive protections would also be unaffected, such as the law relating to national parks, commons and greens, and public access rights. Given that the substance of this range of protections would be unaffected by the amendment, there is no need for its coming into force or its operation to await or be affected by the promised review of open-space protections.

There are various amendments to my amendments. In the interests of politeness, I am not going to comment on any of them. I beg to move.

Amendments 248A to 248C (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 248D (to Amendment 248)

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

248D: In subsection (2), after inserted section 128A(2)(b), insert—
“(c) the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom, published a report on the findings of the review, and laid that report before both Houses of Parliament, and has had regard to the outcomes of the review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent regulations in respect of statutory trust orders from being made until the Government’s review on open spaces has taken place, and require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 248D is an amendment to my noble friend Lord Banner’s Amendment 248. My amendment would prevent my noble friend’s amendment coming into effect until the Government’s promised review of open spaces had been completed.

If the Government choose to proceed on the issue of statutory trusts for recreation, it is essential that due process is followed. We know that many people across the country feel strongly about high-profile cases involving statutory trusts, and many of them are concerned about the loss of important green spaces in their local area. There is a reason for the existence of statutory trusts for recreation, and we will stand up for open spaces. We have long campaigned for a brownfield-first approach to housing delivery, and it is greater housing density, not urban sprawl, that is needed. However, we are not blockers. This is about building the right homes in the right places. The Conservative Party is the party of housebuilding. In 2019, we committed to delivering 1 million new homes by the end of that Parliament, and I am proud to say we kept that promise.

My noble friend has already outlined the issues of the Day case so I will not repeat them, but I will refer to paragraph 116 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, in which Lady Rose said:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation in which CSE”—


the new owner of the land—

“no doubt bought the land in the expectation of being able to develop it”.

In the wake of this judgment, a rather messy situation needs resolving. I think noble Lords on all sides of this debate recognise that a solution is urgently needed, not least because the situation we face today is holding back much-needed housing delivery. We recognise the problem, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Banner for his hard work in bringing forward a solution today. He is a very accomplished lawyer in this field and we rely on his expertise in this House so often.

I know that the Minister recognises the problem raised by my noble friend, and we welcome the Government’s engagement with the underlying issues created by the Day case. However, as a responsible Opposition, we need to ensure due process has been undertaken. Ministers have committed to a wide review of open spaces and the sufficiency of those spaces. Surely it is right that they should not proceed with a change in the law on this contentious issue without waiting for that review. That is why I and my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook have tabled Amendment 248D, which would prevent regulation in respect of statutory trust orders being made until the Government’s review of open spaces has taken place and would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I had a large number of amendments to my noble friend’s amendment, but I have reduced them in the interests of simplicity and time.

As my noble friend Lord Jamieson has pointed out, at an earlier stage we were promised a government review of this area. To me, that seems entirely appropriate. This is a complicated area and one of huge importance to communities and to the country as a whole. My noble friend Lord Banner has, of course, devised an extremely attractive and competent amendment, but amendments introduced late in a Bill’s progress in the Lords have a long history of having unexamined and unexpected consequences. They really do not give time, particularly in a difficult area, for government and civil society as a whole to get into the interstices of what needs to be done. Yes, we need to do something, but we should do things in the proper order. The amendments I have left in illustrate some of the areas in which I think my noble friend’s amendment needs examination.

I am unconvinced by the arrangements, or lack of arrangements, for compensation for loss, which leave in the ability for a developer to harass a community by putting in a new application immediately after a previous one has failed. The arrangements for bringing an application to the attention of civil society are very weak in the context of how information flows today. The process can be initiated by a tenant without the freeholder’s involvement. That seems extremely odd. It does not deal with situations where land is being transferred between local authorities, as will happen a good deal in the context of local government reorganisation. There is no real assessment of the need for open space locally. The consideration of environmental loss is very weak. For all those reasons, I think we should go back to the promise made by the Government and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s amendment suggests, not put the Banner amendment into effect until we have done the review.

As my noble friend Lord Banner has pointed out, Wimbledon has won its case so there is no longer urgency with that big beast—the All England Lawn Tennis Club—lobbying hard for this amendment. We can afford to take time to get this right. Noble Lords know that I dislike the actions of the tennis club very much. Well, there we are; I shall survive the fact that it won and my friends lost. I think only highly of my noble friend Lord Banner who has, by bringing his amendment forward, made it impossible for him to accept even a cup of strawberries from Wimbledon for the next few years. He also finds himself putting forward arguments which he will attempt to demolish when he opposes the development of the new Chinese embassy. I think very highly of him and there are a lot of things in his amendment that I like, but I would really like us to take time to consider it properly.

20:45

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, if cream were added to the strawberries, I suspect it may be more attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I support Amendment 248 and I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

In a nutshell, Amendment 248 has two purposes. First, it is intended to reverse the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the case of Dr Day v Shropshire Council. Secondly, it is designed to provide full protection for members of the public who are rightly concerned both to have a fair opportunity to be informed of a proposed sale of recreational land to which they have access and, if so advised, to challenge that sale. As to the first point, the decision in Day produces a very unsatisfactory result as a matter of law and, indeed, as a matter of common sense. We always hope that the law and common sense function in tandem. We have a tandem here but, unfortunately, it is facing in the wrong direction.

In the Supreme Court, Lady Rose said—I think this point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—in paragraph 116 of her judgment:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.


The mess referred to by the learned justice is that, although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and although the Local Government Act 1972 expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers in the two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place. As a result, the land cannot be developed. It is permanently blighted because the original failure to advertise, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, pointed out, simply can never be put right.

At a time when the Government are rightly concerned to increase the housing stock, it will be immediately apparent that the Day decision operates as a significant inhibition on that important social policy. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, recognises this point but, with great respect, I cannot agree with the conclusion that he arrives at.

As has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, the form of this amendment is rather different from its predecessor, which we put forward during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill some months ago. Pausing there, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the view that the one we are presented with in the House this evening is a late amendment. With great respect, I do not agree. This amendment was on the table in Committee in the course of this Bill; that is not a late amendment at all. During the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, some noble Lords expressed concerns to the effect that reversing the Day decision was all well and good, but it would leave members of the public who are rightly concerned to protect their recreational space with no ability to challenge a proposed sale or have their voices heard—a perfectly reasonable complaint, if I may say so.

That brings me to my second point. The amendment takes full account of those concerns. It would provide for a robust public consultation process. It would mean that an application would have to be made for what is called a statutory trust discharge order, with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met, the qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, most importantly what are called the new publicity requirements must be complied with, and the Secretary of State must be satisfied that

“it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”,

which is qualifying condition F.

Noble Lords will have noticed that the public interest is defined in the widest possible terms—again, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has made the point. I appreciate that there are more wide-ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, which have been expressed by, for example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other interest groups. For those groups, we are told our amendment does not go far enough. As to that, I respectfully make two points. First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of parks, trusts and protections and it should not be caught up in or delayed by that distinct political debate. The second point is that, for practical purposes, this amendment would produce real improvements in the law. The advertising requirements in the 1972 Act are minimal compared with what is proposed in this amendment. If the local authority had complied with the simple requirement to advertise locally for just two weeks, Dr Day’s claim would have failed. Indeed, his claim would have been dismissed as unarguable.

Your Lordships will of course appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put forward something like 50 amendments to our Amendment 248. To be fair to him, a very large number of them have been withdrawn, for which we are grateful. I have studied his suggested amendments with some care, but I am not persuaded that any of them would in any way improve or clarify our Amendment 248.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the powerful speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and my noble friend Lord Grabiner. I just want to emphasise two points on Amendment 248, to which I have added my name. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser takes free from the trust—that is Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law. The only question to which this amendment is directed is what should happen if there has been a failure by the local authority properly to advertise the trust.

The second point I want to emphasise is that, if the local authority fails properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is perfectly entitled to bring a judicial review to challenge the sale within a short time period—normally three months but reduced to six weeks in the planning context. The vice of the present law, as stated by the Supreme Court, is that the purchaser in good faith remains bound by the trust, even though it is not responsible for the failure of the local authority to advertise and even though no legal challenge has been brought within the applicable time limits. The whole purpose of time limits in public law is to ensure that, after the expiry of the time limits, people can go about their business and can develop land in their interests and of course in the public interest. That is the context.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, if I heard him correctly, said that in the interests of politeness he would not comment on the amendments to his Amendment 248. I am less polite than my friend the noble Lord, Lord Banner—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

We know that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for confirming that she knows that already. I will comment, I hope politely, on Amendment 248D in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson spoke. They wish to insert a precondition to the application of these new provisions for statutory trust discharge orders. The precondition is that the Secretary of State must first undertake a review of the availability of open spaces in this country, publish a report, lay the report before both Houses of Parliament—no doubt there would then be a debate—and then have regard to the outcome of the review.

This will cause very substantial delay in the application of the new statutory trust discharge orders, and it will cause substantial delay—years of delay—despite us all agreeing, I think, that these new orders are needed urgently. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressly accepted that these new provisions are urgently needed. If he accepts that they are urgently needed, it makes no sense at all to delay their application for many years.

In any event, I suggest to noble Lords that to await such a review would be especially inappropriate because the review would be general. Amendment 248D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom. By contrast, proposed new Section 128D(10), from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, specifies that the qualifying condition F is whether,

“it is in the public interest for the relevant land”—

I emphasise “relevant land”—

“to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that it makes no sense for a general review to hold up decisions on specific land which raise entirely distinct issues.

Indeed, that amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is also unnecessary. If there are concerns about the availability of open spaces in the locality of the relevant land, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to take that into account in deciding, under proposed new Section 218D(10) and (11), whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts.

Like my noble friend Lord Grabiner, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn, by my counting—it is perhaps an approximation—39 of the amendments he proposed to Amendment 248. The noble Lord suggests that this is all being rushed, and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, addressed that point. I add that we have been over this ground since last September; there is nothing new about this. Many of us spoke on amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill earlier this Session, in support of or in opposition to an earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which had a similar objective. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said on 15 September last year—and again today—referring to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner:

“The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1985.]


We have all known that since last September. The Minister said that,

“this issue needs to be given wider consideration to identify a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; cols. 1985-86.]

That has taken place. Here we are today and it is high time that we resolve this issue.

Amendment 248 sets out a fair, transparent and practical means of addressing the problem; it requires an application by the landowner, detailed advertising and consideration by the Secretary of State, who has broad discretion in whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trust. That is the appropriate way forward and that is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

21:00

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I say something before the Front Benches? I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, but I support Amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. We heard in the debate that this has all come at the last minute but, by my reckoning, this is the fourth time I have sat through this debate. If I were to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth, as I have not looked at whether it was mentioned at the Second Reading of both the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the Bill before us.

I have listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards and we have quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there is no chance of pulling the wool over people’s eyes or trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper.

The wider issue is that we cannot orphan land or blight places in perpetuity. It would be perverse to do that just for want of being able to find an advert in a 100 year-old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that does not exist anymore. That is the prejudice before us. Sometimes you have to look forward and offer a remedy—which is not only in the public interest but in the interest of natural justice too.

This is not just about Wimbledon—that has been sorted—but we have heard in this debate that the shadow exists elsewhere. The matter is not resolved and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, told us to get it sorted. If we do not, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and opportunity—a chance for certainty on all sides, including the protagonists in this issue. Now is the moment.

We have heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country. We have a Government in a hurry and sites that are stalled, with people hanging about and waiting. Now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let us get on with it and make a decision. Let us pick up the baton laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind Amendment 248. It is time that we got it done.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall start again. We have an amendment signed by three noble Lords who have, in their usual lawyerly way, made a powerful case for one side of the argument. Here I am, however, to speak up for the community in a debate on a Bill labelled in part the “community empowerment” Bill. I have two fundamental issues of concern with this amendment. The first is an issue of parliamentary process and the second a matter of principle.

As to the first—the issue of parliamentary process—one of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has not been, and if it is passed this evening, will never be, put before the elected Chamber of Parliament. The amendment has been introduced on Report in this House, and we are the second House to consider this Bill—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, I suggest to the noble Baroness that that cannot be right. If we approve this amendment today, the Bill goes back to the other place, and it is a matter for the Commons whether they agree with us or not. If they do not agree, they will say so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

They are likely not to have the power to agree to have a debate on the amendment as an entity. Considering that the Government are supporting this amendment, it is likely to be included within the Bill as a whole. The amendment as an entity will not be debated by the other place. That, it seems to me, is of huge regret, when it has very serious and extensive repercussions for public open space throughout the country. That is something that we should be very much concerned with, as we think about whether or not this amendment should be passed.

The second bit of the process that concerns me is that it is being introduced as a remedy for an issue with which all of us should be concerned—namely, that there is a problem with no obvious route to put it right, except the one that is being proposed. But it is being done not as a specific remedy for a specific case, but as a general proposal for any such issue without knowing what the implications of that will be. It is unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others have not referenced any specific cases, apart from the well-known Wimbledon Park case and the Day v Shropshire case. Apart from those, it is not known what the consequence of this amendment will be if it is passed. What of other areas of public land held in statutory trust by local authorities for the people they represent in their local area? It is not clear; we do not know. The evidence is not there. That is the problem. That is why, I presume, the Minister made the pledge in earlier stages of the discussion on this issue to do a review. Unfortunately, we await the review, which should have come before any such wide-ranging amendment is put into law.

The second fundamental issue is that of the principle of the amendment. What we are being asked to agree to concerns what is believed to be held in statutory trust by a local authority. The word “trust” is really important at a time when the public are losing trust in how those of us who are elected—or, in the case of this House, not elected—make decisions on their behalf.

If it is set aside and held by the local authority in public trust for the benefit of local people, we need a remedy for the failure of that local bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that this is what we must do. However, it is not acceptable to do that using the same—or extended—process that is being proposed by the amendment, which is to have four weeks of notice in a public newspaper, a local newspaper, the circulation of which is plummeting. If we are to do this effectively, we have to have a different way of notifying local people that somebody wants to breach that trust and have the land for development, so that they can have a voice in opposing or supporting that change in the land that has been held in trust for generations.

In the example of Wimbledon Park, which we ought to reference, it is said the freehold was purchased in 1993 by the All England Club, with an express condition, I am told, that the area would not be developed and the freehold would eventually return to Wimbledon Park. As we have heard, that challenge is subject to the courts. The High Court has made a decision in favour of the All England Club, but it is going to appeal, so it has not yet been resolved, and we wait to see what the arguments are. Certainly, the community that benefits from Wimbledon Park is very unhappy at the situation that has become apparent. While I understand both sides of the argument, at the heart of it is that Wimbledon Park is held in trust, and the local community should have a very powerful voice in deciding its outcome.

I also have huge concerns of principle about the retrospective nature of the amendment. The amendment, which, if accepted, will become law, proposes to go back to 1980—nearly 50 years—so anything where there is a question mark over the land held in trust. It is only a question mark, because often, due to local government reorganisation, who knows what the situation is, when papers have gone astray during transfer from one local authority to another. It is going to be retrospective, and retrospective law is nearly always bad law. So let us not do it. Let us at least remove that element of the amendment.

Finally—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, it depends whether noble Lords regard land held in public trust for public benefit as important. If noble Lords do not, then they are probably lucky in having land to enjoy—whereas many people living in the communities represented by those in the other place rely on public open land to provide them with access to green open space, which is why this amendment is so important.

One of the other elements of the proposal in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is that it would give the Secretary of State the final say. As someone who advocates for local democracy, that is the final straw for me. This is a devolution and community empowerment Bill, and the last thing we should do is take power from the community and local democracy and give it to the Secretary of State—that will not do. Amendment 249, in my name, would restore the balance by ensuring that the Secretary of State cannot make a decision on a statutory trust without the express written consent of the local authority, and by confirming that the termination of the trust is in the public interest following full and wholesome public consultation.

21:15

The noble Lord’s proposal would remove public open space for the public benefit, with no right of redress—and it will not do. I can guarantee that those who support this amendment—it looks as though the majority in this House will; I will not—will regret it in the future. What we need is evidence and more thought given to a specific remedy for the situation that we are trying, in a rush, to resolve today. Let us not do it.

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. First, I am a member of the All England Lawn Tennis Club; I am on the committee.

I will correct something that was said about the existing situation. To be absolutely clear, the courts made it clear that there is no statutory trust on that land, so I am afraid that what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said was not correct. I do not understand her point about parliamentary process, because this Bill will go to the Commons and then come back. I am confused if, after all my decades of dealing with legislation, I have missed something. I do not get that.

On the point about putting it to the Secretary of State, it is very important that that process means that they have to consult the local community and that the community gets its right to speak. I thought I should briefly say those three things.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 248 and his engagement on this matter. It has absolutely not been a last-minute issue. The noble Lord raised this issue first in the debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There has been much engagement between me and the noble Lord—and between him and officials—over many months. Officials and I have also dealt with a large volume of correspondence on the issue.

As the noble Lord set out, and as was discussed during debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently there is no way of release statutory trusts where the original statutory advertisement procedure has not been complied with. The consequence is stark: land can remain bound by a statutory trust in perpetuity, even if that outcome serves today’s communities or the wider public interest. I point out—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has already made this point—that, if the local authority follows the procedure and provides the advertisement, it can release the trust in the first place. This is only a backstop in case that procedure has failed.

The current position risks 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 Government do not believe that historic procedural failures should indefinitely frustrate sensible, beneficial outcomes. In practice, this legal lacuna—I did not know that word until I started working on this, but I do now—can prevent the delivery of much needed homes, community facilities, transport infrastructure or environmental improvements, which may command strong local and national public interest support but are currently blocked by an inflexible legal position.

Since taking office, our Government have been clear that we are builders not blockers, but we are equally clear that development must be responsible, transparent and rooted in the public interest. The amendment would strike that balance very carefully. It would create a clear, lawful mechanism to address historic errors, while ensuring that statutory trusts are discharged only where it is right to do so.

Crucially, the amendment would introduce a rigorous, evidence-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions, robust publicity requirements and a broad public interest test at its heart. Communities would have clear opportunities to make representations. Environmental and heritage considerations must be weighed, and decisions would be taken transparently and published openly.

The Government are firmly of the view that green and open spaces play a vital role in well-being, recreation, nature recovery and local identity. The amendment fully recognises that value and acknowledges that some parcels of land, due to changes over time, no longer serve their original recreational purpose and may deliver greater public benefit if repurposed in a careful and considered way. By providing a structured route to resolve these cases, rather than leaving them in permanent legal uncertainty, the amendment would restore fairness, unlock stalled opportunities and ensure that decisions about public land were made deliberately, transparently and in the public interest.

While the amendment would provide a fail-safe for very specific instances where statutory procedures had not been followed, the failure to adhere to it is symptomatic of a wider issue regarding the protections for public spaces which requires examination. Existing protections for urban green spaces and recreational land are fragmented, complex and very difficult to navigate. There is no clear comprehensive picture of what land is protected, which can leave communities—and local authorities—struggling to safeguard valued spaces. It makes it harder for those local authorities to operate confidently within the planning system.

To address this, my department is undertaking an internal review of the legislative framework governing public recreational green spaces. The review will clarify current statutory protections, assess how effective and usable they are in practice and consider where the system can be simplified. Over the coming months, we will engage with stakeholders across local authorities, the parks and green spaces sector, as well as the development sector to inform this work, which is expected to map existing legislative protections and establish how each piece of legislation operates and interacts in practice, drawing on evidence gathered from stakeholder engagement. For those reasons, the Government strongly support the amendment, while taking forward work to review the wider framework for protecting recreational green spaces.

Amendment 248D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would make the exercise of the statutory trust discharge order power conditional on the completion and publication of a UK-wide review of open space availability. While I recognise the importance of protecting public recreational land, the Government cannot support this approach.

The power created by Amendment 248 is a targeted, balanced and proportionate response to a specific legal problem: historic procedural failures under the Local Government Act 1972. These failures have left some land subject to statutory trust in legal uncertainty. The amendment before us would risk delaying or even preventing entirely the use of that narrowly defined power, regardless of the circumstances of the land in question.

The difficulty of the amendment lies in the breadth and uncertainty of what is proposed. “Open space” is defined very widely in existing legislation and policy, covering a broad range of land types and engaging interests across multiple government departments. The amendment does not define the scope, methodology or frequency of the proposed review, leaving it unclear whether such a review would need to be undertaken once or repeatedly before the power could be exercised.

The UK-wide requirement of the amendment would provide a further difficulty. Land, planning and open space policy are largely devolved matters, and a review covering the whole of the United Kingdom would require the agreement and active co-operation of the devolved Administrations, over which the Secretary of State has no direct control. It would therefore be open to factors wholly outside the scope of the Bill to delay or frustrate the use of the power, even where all relevant conditions in England had been met. In practice, the provisions of the amendment would be highly complex, time-consuming and likely to stall the statutory trust discharge regime altogether. For those reasons, while the Government remain committed to the protection of public recreational green space, we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the effectiveness and legal certainty of this targeted mechanism.

Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Secretary of State to obtain an express written consent of the relevant local authority before making a statutory trust discharge order following a separate local consultation and reporting process. While I recognise the importance of local engagement and protecting land held for public enjoyment, the Government cannot support this amendment. Amendment 248 is designed to address a very narrow but significant legal problem: historic cases where land remains subject to a statutory trust because correct procedures were not followed when it was sold or appropriated to a different purpose by a local authority. The purpose of Amendment 248 is to close a gap in existing law and allow such trusts to be released where specific conditions are met, including that it is in the public interest to do so. It provides a pragmatic route to resolve those difficulties where existing mechanisms have proved insufficient.

By making local authority consent a legal precondition, Amendment 249 could prevent the new power from being used in precisely the cases it is intended to address. It would turn a backstop statutory remedy into a process that could simply be blocked, even where it would be in the public interest for it to be exercised. Amendment 249 would give local authorities an effective veto over statutory trust discharge orders, even in cases where they no longer own or control the land. The land may have been lawfully sold or transferred decades ago, yet under this amendment a former owner could block discharge regardless of its lack of property interest or liability. Amendment 248 already provides that the Secretary of State must take into account any representations, including those from local authorities, about whether or not the order should be made. Amendment 249 would also duplicate advertisement requirements that are already built into Amendment 248, adding delay and complexity without improving outcomes.

I now turn to the amendments to Amendment 248 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, excluding Amendment 251A, which I will address separately. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the attention he has given to Amendment 248 and for his meeting at very short notice with officials in the department, which I hope he found helpful. Taken together, his amendments would significantly undermine the purpose of Amendment 248 and make the new statutory trust discharge order process extremely difficult to operate in practice. Amendment 248 is intended to provide a pragmatic and proportionate solution to the specific legal problem. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would recast that targeted remedy into a much more onerous regime, introducing new substantive tests and requirements that would go significantly beyond addressing the historic defects. In particular, the amendments would require applicants and the Secretary of State to satisfy additional conditions that are not part of the existing statutory trust framework, and which are not necessary to fix the lacuna that Amendment 248 is designed to close. The additional conditions proposed by the noble Lord would extend significantly beyond the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

The amendments would also place significant practical barriers in the way of using the new power, introducing mandatory compensatory benefit requirements and expanded and prescriptive publicity obligations. These amendments would bar cases already before the courts, introduce a five year ban on repeat applications and expand the public interest test to require assessment of local open space need and the benefits of refusing an order. This would mean that many legitimate cases could never be resolved through the new route. Rather than reducing legal uncertainty, this would entrench it and encourage further litigation.

Finally, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord would make statutory trust discharge orders rigid and high risk for decision makers, including by preventing orders from ever being amended or revoked once made. Taken together with highly prescriptive procedural requirements, this would deter use of the power altogether. The result would be that Amendment 248 would exist in legislation but would be too rigid and difficult to use, leaving the underlying legal problem unresolved.

Amendment 251A seeks to preserve statutory trust protections where land subject to these protections is transferred between public bodies which intend that the statutory trust will continue. While I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue, the Government do not support this amendment. This particular issue is complex, and the Government need more time to consider it and work through the consequences of changing the law, including the implications for local authorities, national park authorities and wider government priorities. I will ask officials to investigate this issue, and I would welcome any evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that demonstrates when this has been a problem in practice. That will help us work out what the best solution is. If appropriate, we will consider this issue in our review of legislative protections for public recreational green spaces. For all the reasons I have given, while I fully acknowledge the noble Lord’s intentions, I ask him, and the other noble Lords who have submitted amendments, not to press their amendments, except for Amendment 248.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We share the Government’s ambition for more homes. On the specific proposal in response to the Day case, we recognise the need to resolve the situation. I am pleased that many noble Lords across the House seem to concur with that view. I appreciate the many protections that my noble friend Lord Banner has put into his amendment. However, I go back to a fundamental issue. The Government have committed to a review. It can only be right that the review takes place and is taken into account by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

21:30

Division 7

Amendment 248D (to Amendment 248) disagreed.

Ayes: 135

Noes: 154

21:41

Amendment 249 (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendments 250 and 250A (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250AA (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendments 250B to 250D (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250E (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendments 250F to 250H (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250I (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendment 250J (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250K (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendment 250L (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250M (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendment 250N (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250P (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendment 250Q (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250QA (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendments 250R to 250V (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 250W to 250Y (to Amendment 248) not moved.

Amendments 250YA to 250YV (to Amendment 248) had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 250YW (to Amendment 248) not moved.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with and endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner, Lord Pannick and Lord O’Donnell, my noble friend Lord Fuller and the Minister in their responses to the various speeches opposing Amendment 248 or advancing amendments to it. I am very conscious of the hour but I have three short points in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who suggested that the advertising process may not be appropriate.

First, the principle of advertising is already enshrined in the existing law, as I outlined. It is sufficient to discharge trust if done at the time. There is no basis for criticising the principle of it. Secondly, it is not retrospective—that is wrong—as the statutory trust discharge order would be prospective. Thirdly, the noble Baroness asked what the consequences are. There is one consequence, which is to serve the public interest, for that is the test posed by the amendment.

I can reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that I shall buy every single strawberry that I consume for the rest of my life. With all that in mind and for the reasons I have already given, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 248.

21:44

Division 8

Amendment 248 agreed.

Ayes: 162

Noes: 55

21:55

Amendment 251

Tabled by

[Baroness Coffey]

251: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) (permitted development rights: heritage and demolition), after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I said earlier that I would wait for the Minister’s response. I think the House will be pleased that I think the response was sufficiently satisfactory, so it would be churlish for me to press this to a Division. I therefore will not move the amendment.

Amendment 251 not moved.

Amendment 251A not moved.

Schedule 29: Assets of community value

Amendment 252

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

252: Schedule 29, page 298, line 1, leave out “5” and insert “10”
Member's explanatory statement
This changes the time period during which an asset of community value is to be included on a local authority’s list from 5 years to 10 years.

Amendment 252 agreed.

Amendments 253 to 263B not moved.

Amendment 264

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

264: Schedule 29, page 319, line 38, at end insert—
1A “(1) A list of land of community value maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 87(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original asset list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land of community value maintained by that authority under section 86A(1) of that Act (“the new asset list”).(2) Any land that is included in the new asset list by virtue of sub paragraph (1) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original asset list.(3) A list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained immediately before the relevant day by a local authority in England under section 93(1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the original unsuccessful nominations list”) is to have effect on and after that day as a list of land nominated by unsuccessful community nominations maintained by that authority under section 86I(1) of that Act (“the new unsuccessful nominations list”).(4) Any land that is included in the new unsuccessful nominations list by virtue of sub paragraph (3) is to be treated as entered in that list on the date on which the land was entered in the original unsuccessful nominations list.(5) This paragraph does not limit the power under section 92(10) to make any other transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule. (6) In this paragraph, “the relevant day” is the day on which paragraph 1 of this Schedule comes into force.”Member's explanatory statement
This makes transitional provision so that the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations currently held by a local authority will become the list of assets of community value and unsuccessful community nominations under the new community right to buy provisions for England inserted by Schedule 29 to the Bill.

Amendment 264 agreed.

Amendment 265

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

265: After Schedule 29, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleProhibition of parking on footways and vergesProhibition of parking
1 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of giving each English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the footways and verges which form part of the relevant highways in the authority’s area.(2) But parking regulations may not give an English local transport authority the power to impose a prohibition on parking in any place that is not in a civil enforcement area for parking contraventions under Part 2 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.(3) Parking regulations may make provision about the meaning of “parking” (and cognate expressions) for the purposes of parking prohibitions.(4) Parking regulations may amend an Act passed before, or in the same session as, this Act.(5) Parking regulations are subject to affirmative procedure.(6) Paragraphs 2 to 9 deal with particular kinds of provision that may be made by parking regulations.Imposition of, and publicity for, a parking prohibition
2 Parking regulations may make provision about—(a) the process by which, and manner in which, the power to prohibit parking is exercisable;(b) the manner in which the imposition of a parking prohibition may or must be publicised.Exclusions: roads etc
3 (1) Parking regulations may exclude particular descriptions of relevant highways or parts of relevant highways from parking prohibitions (including parts of relevant highways designated by, or by virtue of, an Act or secondary legislation as a place where parking is permitted).(2) Parking regulations may give an English local transport authority the power to exclude—(a) particular relevant highways or parts of relevant highways, or(b) particular parts of the authority’s area,from a parking prohibition.(3) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Exclusions: vehicles and usage
4 (1) Parking regulations may exclude any of the following from parking prohibitions—(a) particular descriptions of motor vehicles; (b) motor vehicles which are used or parked for particular purposes or in particular circumstances.(2) Parking regulations made in accordance with this paragraph may provide for an exclusion to apply only if particular conditions are met.Traffic signs
5 (1) Parking regulations may make provision about traffic signs relating to parking prohibitions (“relevant traffic signs”).(2) Parking regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) may—(a) require traffic authorities to carry out functions in relation to relevant traffic signs (including provision giving English local transport authorities the power to give directions to traffic authorities to carry out such functions);(b) may require co-operation among, or between, one or more of the following in respect of functions relating to relevant traffic signs—(i) English local transport authorities;(ii) traffic authorities;(iii) local authorities.(3) This paragraph does not limit any power or duty relating to traffic signs arising under any other Act or secondary legislation; but that does not limit the provision that may be made under this paragraph.(4) In this paragraph—“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England,(b) a unitary district council, or(c) a metropolitan district council;“traffic sign” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see section 64 of that Act).Defences
6 Parking regulations may provide for defences to contraventions of a parking prohibition.Consultation and guidance
7 (1) Parking regulations may require English local transport authorities to carry out consultation in connection with the exercise of functions under parking regulations.(2) Parking regulations—(a) may give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance;(b) may require a person to whom the guidance is directed to have regard to it.Enforcement
8 (1) Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In paragraph 4 (contraventions outside Greater London involving stationary vehicles), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) Outside Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is parked in contravention of a prohibition imposed by an English local transport authority in accordance with regulations made under Schedule (Prohibition of parking on footways and verges) to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (parking on footways and verges).”Repeal of existing legislation
9 Parking regulations may repeal an Act if, or to the extent that, it prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges, or any similar part of a road, whether or not a relevant highway as defined in paragraph 11, in England, or any part of England, outside Greater London.Crown application
10 This Schedule applies to the parking of—(a) motor vehicles in the public service of the Crown that are required to be registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, and(b) motor vehicles belonging to, or used for the purposes of, a Minister of the Crown or Government department.Interpretation
11 In this Schedule—“carriageway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“cycle track” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“English local transport authority” means—(a) a local transport authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000 — see section 108(4) of that Act) in England, and(b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;“footway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“highway maintainable at the public expense” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 328 of that Act);“motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 136 to 140 of that Act);“parking” includes stopping (and “parked” is to be construed accordingly);“parking prohibition” means a prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles imposed by an English local transport authority through the exercise of a power conferred by parking regulations;“parking regulations” means regulations made under paragraph 1(1);“relevant highway” means any length of highway maintainable at the public expense, but does not include any special road;“special road” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act);“unitary district council” means the council for a non-metropolitan district for which there is no county council;“verge” means any part of a relevant highway which is not a carriageway, footway or cycle track.”Member's explanatory statement
This would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which give English local transport authorities the power to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on footways and verges.

Amendment 265 agreed.

Clause 64: “National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”

Amendment 266

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

266: Clause 64, page 65, line 26, leave out “minimum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to making travel by taxi or private hire vehicle as safe as it can possibly be. We are committed to the reforms needed as a result of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and regard the taxi and private hire vehicle elements of the Bill as the first step ahead of wider engagement, which is starting to take place now, and possible future primary legislation. That is why in these amendments we are seeking powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to set in regulations the national standards that must be met to obtain, retain or renew any taxi or private hire vehicle driver, vehicle or operator’s licence, and why, having carefully listened to the views expressed in Committee, we are seeking further changes to improve regulatory oversight.

Government Amendments 266, 269 to 278 and 300 are intended to use language that more accurately reflects the intent of the standards. Licensing authorities will still be able to supplement them to address specific local needs if they consider it necessary, but the standards themselves will not be minimal. Once set, national standards will prioritise safety and accessibility so that passengers can be confident that, wherever they live or travel in England, the taxi and private hire vehicle services that they use will be subject to robust licensing standards.

On Amendment 279, we have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that national standards alone are not enough to address the challenges created by out-of-area working whereby taxi and private hire vehicle drivers license with one authority but operate mainly in another licensing authority’s area. Following the noble Baroness’s amendments in Committee and subsequent discussions, the Government have brought forward amendments that will strengthen existing enforcement powers and ensure that enforcement officers can take immediate action against any licence, irrespective of which authority issued it, which is a key aim of the noble Baroness’s previous amendments.

National standards will be enforced through licensing processes, both by applications being refused where the standards are not met and through the suspension and revocation of licences if standards are breached during the duration of the licence. Government Amendment 279 will introduce a duty for licensing authorities to report any breach of national standards by a driver to the authority that issued the licence, building on the existing requirement for safeguarding, road safety and equality discrimination concerns to be reported.

The licensing authority that receives such a report must, within 20 working days, decide whether to suspend or revoke the licence and inform the reporting licensing authority of its decision. To enable the use of this reporting requirement to be measured, the clause will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations enabling data about its use to be collated and published. This will provide transparency and reassurance that licensing authorities are meeting their obligations and that licensees they suspect are unfit are being reported.

22:00

Government Amendments 267, 280, 281 to 286, 288 to 295, 298 and 299, and 301 to 304 all relate to the new power to enable licensing authorities to temporarily suspend a taxi or private hire vehicle driver or vehicle licence, or a private hire vehicle operator licence, whether it was issued by that authority or a different licensing authority, with immediate effect if the authority deems it necessary in the interest of public safety. These amendments will significantly improve the regulatory oversight of licensees operating out of area, providing for the first time enforcement capabilities to deal robustly with immediate public safety concerns.

The amendments set out how a licence is temporarily suspended, with the duration of the immediate suspension limited to 48 hours; what must happen if the licence holder—for example, the vehicle proprietor—was not driving the vehicle at the time of the suspension; what must happen if the suspended licence was granted by a different authority, including notifying the authority that issued the licence; and what the licensing authority must do if a licence issued by it is temporarily suspended, in either terminating the suspension, extending the suspension or letting it run its course. Authorities can set out the steps that their licensee must take for the suspension to be lifted. This could be, for example, a requirement for the licence holder to replace a defective tyre on a vehicle. Powers are granted to the Secretary of State for Transport to enable regulations to be made setting out further details on the temporary suspension process, such as the formal content of notifications, with the ability to change the default 48-hour period of suspension if deemed necessary in the light of experience.

The need to protect the public is being addressed, but it is only right that the sector is protected from any misuse of these new powers. The short timelines proposed mean that incidents must be considered promptly and, if a suspension is unjustified, that the licensee be able to resume working. The Secretary of State also has powers to make regulations about appeals to the magistrates’ court and compensation if certain provisions relating to the suspension of licences are not complied with. This will provide a check and balance, reducing the risk of such powers being used punitively and providing reassurance to licensees.

I want to be clear that these powers of suspension are to be used only if it is necessary in the interests of public safety to suspend the licence immediately. Operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority that issued its licence to fulfil a prebooked journey is not in itself a risk to public safety. It would be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, vehicle or PHV operator solely for that reason. The suspension of a licence must be related to the conduct of that licensee. It may, for example, be appropriate to suspend a driver’s licence as well as the vehicle’s licence if the vehicle had a bald tyre, as the driver would or should have known that to be the case. It might not be reasonable for the operator to have known of this when the vehicle was sent, unless of course the driver and operator are one and the same.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power to issue statutory guidance to taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England, and licensing authorities must have regard to this guidance. It will be possible to use this guidance to advise licensing authorities on the use of these new powers. A number of definitions are introduced to provide clarity and some consequential amendments are made to existing clauses to accommodate the new powers. These measures are designed with public safety as a priority, providing enhanced regulatory oversight and enabling unsafe drivers, vehicles and operators to be taken off the road immediately.

We tabled Amendments 296 and 297, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to restrict the existing regulation-making powers. They limit the power to make regulations amending Acts of Parliament so that it can be used only to amend Acts passed before or in the same Session as this Act, and make all regulations about national standards subject to the affirmative procedure.

In conclusion, the taxi and private hire vehicle measures in the Bill are part of a package of immediate steps we are taking to address concerns raised over safety, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. These measures are absolutely not the end of the conversation. We know that more can be done to improve and reform the regulatory framework for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing. That is why my department is conducting stakeholder engagement over the spring to look at the broader issues and build consensus on what the best mechanisms are to tackle that. However, the present measures are crucial to dealing now with the enforcement issues which arise as a result of out-of-area working. I therefore beg to move that Amendment 266 stands part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments tackling some of the issues around taxi and private hire licensing and enforcement across the country. This is an issue I raised through a series of amendments in Committee, and in discussion with the Minister, and I am grateful for this action.

In Committee, I had suggested granting powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. I felt this was a good way to help plug the safeguarding gap which the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, had flagged in her report, but it would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, ahead of any future legislation. We know cross-border hiring is a real issue and that the problem needs addressing, as soon as the Government are able to, but I welcome the Government listening carefully to my concerns and those of other Members across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Hampton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who added their names to my amendments.

The Government’s amendments here ensure a duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas, to suspend those licences temporarily in the interest of public safety, and for the responsible licensing authority to respond and take action. These are a solid way forward. We on these Benches fully support these amendments to start to close the safety gaps in the licensing and enforcement of taxis and private hire.

There are a couple of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this area: one to take out the temporary suspension of a licence and one on reporting. We do not support those amendments today.

I urge the Government to move at pace going forward on consultation and research around the issues of the taxi and private hire sector and to bring forward legislation, as soon as they are able, to ensure that passenger safety is consistent across every region. I put firmly on record our thanks to the Minister for his constructive work on this important safety area.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in general, we welcome most of these amendments. To deal first with those repetitive amendments that say “leave out ‘minimum’” all the way through, as I say, in general we are supportive of those. The art here is to get the right balance between having standards which are predictable, from the point of view of the operators of private hire services, and leaving sufficient scope for local variation to adapt to local circumstances. We want to avoid circumstances where we have what might be called only minimum standards nationally and then every local authority having lots of different standards of its own piled on top, which make it very difficult for large operators to manage a fleet. But we do not want to have purely national standards with no local variation, because that would strike the wrong balance and prevent appropriate adaptations where necessary. On the face of it, we think that the Government’s amendments come closer to striking that balance correctly than the Bill as introduced to your Lordships’ House, so we tend to support them.

We would like to know whether the Government are going to be issuing not only standards—of course, the Government will be issuing national standards in due course—but guidance on what is appropriate for local authorities to be issuing their own licence conditions on. Is that an area the Government intend to go into? That would be very interesting to hear, because, as I say, this is a question of balance. It is not necessarily easy to get it right, and we want the Government to be able to get it right. This might be better still, but it is better than what was here before; that is why we are willing to support those amendments.

On the question of the suspension, I think we need to be a little bit more forensic than perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, or even the Minister were. What we are discussing here is three different licences which are necessary for the operation of private hire vehicles. The first is a licence for the driver. This is not a driving licence as we normally understand it but a licence specifically for private hire, which is personal to the driver. The second is a licence for the vehicle: the vehicle has to meet certain standards that its local licensing authority has checked, ideally. But the third is a licence for the operator.

The operator is a very difficult thing to capture, in some ways. On one hand, the operator might be that booth at the end of the railway concourse that organises local minicabs and has done for years, in the way that we are all familiar with. On the other, nowadays it is equally likely to be a very large firm, such as an Uber or an Addison Lee, operating a practically national service. But it could be, as the Minister himself said, simply that the driver is his own operator: he takes the messages, he takes the bookings and he provides the service. So what constitutes an operator is a very wide range of things.

Imagine circumstances where a driver who is perhaps licensed in Birmingham has a passenger to take to Droitwich Spa, which is not in Birmingham, I might say, for those who are uncertain of the fact; it is not, I can assure them. He gets to Droitwich Spa and runs into an enforcement officer who has an objection to the driver. I completely understand why, smelling his breath and deciding that he is drunk, the enforcement officer should immediately suspend his licence temporarily, even though that licence was issued not in Droitwich Spa but in Birmingham. I completely understand that. I am entirely behind that provision of the new clause.

Equally, we are completely behind the second provision in the clause, which covers the situation where the vehicle is not in a fit state and it is necessary for public safety that it should be taken off the road immediately—the bald tyre mentioned by the Minister, but it might be something else. We are completely behind the idea that the local enforcement officer in Droitwich should have this new power to take the vehicle off the road and suspend the licence. I do not know that he can actually seize the vehicle, but he can suspend the vehicle licence immediately, so that the continued use of that vehicle for private hire purposes would become an offence. We are completely behind that.

But then we come to the question of suspending the operator, and here I have genuine difficulties in understanding what the Government envisage. At an extreme, one could envisage circumstances in which the officer in Droitwich Spa, looking at his checklist of powers, which has three powers, ends up inadvertently suspending Uber in Birmingham overnight, just like that, at the drop of a hat. Every driver operating for Uber in Birmingham is now technically illegal, in the whole city, as a result of the misapplication of this power.

What circumstances, I ask—and I did ask the Minister informally just before we started this debate—can one envisage in which one would want such a power, given that the local officer has the power, and we support this, to close down the driver and the vehicle? Why should he want to be able to take out the operator, which might be a very large operator in a large city close by? The Minister, to my disappointment, did not address that question as fully in his opening remarks; it is fair to say that he did not address that question at all, despite having a certain amount of notice of it. It is not for me to supply the circumstances in which he might do so, but even if I were willing to supply them, I have great difficulty in struggling to find the answer. Therefore, I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 280A, which seeks to remove the power to immediately suspend the operator licence on a temporary basis. Those are the factors: immediately and on a temporary basis.

22:15

Of course, it is possible that the enforcement officer in Droitwich might find some evidence that the operator is not operating consistently with the law. Almost inevitably, that evidence would be partial. Almost inevitably, it would be disproportionate to take out the operator licence on that basis. The appropriate response to finding such evidence, it seems, would be to use the power—indeed, the duty—that now is being created, which we support, of reporting matters of concern to the issuing authority, and then for a proper investigation to take place and for evidence to be adduced, so that a decision can be made on such a portentous matter, quite separately from what might be happening at 7 pm on the streets of Droitwich. I find it very difficult to understand why this should be here. I am giving the Minister one last chance to explain why such a power is proportionate, why it is necessary, why there are not better means of dealing with this and why it is not going to be open, even if inadvertently, to abuse.

Briefly, I also have Amendment 287A, which seeks to oblige the Government on the face of the Bill to collect statistics about the exercise of this power to cancel licences cross border. I understand both from an informal message and from the remarks made by the Minister that he is entirely in sympathy with that principle and that he will be able to give undertakings that this will be done without the need for it to be in the Bill. So I am not minded to divide the House on Amendment 287A. I will give the Minister one last chance, but unless he comes up with something, I think it would be fair to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 280A.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their contributions. Before I respond on Amendments 280A and 287A, I will briefly address the guidance question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The department has for many years issued guidance related to safeguarding, accessibility and the appropriate regulation of the sector, and that will continue. That would include guidance about the two local authorities and about local standards to be applied, as well as the national standards.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 280A would remove the power that we seek for all licensing enforcement officers to have the ability to temporarily suspend with immediate effect any driver, vehicle and private hire vehicle operator licence, if the licence relates to the operation of a vehicle being driven in the enforcement officer’s area. I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, from her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. She said that most taxi drivers, and by extension most operators,

“are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public”.

The Government echo those sentiments. We agree that the vast majority of the trade, whether it is drivers, vehicle operators, owners or private hire vehicle operators, are hard-working and law-abiding people who take pride in their work. But we want to keep passengers safe while protecting the good reputation of the trade from a minority who are irresponsible and/or potentially dangerous to their individual passengers and customers. We can do that now by giving the right tools to licensing authorities.

We often hear about the inconsistent patchwork of licensing regulation, and the noble Lord’s amendment, regrettably, would create another example of it. Why would we grant a power to licensing authorities to take action to prevent drivers and vehicles that pose an immediate risk or have caused harm to public safety from working but not provide the same powers for operators if there are urgent safety concerns to justify doing so?

Private hire vehicle operators come in all shapes and sizes. We have large operators, as the noble Lord says, that work in many local authority areas, working with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of drivers and taking millions of bookings. But we also have much smaller operators that work with only a handful of drivers, and we have one-man bands where a private hire vehicle driver licence holder also holds an operator’s licence so that he or she can take their own bookings. Context is the key to the use of these powers and is a determining factor when considering offences under the current legislation.

We recognise that the facts of the case will need to be determined at the time, but I can imagine that what might be reasonable and necessary to safeguard the public immediately may be different where the driver is also the operator compared with when they are not. It is an offence knowingly to use an unlicensed vehicle. It would seem a perverse situation where a one-man band that knowingly used an unlicensed driver and/or vehicle could have those licences suspended but could continue to accept bookings and dispatch other drivers and vehicles to carry the public when they have shown no regard to one of the fundamental requirements of the legislation that protects the public. Suspending the operator licence at the same time as the driver licence would seem a proportionate and reasonable use of these powers.

For larger operators, an example of what might trigger a suspension would be the discovery of the deliberate use of unlicensed drivers and/or vehicles which an enforcement officer judged to be a deliberate action on the part of the operator. Surely in that case, the noble Lord would want the operator suspended, if only principally for reasons of public safety, unless noble Lords think that that might be so far-fetched as to be unlikely. In my career, I have come across private hire vehicle operators in London who have deliberately used unlicensed vehicles and drivers; in the bus and coach industry, with which I am familiar, it has been the case that licensed operators have been found deliberately to use unlicensed vehicles and drivers. This is not so far-fetched as to be beyond making regulations about.

Anyway, we do not expect this power to be exercised frequently nor with impunity. The threshold for its use will be high, just as for driver and vehicle suspensions, and it is certainly not intended to be used as a means of punishment. These powers are to be used only if it is necessary in the interests of public safety to suspend a licence immediately, and certainly operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority which issued its licence to fulfil a prebooked journey is not of itself a risk to public safety, and it will be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, a vehicle or operator solely for that reason. So—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. I appreciate it is late, but there are not many speakers in this debate so perhaps I can take a little time. The noble Lord said that context is important, and he is absolutely right. The context is that, if the driver is drunk, he is drunk in front of you now. The bald tyre, for example, is there present in front of you and you can see it. However, any evidence that the operator is operating by, for example, using other drivers can only ever be partial at a particular moment for a single law enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa. If it is true that the operator is operating in that way, then the evidence should be and would be given to its licensing authority—in my case in Birmingham—for the licensing authority to investigate. No doubt, if the case stacks up, they will remove the operating licence, but they should not do so on the basis of partial evidence at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa.

The other difficulty that the Minister has is that the test for these three immediate sanctions is the same test, which relates to a threat to public safety. The officer sitting there might say, “I have identified a threat to public safety. Now why shouldn’t I put all three of these into operation at the same time?” There is nothing in the statute that says that the one for the operator is to be used only in really difficult, dangerous or odd circumstances. So, why would you not use all three? The truth is the Minister is in a real difficulty over this. No doubt he might want to force it through on votes, but what he has put together makes no sense at all. I think he knows it, and he should be a little bit more generous in responding to this so that we might reach some agreement, because in terms of trying to protect public safety we are entirely on the same page.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My response to the noble Lord is this: let us use his example of an enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa—though it might equally be 2 am in some dark and unfriendly place with a vulnerable passenger. If an enforcement officer were to come across real evidence that the vehicle and driver were unlicensed and had been used deliberately by an operator, the context in which these amendments are framed is that suspension of the operator’s licence is, I think, warranted in that case. A big operator ought to take enormous care to make sure that it does not behave in such a manner, as it would be a threat to a big operator. But if it were found to be true of an enormously large operator, then it is a matter that ought to be immediately addressed. The public would expect it to be immediately addressed. The public would not say, “Oh, they’re big enough that the licensing authority can take a leisurely look at this”. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me that, in a similar case in the bus industry, the DVSA can discover the most flagrant breaches and it takes months to get those people in front of somebody who can deprive them of their operator’s licence.

Here, I think we are doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, which is that there is a genuine concern about public safety in taxi and private hire vehicles. Although it is an interim move, because the whole legislation is, frankly, outdated and needs to be fixed, this is an example of something which would be proportionate. If the action taken was not proportionate, it could be quickly reversed by the processes that are embodied in this amendment. So I reject the noble Lord’s proposition. I have thought it through, and I am not the least bit embarrassed in promoting it. I think I am rather more on the side of public safety than the noble Lord is. To accept his amendment would leave a gap in public protection and would perpetuate the inconsistencies in licensing and enforcement.

Quickly on the noble Lord’s Amendment 287A, the noble Lord heard me say that the Government have every intention of monitoring these arrangements very carefully. We will use all our powers to ensure that we collect the right data, that local authorities collect the right data and that, as a result, we understand what the effects of these amendments are when they pass into law, and we are willing to alter the way in which the arrangements operate in the light of the evidence that we get. I hope that I have said enough, without using all the words that I have been given, to persuade the noble Lord not to press Amendment 287A, because the Government have every intention, short of putting it on the face of the Bill, to collect exactly this for the most obvious reasons, which is that we need to know how it works and individual licensing authorities need to know how this will work in order that they can monitor and, if necessary, change their own behaviour.

Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press either of his amendments.

Amendment 266 agreed.

Amendment 267

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

267: Clause 64, page 65, line 28, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
The definition of “regulated licence” would be added to clause 72 by another amendment in my name.

Amendment 267 agreed.

Clause 65: Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence

Amendment 268

Moved by

[Lord Borwick]

268: Clause 65, page 66, line 3, at end insert “, which must require taxis to conform with minimum taxi accessibility requirements under section 160(1) to (3) of the Equality Act 2010 within three years of the day on which such regulations are made.”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Borwick, seeks to commence section 160(1) to (3) of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to minimum taxi accessibility requirements and ensure that the standards prescribed under Clause 65 of this Bill conform with those taxi accessibility requirements in the Equality Act 2010, with the intention of ensuring disabled persons can use taxis to travel in comfort and dignity.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I should first disclose my interests as the owner of a wheelchair-accessible London taxi and a past CEO of the manufacturer of London taxis. I thank the co-signers of my two amendments, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson; they have both encouraged me, as has my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.

22:30

People have asked me why I am so persistent in this matter. The history goes back to 1987, when I was lucky enough to be appointed CEO of a public company, Manganese Bronze Holdings plc; I was aged only 31. I was approached around that time by a senior civil servant in the DfT, Miss Ann Frye, on the introduction of Sir Peter Baldwin, the then Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport. The question was whether my taxi could be adapted to carry a wheelchair. I was lucky enough to have a bright young designer working for me, Mr Jevon Thorpe, whose father used a wheelchair. We adapted a prototype taxi and tried it out in, I think, Norwich.

I received an extraordinary powerful letter from a 16 year-old girl who had used a wheelchair all her life. She was looked after by a dedicated maiden aunt—whom she loved dearly and who did everything for her—but for the first time in her young life, our taxi enabled that girl to be somewhere she was not supposed to be. It is in the nature of teenagers to be naughty, but a disabled person has precious few chances to be naughty—they can vote Green, perhaps, but that is limited. It occurred to me that what we had done was to enable the girl to be free: a very valuable freedom—the freedom to travel. I decided to see whether we could make that happen for all taxis. Some people whom I respected said that it would be okay to make just a very few taxis accessible, but I argued that the only way to do this properly was to make it standard.

In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act was brought into law. A clause said that the Secretary of State “may” issue regulations that would enable all taxis to carry wheelchairs, enabling the disabled person to travel in their wheelchair in dignity and reasonable comfort. Those are the magic words that we are looking for. Unfortunately, though everyone applauded this new power, the department never used it. The Disability Discrimination Act was repealed by the Equality Act 2010, but exactly the same words were put into that Act: the Secretary of State “may” issue regulations. It had exactly the same result: nothing at all. Post-legislative scrutiny of the Equality Act recommended that this clause be actioned. The Government agreed with that recommendation but then did nothing.

This is not a party-political matter. There is ample obloquy to spare. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have all had a share of power in the past 31 years. All have boasted that accessibility has been improved in their term, and all have failed to take the action spelled out in the Equality Act 2010. This has come even more recently: the press release issued by the DfT—when these government taxi clauses, which I thoroughly support, were proposed on Report in another place—mentioned accessibility four times. The trouble is that the clauses in the Bill before your Lordships do no such thing. Is that not a bit embarrassing for the Minister, who did so much in his earlier career to improve accessibility of buses and trains? I think that the department has two choices if it does not like legislation: to obey it or to propose to repeal it. The extra choice taken by the DfT is to leave it in place and hope that everybody has forgotten it.

In his email to me of last Saturday refusing a second meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that his proposals would enable licensing authorities to start from where they are and adapt to the very different provisions in different areas to best suit the needs of their users and potential users. Some time ago, this noble House approved that building regulations should be changed throughout the country to make all new houses wheelchair accessible. We did not approve different standards in different areas to best suit the local market. Why can we do this for housing but not for taxis? Does the Minister look forward to a Britain where all dwellings are accessible but a disabled person cannot get a taxi to their home or to their own front door?

The Minister has argued to me that the taxi industry is vulnerable and has suffered too long from extra burdens, such as air quality rules that in London require a taxi to have an 80-mile range with zero emission—as the majority of taxi drivers live outside London, in practice, this zero-emission feature is used to improve air quality in Essex, not London. The burden of carrying wheelchairs, if a burden it be, dates back 31 years and has been promised to disabled people for at least 31 years. Certainly, the taxi and private hire industry uses grossly out-of-date legislation. I know that the DfT is studying the subject closely, but I do not agree that nothing can be done until the study is finished.

Another point made by the department is that wheelchair-accessible vehicles are expensive. That is true, because the market is so small, but to say that they cost £35,000 to £65,000 is, frankly, rubbish. My taxi parked in the front is worth only about £1,000, and if the department is making me an offer of £35,000 for it, I am perfectly happy to accept.

Mr Steve McNamara, the General Secretary of the London Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, has written to me to say that the introduction of wheelchair-accessible taxis in London has been incredibly successful for the London taxi business.

The idea that disabled people can wait has been a theme of transport regulation for at least 31 years. That is why I look forward to testing the opinion of this House.

I am disappointed that I have not had agreement from the DfT, because one thing that I believe is standard in the Labour Party is that they are all trying to do the right thing. We may disagree politically on the means, but we all agree on the ends. This is so clearly the right thing. It has been agreed by all parties in Parliament, and, in several different Acts, it has been given Royal Assent. The study should continue, of course, and I look forward to hearing its outcomes, particularly if they properly consider the stresses that are inevitable from the advent of autonomous vehicles. As my scheduled meeting with Lilian Greenwood MP was cancelled at the very last minute and has not been reinstated, I am not sure what I should hope for.

The number of people who use wheelchairs is a figure that is hard to pin down. The trouble in the statistics is that a large number of disabilities have a variable progress. So, the number of people who use wheelchairs varies from day to day. It is thought to be about 11% of disabled people and appears to be growing as our population ages. What is clear is that the largest number of people who cannot walk are babies in baby buggies. As the turning circle of baby buggies is similar to that of wheelchairs, it is clear that the total number of people on wheels who use taxis is quite high—about 5%. Why should that 5% and a similar number of carers be intentionally ignored by the Department for Transport?

My amendments would not create new law; the laws were passed in 1995 and 2010. All we are doing is making sure that the law is enforced. If noble Lords vote against my amendments, they will be voting for a longer delay than 31 years, and 31 years is long enough.

As I am leaving this House under the terms of the hereditary Peers legislation, I want to leave believing that I have tried to do the right thing for disabled people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I have attached my name to both amendments. I cannot say that I have quite as long a history in accessible transport as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, does, but in the mid-1990s, I sat on the National Disability Council with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, which oversaw the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act. Back in the 1990s, the promises that were made on accessible transport felt like they were a very long way away. To be honest, in my 20s, I did not think I was going to live that long.

Considering the challenges that we face in accessible transport, the small gains that have been made have been slow and quite hard-fought. When I look at the provision of taxis, there is very much a difference between what is available in a city and what is available elsewhere. Where I live, in the north-east of England, it is almost impossible to get an accessible taxi. A friend of mine, an electric wheelchair user, came to visit last year. It took many hours over several days to even find provision for her to be able to use.

The challenges that we face are wider than just accessibility. There have been many cases of overcharging disabled people. There is wider access for people with other impairments in terms of discrimination, but the reality is that we have far from equal access. The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, talks about the number of wheelchair users who are in the UK. It is hard to find the numbers, but what we do know is that changes and improvements to mobility aids mean that more people are probably using mobility aids to be able to travel than they have ever done before.

We have to think about how we can make travelling much easier for disabled people than it currently is, and how we join this up with other modes of transport. If I look at things such as rail replacement services, most of the buses are not accessible and disabled people have been stranded at railway stations because it has not been possible to get an accessible taxi. As yet, we do not know the impact that changes in Motability will have on quite a significant number of disabled people. Just for clarity, I am a recipient of PIP, but I do not have a Motability car; but I imagine that those changes that are coming and the significant decrease in the mileage allowance are going to make accessible transport and accessible taxis even more important for quite a large number of disabled people.

I think the answer is not just in taxis. We have to take a really long, hard look at transport for disabled people. So far, there is still a significant amount of discrimination. As I was adding my name to these amendments, a number of scooter users got in touch with me to raise issues that they have with using accessible taxis. Where they are available—quite often around school hours—they are used for accessible taxi trips to and from school, and even where they are available, there are large chunks of the day where disabled people are not able to access them. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because accessible taxis are a really important part of equal access for disabled people.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendments 268 and 287. In doing so, I should say that, although I welcome them, the fact that we are considering them this evening makes me sad, because they should not be necessary. The fact that they are exposes how little progress has been made, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said, in the 31 years since she and I served on the National Disability Council, advising the then Government on the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act. The case of continued taxi inaccessibility, which these amendments modestly seek to remedy, provides just one example of the lack of enforcement of a law and subsequent laws that promised equality and, crucially, sustained attitudinal change.

Therefore, it should surprise no one that the failure to enforce these laws is having the opposite effect to what was intended by the authors of the Disability Discrimination Act. Instead of positive attitudinal change and greater inclusion, a lack of enforcement of the law, together with a licence to vent the vile prejudice that is, sadly, the hallmark of social media, have together spawned a culture of renewed discrimination and impunity. Attitudinally, as we heard in the debate on government Amendment 334 to the Crime and Policing Bill—which, incidentally, I supported—we are going backwards as far as disabled people are concerned.

22:45

I say to the Minister—and, with gratitude, to my noble friend—that these amendments are symbolically far more significant than they might first appear. We should join the dots and see these modest amendments in the broader context of the need for all of us as policymakers to make a renewed commitment to equality of opportunity for disabled people, whether it is to access goods and services or to get to work—in this case, by taxi. I cannot help thinking, as a disabled person, that only non-disabled people would maintain so many barriers to disabled people entering and staying in the workforce and then scratch their heads and wonder why the disability employment gap is still so large. Accessible transport, including accessible taxis, must be part of that jigsaw.

I hope very much that the Minister will accept my noble friend’s amendments. If he does not, what message does he think that the Government are sending to millions of disabled people and their families less than a month before polling day? My noble friend put it so well when he said that the theme of transport regulation for at least the last 31 years has been “disabled people can wait”. That is the message to voters, is it not? “They can damn well wait, can’t they? After all, they’re disabled, so who cares?”

I thank my noble friend for showing that he cares passionately and for his loyal service to your Lordships’ House and to disabled people. No one coerced him. No one compelled him. He chose to use his position to do good. A huge amount of good he has done. To any Member who asks why these amendments deserve their support, I simply pose this question: why should I, as a disabled Member of your Lordships’ House, have to wait any longer for taxis to be made accessible just because I am disabled? I am done with waiting. I look forward to joining my noble friend and colleagues from across the House in the Division Lobby in support of his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Borwick’s amendment. He has done as much to empower disabled people when it comes to transport as anybody in this country, not just in Parliament.

To continue my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s theme, this is about the unacceptability of waiting—not waiting for legislation to pass but waiting on the kerb-side for an accessible taxi which may never come and waiting on the phone to be told there are no accessible cabs in your local area. Imagine that being told to any other group in society and it being accepted and acceptable for 31 years. It is not even a matter of passing legislation; it is on the face of a Bill—though after 31 years, I imagine the text is already rising off that vellum as we speak. How many more years do disabled people have to wait on that kerb-side or in their homes, or on the end of a telephone, to not get an accessible taxi?

The Government talk about growth as their overriding principle for government, and quite right, but if that is their overriding objective then policy across all departments has to be focused on that. If the Government want more disabled people in work, we need accessible taxis; if the Government want greater health equality and health outcomes for disabled people, we need accessible taxis; and if they want bright, diverse, talented, disabled people to be fully empowered to bring those talents to bear in their local communities, we need accessible taxis.

There is nothing overreaching about these amendments from my noble friend. They are modest and merely seek to bring about something which should have happened not years but decades ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has the great good fortune to have the power of a Minister of the Crown. I suggest that he uses that power to empower disabled people and accept these amendments. If he will not do that, who will? If not now, for all those disabled people who have waited for 31 years, when?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution to this short debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his tireless advocacy for improved mobility for those with a disability. It is sad that we will no longer have that advocacy available at the end of this Session.

I want to pick up three points arising from the Minister’s response when we debated this in Committee. First, he said that there would not be enough time. He said:

“We will need to consult on them”—


that is, the new standards—

“and there is a risk that setting a deadline could negatively impact our ability to undertake a meaningful consultation”.

The deadline in the amendment is three years. The Cabinet’s guidance for a consultation period is actually 12 weeks. Honestly, to plead the lack of time is not a good excuse for resisting the amendment.

Secondly, the amendment was criticised because it applied only to taxis, and therefore it potentially excluded disabled people in those parts of the country where there was reliance on private vehicles. It seems to me that that is an argument for actually extending the provisions to private hire vehicles, rather than using it as an excuse to resist the amendment.

Then we had an argument which I simply did not understand. It says in Hansard that

“the noble Lord’s amendment would require every taxi in England to comply with a single set of standards, taking no account of the variety of access needs that disabled people have”.

The position in London is that we have a standard for the whole of London—we have had that for 30 years. I believe it is the case that, within London, we have the same range of disability as exists elsewhere in the country, so I did not follow that argument. The Minister then said:

“This approach would not only be exclusionary but would risk infringing the Government’s legal public sector equality duty to consider the impact on people with all protected characteristics”.


I do not believe that any case has been raised in London that the existing single standard for taxis is in breach of the Disability Act. I did not follow that at all.

Finally, I appreciate that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but his response was simply to rely on that fact that:

“Existing government ‘best practice’ … recommends that each licensing authority develops an inclusive … plan”.


He went on to say:

“I encourage them to act to ensure that there are sufficient wheelchair-accessible vehicles”,—[Official Report, 5/3/26; cols. GC 547-49.]


and that they will look again at “other accessibility standards”. But there was nothing in his speech that gave any certainty or guarantee at all that the position would change by a specific date.

Unless the Minister can move a little from what he said in Committee, I again will be with my noble friend in the Division Lobby if a Division is called.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I swore some months ago that I would never support another Tory amendment, but here I am supporting the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. He has the Green vote this evening, such as it is. This is mainly to justify my still being here at two hours past my bedtime. I regret that he is leaving and hope that the Minister will perhaps see this as a gift to a hereditary who will be much missed.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, we completely understand the thinking behind these amendments and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, around minimum taxi requirements and the Equality Act. We sense his frustration, and that of other Members of this House, at how long these changes are taking.

Let us be very clear that “taxis” in this amendment refers to hackney carriages—known more commonly, certainly to those of us in London, as black cabs. They are less than one in five of the whole taxi and private hire network. In cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, they is already 100% accessibility, but, as we have heard, the picture elsewhere is less uniform and in many parts of the country the network is completely provided by private hire vehicles. So this amendment, as we have heard, would not address the wider network that serves most of the country and areas outside of big cities, which is a real issue.

It is important that every region has the right balance of vehicles available to meet local needs and demands, and that will of course change over time. We welcome plans to ensure that each licensing area will bring forward an inclusive service plan. We welcome the new national standards, which are important, and, we hope, in the not too distant future, as we talked about earlier, new legislation covering taxis and private hire too. Once we start getting that together, this issue will be tackled in a far more comprehensive way than is set out in this amendment.

We absolutely believe that we need an accessible taxi and private hire service, available to you wherever you live, so that you can get out and enjoy your life, and live your life fully. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will consider this carefully and work with the Minister to find a way forward that works for disabled passengers across the country, not just in those areas where black taxis exist and are available. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his amendment. In preparation for this Bill, the amendment has taken up a lot of time and involved a lot of meetings with representatives of different bodies, including taxi drivers and private hire vehicles. The one that most struck me, which stays with me, and the only one I will refer to, involved a not-young gentleman who clearly had a taxi background and had risen to have some responsibility in an organisation. He had been in the business all his life, and I thought he was going to be very dismissive of this and would not be interested in this sort of thing going through because it would only disrupt the trade. He said to me, “Well, of course we’ve got to do something about this. These people deserve a service”. That is it. That is the case. They deserve a service. There is no need to make any further case. In my view, there is no answer to that case. They deserve a service.

23:00

Now, it might be that the Labour Party wishes to say that, no, they do not. It might be that Labour Members want to go into the Division Lobby and say that disabled people do not deserve a service. I do not mean to make an overly personal point, but I am sitting on the Front Bench opposite and thinking about how many Members of the Labour Benches actually use wheelchairs. I cannot think of any. Perhaps that has some effect on the way that the Labour Party thinks about it. If the Labour Party wants to go in and vote in the Lobby against giving a service to these people who deserve it, then I think that is a very sad case.

We will support my noble friend’s amendment as a matter of principle. I am fully aware that there might be improvements made to its drafting, and there might even be changes made to the timelines in it. If the Government were to come back at an appropriate stage with some changes, then we would be open to discussing them. We are not tying ourselves to the detail of my noble friend’s amendment, but we are absolutely there. We say that disabled people deserve a service, and we will be in the Lobby with him.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his commitment and contribution to accessibility for disabled people in taxis over many years. Without him, the iconic London taxi would not be the accessible vehicle it is today and the lives of many would be significantly curtailed. He is right to say that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, carried over into the Equality Act 2010, have never been taken up by the numerous Governments that have come and gone, and he says that it is time that they were. I cannot account for previous Governments’ behaviours. He was inclined in his speech to blame the department, but in fact the department is the Government of the day, but we are here.

The question that has to be asked is: why can I and the Government not support his amendment now? My answer is that the circumstances have changed. Thirty-odd years ago, the now two very closely aligned industries of the taxi industry and the private hire industry were in an entirely different place. Private hire vehicles were not licensed and illegal in many places. Now, the taxi has been joined across England by much increased numbers of licensed private hire vehicles, about which the noble Lord is not concerned, but I am. Some 82% of the combined fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles across England—more than 300,000 vehicles—are the latter, and in the modern age of apps, mobile phones and technology, for many people and in many places the two services are very nearly completely interchangeable.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, we now know that disability is about not only people in wheelchairs but people with many other characteristics too, and one size fits all for the accommodation of people with disabilities is not now what this large market is all about. Indeed, a wheelchair-accessible vehicle for some is one that is not suitable for others. Across England, circumstances differ enormously, which I hope the noble Lord will recognise from the round table that we had some weeks ago and from the views of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that he heard more regularly when he came to visit me in my office. In many places in England, especially in rural areas, the taxi fleet is generally smaller, sometimes virtually absent, especially in places that do not have a large town centre or transport hub, such as a railway station where a taxi rank would generally be placed, and most journeys are by private hire vehicles. This long-term growth in the number of private hire vehicles is a trend we cannot ignore. In rural areas, where the amendment would mandate an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet, private hire vehicles hugely outnumber taxis and, crucially, the noble Lord’s amendment would not apply to those vehicles. Disabled passengers, including wheelchair users in those areas, would therefore not benefit.

As I said in Committee, the department’s independent Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s view is that mixed fleets of wheelchair-accessible vehicles and non-wheelchair-accessible vehicles provide a more inclusive service that supports both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled passengers than one that consists only of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. As I have also previously said, the cost of mandating every taxi in England to be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle would be extremely high. The noble Lord is right that new vehicle prices are not the same as second-hand vehicle prices, but if his vehicle is worth only £1,000, it would not be in service as a taxi for much longer in virtually any town or city in England. There would be a significant cost of some magnitude for thousands of self-employed drivers who are not able to call on reserves of funding to make this change. This requirement would run the risk of taxi drivers being forced to license as private hire vehicle drivers to avoid a cost they could not afford or even to leave the industry completely. Indeed, the traders raised exactly those concerns in response to the mandating of an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet.

To summarise, if accepted and implemented, this amendment would realistically result in fewer taxi services being available across the country for all passengers, including disabled passengers, particularly in rural areas, meaning at best longer wait times for all who wish to travel by taxi and at worst no supply and no independent travel. The Government’s position is that we should use the powers to set national standards for licensing to mandate the completion of disability equality training for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff who take bookings and dispatch vehicles for private hire vehicle operators. This will ensure that every driver and staff member has the knowledge, skills and confidence to support disabled passengers appropriately. National standards will be subject to public consultation, but we intend to use the regulations to drive greater accessibility for all.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that the integration of taxis into wider public transport is very important. The Government’s integrated transport strategy will be published shortly. Her example of the unavailability of accessible taxis in any areas outside London, particularly in school hours, is germane to the real solution to this. My department already recommends in its best practice guidance that licensing authorities should assess the demand for wheelchair-accessible vehicles in their areas. They should set out the actions that they will take to meet that demand as part of a mixed fleet by publishing these in an inclusive service plan, and we will reiterate this.

Throughout this process, we have been clear that the measures being taken through this Bill are just the beginning of a broader package of reforms for taxi and private hire vehicle regulation, which is thoroughly out of date, as I think noble Lords would generally agree. My department is carrying out engagement with stakeholders to look at the broader issues, including a consultation just closed on changing licensing authorities to the significantly lower number of local transport authorities, and on accessibility for disabled passengers, looking to build consensus about what the best mechanisms are to tackle them.

In conclusion, the noble Lord’s campaign to see the execution of what has been promised for a very long time through previous legislation is not in vain. I understand perfectly well the symbolism of these amendments, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Holmes, but we need to translate it into the reality of today’s position across England, where over four-fifths of vehicles used in this way are not taxis and the demands of everyone, including ambulant disabled and disabled people in wheelchairs, need to be met. The Government intend to do just that through the application of mandatory national standards on local transport authorities, as I have described, and thus I hope he will be able to consider that his objective will be achieved at last and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. To correct one of his points, the reason that my taxi is worth only £1,000 despite its very low mileage is because of the emissions standards in London, not because it is useless outside London. It would be useful in a market which does not have those same emissions regulations, but in London it is not worth more than £1,000.

The Minister said at the beginning that circumstances have changed. That is the basis of my problem, because circumstances have not changed in 31 years but they should have done. The Minister has the opportunity to change the circumstances, and I think he should do so. I am pressing this amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

23:10

Division 9

Amendment 268 disagreed.

Ayes: 46

Noes: 117

23:20

Amendments 269 and 270

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

269: Clause 65, page 66, line 4, leave out “minimum”Member's explanatory statementThis is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

270: Clause 65, page 66, line 21, leave out “minimum”Member's explanatory statementThis is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

Amendments 269 and 270 agreed.

Clause 66: Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence

Amendments 271 and 272

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

271: Clause 66, page 66, line 29, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

272: Clause 66, page 67, line 15, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

Amendments 271 and 272 agreed.

Clause 67: Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence

Amendments 273 and 274

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

273: Clause 67, page 67, line 28, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

274: Clause 67, page 68, line 4, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

Amendments 273 and 274 agreed.

Clause 68: Further provision about standards

Amendments 275 to 278

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

275: Clause 68, page 68, line 9, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

276: Clause 68, page 68, line 17, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

277: Clause 68, page 68, line 19, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

278: Clause 68, page 68, line 22, leave out “minimum”
Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

Amendments 275 to 278 agreed.

Amendment 279

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

279: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas(1) The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) Section 5 (duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).(3) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) an English licensing authority (“the first authority”) becomes aware of—(i) relevant information, or(ii) information about a breach of a national standard,(aa) the information relates to a person who has driven in the first authority’s area in reliance on a driver’s licence or a relevant licence granted by another licensing authority or a relevant authority (“the second authority”),”.(4) In subsection (2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “relevant information” substitute “information of which it has become aware”;(b) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “relevant”. (5) After section 6 insert—“6A Production and publication of collated data(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—(a) specify descriptions of relevant collated data, and(b) require English licensing authorities to produce and publish that collated data.(2) In this section “relevant collated data” means—(a) data derived from information provided in accordance with section 5, and(b) data derived from information about actions taken in accordance with section 6.(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This would amend the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 by extending the duty to report in section 5 (so that it also applies to information about breaches of national standards) and enabling collated data to be produced and published.

Amendment 279 agreed.

Amendment 280

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

280: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Temporary suspension of licences
Power to suspend licence temporarily(1) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated driver licence if—(a) the licence relates to the driver of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(2) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated vehicle licence if—(a) the licence relates to a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(3) An enforcement officer may suspend a regulated PHV operator licence if—(a) the licence relates to the operation of a relevant vehicle being driven in the officer’s enforcement area, and(b) the officer considers that it is necessary in the interests of public safety to temporarily suspend the licence with immediate effect .(4) A power under this section to suspend a licence is exercisable by an enforcement officer in respect of a licence granted by any licensing authority in England (whether or not it is the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer).”Member's explanatory statement
This would give a taxi or PHV licensing authority a power to temporarily suspend a licence (whether it was issued by that authority or a different licensing authority) in the interests of public safety.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280)

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

280A: Leave out subsection (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power in Government Amendment 280 for an enforcement officer to temporarily suspend a regulated private hire vehicle operator licence.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, an emergency power of suspension to be exercised in the middle of the night is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a drunk driver. It is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a bald tyre or a defective vehicle. To put an entire operation out of action and make that operation illegal immediately—overnight, in another city—is a completely disproportionate use of the power of enforcement. I believe my amendment to Amendment 280 is appropriate and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

23:22

Division 10

Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280) disagreed.

Ayes: 30

Noes: 130

23:32

Amendment 280 agreed.

Amendments 281 to 286

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

281: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily)(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer decides to suspend a licence under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily).(2) The enforcement officer must give notice of the suspension to the person the officer believes to have been driving the relevant vehicle at the time the officer decided to suspend the licence.(3) The suspension takes effect at the time when the notice is given to the person.(4) The effect of the suspension is that the licence holder may not exercise any of the rights granted by the licence.(5) The suspension ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 48 hours beginning with the time when the notice was given. (6) But that is subject to section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence)(3).(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations—(a) amend subsection (5) so as to provide for suspensions to cease to have effect at a different time, and(b) make consequential amendments of section (Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension)(2).(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of suspension notices;(b) the manner in which suspension notices are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would set out how a licence is temporarily suspended and the duration of the suspension.

282: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Suspension notice given to person who is not licence holder(1) This section applies if—(a) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice to a person, and(b) before the end of the suspension, the enforcement officer becomes aware that a different person is the holder of the licence (the “licence holder”).(2) The enforcement officer must notify the licence holder that the suspension notice has been given.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the period within which notifications under this section are to be given;(c) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the holder of a suspended licence to be notified of the suspension if they were not driving the vehicle at the time of the suspension.

283: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension(1) This section applies if—(a) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice in respect of a licence, and(b) the responsible licensing authority is not the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer.(2) The enforcement officer must notify the responsible licensing authority of the suspension before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time when the notice was given.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
If a licence is temporarily suspended and the licence was granted by a different authority, this would require the suspension to be notified to the licensing authority which granted the licence.

284: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice in respect of a licence (the “suspended licence”). (2) If the suspending authority is not the responsible licensing authority, this section does not apply unless the notification required by section (Responsible licensing authority to be notified of suspension) has been given.(3) The responsible licensing authority must—(a) terminate the suspension,(b) extend the period of suspension, or(c) allow the suspension to cease to have effect at the end of the period of suspension.(4) The responsible licensing authority must notify the holder of the suspended licence of—(a) the authority’s decision under subsection (3), and(b) any further extension of the period of suspension.(5) If the responsible licensing authority does not terminate the suspension, it may also notify the holder of any steps which would (if taken) result in the suspension being terminated.(6) After making the decision under subsection (3), the responsible licensing authority must decide whether and how to exercise its other functions as a licensing authority in relation to the suspended licence.(7) If the suspending authority is not the responsible licensing authority, the responsible licensing authority must notify the suspending authority of—(a) any decision by the responsible licensing authority under subsection (3);(b) any further extension of the period of suspension;(c) any decision by the responsible licensing authority under subsection (6).(8) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the making of decisions under subsection (3) or (6).(9) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about the period within which those decisions must be made.(10) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the extension of periods of suspension.(11) The regulations may, in particular, make provision about—(a) the length by which periods of suspension may be extended under subsection (3);(b) whether and how, and the length by which, periods of suspension may be extended more than once.(12) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about—(a) the form or contents of notifications under this section;(b) the period within which notifications under this section are to be given;(c) the manner in which notifications under this section are to be given.(13) In this section—“period of suspension” means—(a) the period of suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily) (5), or(b) if that period has been extended under this section, that extended period;“suspended licence” has the meaning given in subsection (1);“suspending authority” , in relation to the suspended licence, means the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the enforcement officer who suspended the licence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would set out what a licensing authority is required to do if a licence issued by it is temporarily suspended.

285: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Appeals and compensation(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations providing for the holder of a licence that is suspended under the licence suspension provisions to appeal to a magistrates’ court against—(a) the suspension, or(b) any decision under section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence) (3).(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for compensation to be payable by licensing authorities in cases where—(a) an appeal under regulations under subsection (1) is successful, or(b) an enforcement officer gives a suspension notice but fails to give notice as required under section (Suspension notice given to person who is not licence holder)(2) in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable for the officer to have done so.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) the amounts of compensation, or(b) the minimum or the maximum amounts of compensation.(4) The regulations may, in particular, confer (whether on a court or tribunal or person)—(a) the function of determining liability to pay compensation,(b) the function of determining the amount of compensation that is payable (in cases where the amount is not fixed by regulations under subsection (3)), or(c) other functions relating to compensation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable a person to be paid compensation if certain provisions relating to the suspension of licences are not complied with.

286: After Clause 68, insert the following new Clause—
“Enforcement officers(1) In the licence suspension provisions, “enforcement officer” means a person appointed or authorised by a licensing authority in England (the “appointing licensing authority”) to carry out functions conferred by those provisions on behalf of that authority.(2) Accordingly—(a) functions expressed in the licence suspension provisions as functions of enforcement officers are functions of the appointing licensing authority that are exercisable on that authority’s behalf by the officers appointed or authorised by that authority in accordance with subsection (1), and(b) a reference to a licensing authority in section 69 includes a reference to an enforcement officer.(3) Where a function is expressed as a function of the enforcement officer who gave a suspension notice, that function may instead be exercised by any other enforcement officer appointed or authorised by the appointing licensing authority.(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the issue and use of documents, clothing or badges or other marks to identify persons as enforcement officers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make provision about the “enforcement officers” who are to exercise the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

Amendments 281 to 286 agreed.

Amendments 287 and 287A not moved.

Clause 70: Relationship with existing licensing legislation

Amendments 288 to 295

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

288: Clause 70, page 68, line 32, leave out “Sections 65 to 67 do” and insert “This Chapter does”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

289: Clause 70, page 69, line 2, leave out “regulations under those sections” and insert “or under this Chapter”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

290: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 6 to 10 and insert—
““36A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThe provisions of this Act relating to the licensing of hackney carriages are subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

291: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
““45A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Part is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

292: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—
““2A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

293: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
““2A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

294: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
““1A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

295: Clause 70, page 69, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
““1A Licensing: national standards and temporary suspensionThis Act is subject to Chapter 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (which makes provision about national standards for licences and the temporary suspension of licences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would be in consequence in of the new functions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

Amendments 288 to 295 agreed.

Clause 71: Regulations

Amendments 296 to 298

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

296: Clause 71, page 70, line 5, leave out “(whenever passed)” and insert “passed before, or in the same session as, this Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would limit the power to make regulations amending Acts of Parliament, so that it cannot be used in relation to future Acts.

297: Clause 71, page 70, line 6, leave out “The first”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make all regulations about national standards subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

298: Clause 71, page 70, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under—(a) section (Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily))(7), or(b) section (Responsible licensing authority’s response to suspension of licence)(11),are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make certain regulations relating to the new functions of temporarily suspending licences.

Amendments 296 to 298 agreed.

Clause 72: Interpretation

Amendments 299 to 304

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

299: Clause 72, page 70, line 14, at end insert—
““enforcement area” , in relation to an enforcement officer, means both of the following—(a) the area of the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer, in relation to the suspension of any regulated licence;(b) the whole of the rest of England, but only in relation to the suspension of a regulated licence granted by the licensing authority which appointed or authorised the officer;“enforcement officer” has the meaning given in section (Enforcement officers)(1);“licence suspension provisions” means sections (Power to suspend licence temporarily) to (Enforcement officers) and this section;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add new definitions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

300: Clause 72, page 70, line 23, leave out “minimum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment in my name that would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

301: Clause 72, page 70, line 38, at end insert—
““regulated driver licence” means—(a) a taxi driver licence, or(b) a PHV driver licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add a new definition relating to temporary suspension of licences.

302: Clause 72, page 70, line 39, leave out “has the meaning given in section 64” and insert “means—
(a) a taxi driver licence,(b) a taxi vehicle licence,(c) a PHV driver licence,(d) a PHV vehicle licence, or(e) a PHV operator licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would move the definition of “regulated licence” from clause 64 to clause 72.

303: Clause 72, page 70, line 39, at end insert—
““regulated PHV operator licence” means a PHV operator granted by a licensing authority in England;“regulated vehicle licence” means—(a) a taxi vehicle licence, or(b) a PHV vehicle licence,granted by a licensing authority in England;“relevant vehicle” means a vehicle that an enforcement officer reasonably believes is licensed by—(a) a taxi vehicle licence, or(b) a PHV vehicle licence;“responsible licensing authority” , in relation to a regulated licence, means the licensing authority with the power to revoke the licence;”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add new definitions relating to temporary suspension of licences.

304: Clause 72, page 71, line 2, at end insert—
““suspension notice” means notice of a suspension given in accordance with section (Suspension under section (Power to suspend licence temporarily))(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This would add a new definition relating to temporary suspension of licences.

Amendments 299 to 304 agreed.

Amendment 305

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

305: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“ChapterLicensing of gambling premisesLicensing of gambling premises: impact assessments(1) The Gambling Act 2005 is amended in accordance with this section. (2) In section 153 (licensing authorities’ functions: principles to be applied), in subsection (3), for “section” substitute “sections 165A and”.(3) After section 153 insert—“153A Gambling impact assessments(1) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a gambling impact assessment”) containing a statement that the licensing authority consider that the grant of any relevant licence, or of any further relevant licences, in respect of premises in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment (the “affected part or parts”) is not likely to be reasonably consistent with one or more of the licensing objectives because of—(a) the cumulative impact of relevant licences in respect of premises in the affected part or parts, or(b) other reasons which relate to that licensing objective, or those licensing objectives, and to the affected part or parts.(2) A gambling impact assessment must set out the evidence for the authority's opinion as set out in the assessment in accordance with subsection (1).(3) A gambling impact assessment may include a statement which is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement.(4) A gambling impact assessment may relate—(a) to all relevant licences, or(b) only to relevant licences of a kind described in the assessment.(5) A licensing authority must—(a) from time to time review any gambling impact assessment published by them,(b) if they think it necessary in the light of a review, revise or withdraw the assessment, and(c) publish any revision.(6) Before publishing a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment), the licensing authority must consult the persons mentioned in section 349(3).(7) For the purposes of the consultation, the licensing authority must provide the persons mentioned in section 349(3) with the following information—(a) the reasons why they are considering publishing or revising a gambling impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they are considering describing in the assessment;(c) whether they consider that the assessment will relate to all relevant licences or only to relevant licences of a particular kind.(8) In determining—(a) whether to publish a gambling impact assessment (including a revised assessment) or withdraw an assessment, or(b) the terms of a gambling impact assessment,a licensing authority may not have regard to the expected demand for facilities of the kinds that would require relevant licences to be operated lawfully.(9) If a licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment, the authority must include a summary of the assessment in the three-year licensing policy.(10) For provision about the role of gambling impact assessments in the process of applying for relevant licences, see section 165A. (11) In this section—“relevant licence” means—(a) a bingo premises licence,(b) an adult gaming centre premises licence,(c) a family entertainment centre premises licence, or(d) a betting premises licence;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(4) After section 165 insert—“165A Rejection of application: gambling impact assessment(1) This section applies to an application for a relevant licence (the “prospective licence”) if—(a) the licensing authority have published a gambling impact assessment in accordance with section 153A, and(b) the licensing authority’s three-year licensing policy includes a presumption that the authority will reject an application for a relevant licence if the licence is within the scope of the assessment.(2) It is lawful for the licensing authority to reject the application solely on the ground that the prospective licence is within the scope of the gambling impact assessment (and therefore regardless of anything, including any legislation, which would otherwise support or require the grant of the prospective licence).(3) But a rejection of the application is not lawful on that ground (whether by virtue of subsection (2) or otherwise) if the person applying for the prospective licence —(a) asserts in the application that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objective or objectives to which the gambling impact assessment relates, and(b) then shows that the grant of the prospective licence would be reasonably consistent with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives;(and, accordingly, inconsistency with that licensing objective or those licensing objectives cannot otherwise be a ground for rejecting the application).(4) For the purposes of this section, a licence is “within the scope of” a gambling impact assessment if the licence would (if granted)—(a) relate to premises in the part or parts of the authority’s area described in the assessment in accordance with section 153A(1), and(b) be a kind of licence to which the assessment applies in accordance with section 153A(1) (whether by virtue of section 153A(4)(a) or (b)).(5) But if the assessment is framed by reference to the grant of relevant licences in excess of a number specified in the statement, a licence is not within the scope of the assessment unless (additionally)—(a) the grant of the prospective licence, or(b) the grant of that licence and any other relevant licences for which applications are being considered at the same time,would result in that number being exceeded.(6) This section does not affect the powers of a licensing authority to decide what is included in their three-year licensing policy; and, in particular, it does not affect any powers—(a) to make other kinds of presumptions, and(b) to act lawfully in accordance with the terms of other kinds of presumptions. (7) In this section—“relevant licence” has the same meaning as in section 153A;“three-year licensing policy” means the statement published in accordance with section 349.”(5) In section 349 (three-year licensing policy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (3) does not require consultation in relation to a—(a) gambling impact assessment (within the meaning of section 153A) of which a summary is included in the statement being prepared or revised, or(b) a presumption of the kind referred to in section 165A(1)(b) included in that statement;and, instead, see section 153A(6).””Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the Gambling Act 2005 to enable licensing authorities to adopt, and act in accordance with, policies aimed at preventing the grant of gambling licences in order to respond to (a) the cumulative impact of multiple gambling premises or (b) other reasons relating to the licensing objectives in that Act.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for raising the important issue of tackling gambling harms on our high streets. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates about the need for local authorities to have the tools they need to tackle gambling harms and make licensing decisions that are in the best interests of their communities. We have therefore tabled this amendment to strengthen the ability of licensing authorities to issue what will be known as a gambling impact assessment.

The gambling impact assessment can set out that granting a licence for gambling premises in specific areas is not likely to be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. Such an assessment must be based on evidence showing that premises in a specific area risk undermining the licensing objectives; for example, by causing harm to children or other vulnerable people. This evidence must be published in the assessment.

We anticipate that gambling impact assessments will apply predominantly in areas where licensing authorities want to limit the granting of further gambling premises licences on cumulative impact grounds. However, it will also be possible to prevent the granting of a single licence in a specific area if the licensing authority believes there is evidence to show that this would not be likely to be consistent with the licensing objectives. This will help licensing authorities to more easily limit the number of gambling premises licences in their areas where this is justified.

Where gambling impact assessments apply, licensing authorities can adopt a policy that they will not grant any new premises licences in the areas covered by the assessment. However, this is in no way a blanket ban. Each application for a premises licence must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and a licensing authority would be required to grant a licence if the applicant provides evidence to show that the licence would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. This will deliver on commitments made in the English devolution White Paper and the Pride in Place strategy, and it will help local authorities to curate healthy and vibrant high streets that reflect local need.

I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking in such great detail and with such knowledge on this. I also thank all my colleagues in local authorities who I know will be very pleased to hear that this is being done. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as chair of Action on Gambling. I thank the Minister for her very kind words just now. As she said, giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high streets is something I have pursued for many years. For instance, 22 years ago in the other place—I was looking back at the record earlier today—when opposing what became the Gambling Act 2005, I said that there was a need to provide

“strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/04; col. 62.]

The need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises remains. Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime and gambling harm, causing great harm to individuals, their families and the communities in which they live.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the Observer reported on the closure of the very last bank in a historic coastal town. That bank is now being taken over by an adult gaming centre, providing gambling machines and all sorts of other opportunities to gamble. It is going to operate for 24 hours a day. Many members of the local community were violently opposed to this and, not surprisingly, the council itself was opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of the former bank into an adult gaming centre were rejected.

Nevertheless, Admiral, which was making the proposal, took its application on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As a result, the rejection by the council—despite all the opposition—was overturned. Indeed, the Observer article pointed out that between 2021 and 2025 there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by the local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. There is still an urgent need to do something about it.

One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a section in the Gambling Act 2005 that says councils must have an “aim to permit” gambling premises to open. Therefore, the best way of dealing with the problem will be to delete the “aim to permit” section from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous Government nor the present Government were willing to do that. So I proposed an alternative: to use the cumulative impact assessment procedure, which had been successfully introduced many years ago to help councils stop the proliferation of premises selling alcohol. Clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was very effective, used in the way the Minister has described. I was absolutely delighted that the Government said that they would use the approach of the cumulative impact assessment procedure.

The Minister knows that I have a slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have had a discussion about it. But she assured me—and I quote from her letter to me—that she is confident that

“the amendment as drafted will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities’ powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm”.

I hope she is right. I am increasingly confident that she is. On the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have come forward with this amendment. We believe it is right that the cumulative impact of gambling licences in an area should be taken into account. We are pleased that the Government have sought to respond to the amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. That said, we note that this amendment is somewhat longer and more complex than the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord. We fear that, as a result, it may lack some clarity—in particular what it means for an applicant to show consistency with licensing objectives and how the evidence would be assessed. The regulatory framework should be communicated in a way that is understandable and reliable for business and local authorities alike to prevent inconsistencies and confusion, which could then result in costly appeals or legal challenges. I ask the Minister to respond to that, but I thank her for bringing forward this proposal. We will also be supporting it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. To respond briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jamieson, at the moment there is an aim to permit, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, in Section 153 of the Gambling Act. In effect, this amendment will flip the burden of proof in areas covered by gambling impact assessments, with a presumption in favour of granting a licence resulting from “aim to permit” then becoming a presumption in favour of rejecting the application. However, it is important to note that licensing decisions will continue to be grounded in the existing regulatory framework, requiring consistency with licensing objectives. That is the key point.

Gambling impact assessments will be an important first step in strengthening the powers that local authorities have to shape their high streets. They are part of the wide range of tools that local authorities have to regulate gambling in their areas. We will of course consider whether any further measures are needed in this area during the development of the high street strategy, which will be published later this year.

Amendment 305 agreed.

Amendment 306 not moved.

Amendment 307

Moved by

[Lord Best]

307: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Chief Planner After section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (local planning authorities), insert—“1A Local planning authorities and strategic authorities: Chief Planner(1) Each local planning authority and each strategic authority, as defined in section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (strategic authorities), must appoint an officer, to be known as Chief Planner, for the purposes of their functions in relation to planning and spatial development.(2) Two or more authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge for both or all of the authorities the functions of Chief Planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as Chief Planner for both or all of these authorities.(3) An authority may not appoint a person as Chief Planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require authorities with planning and spatial development functions to appoint a Chief Planner to lead this professional work.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak for one minute on Amendment 307. It is in my name but has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for months, and he is very sorry not to be here tonight. It is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It would require local authorities and strategic authorities to have a named, qualified, responsible chief planner, shared with another authority if so desired. After the underresourcing of local authority planning for 20 years or more, leading to delay and frustration all round, this amendment would raise the status and profile of planning within local government. It would identify the responsible officer in each authority, which would speed up decision-making and enhance accountability.

The amendment comes with the endorsement of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Better Planning Coalition, which represents the 40 key planning-related organisations across the country. It would give the Government the perfect opportunity to help restore the position of planning to front and centre within local government, while increasing the respect of council members and the confidence of developers and providers. I see no reason why the Government are not enthusiastically positive about the amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

23:45

Division 11

Amendment 307 disagreed.

Ayes: 27

Noes: 89

23:55

Amendments 308 to 310 not moved.

Amendment 311

Moved by

[Baroness Willis of Summertown]

311: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to deliver on the environment and climate changeStrategic authorities, mayoral, or local authorities must, in the exercise of their functions, and when delivering on areas of competence in section 2, take all reasonable steps to contribute to— (a) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local government was aligned with the Government’s national targets for climate change and the environment, and give them a duty to advance progress towards meeting them.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Amendment 311. This amendment is to address a systemic issue that we and local authorities already face and will continue to face. That is the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, the related actions required and the costs of addressing these. Put simply, the amendment would require the new strategic authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute towards the UK’s legally binding targets that sit under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 when exercising their functions.

This is not just something we have been talking about in the House of Lords or the other place. There are lots of people outside of this place who want to see this as well. More than 500 local councillors, including 20 council leaders and a quarter of climate cabinet members, supported a letter that went to the Government about this. While some authorities have high levels of ambition, they all say that delivery is stymied by the lack of a duty—their words, not mine.

On the flip side, not all authorities have high ambitions to deliver, and we cannot create a postcode lottery. Climate change does not care what the personal views are of individuals in certain councils, even if they want us to believe so. The Government must ensure that contribution to delivery is across the board, and, as we raised with the Minister in a meeting with her before Easter Recess, some authorities have expressed that they do not intend to undertake work towards these targets. It will not happen without a duty.

It is also worth noting that the LGA has been working on this and undertook a consultation about the implementation of such a duty. It found that

“responses have revealed a clear consensus support, which the LGA has adopted as its headline position”

and that local authorities

“need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding and robust support to lead on climate action”.

So it is really very disappointing and, frankly, disheartening that, despite a wide base of support for this idea from local authorities, the Government have, in essence, dismissed it entirely and neither responded to my letter of last month nor addressed the points raised in the meeting that I and colleagues from across the parties had with the Minister before Easter. There are no good reasons not to do this when it comes down to it. London, in essence, already has a duty, and I have not heard any complaints that this is an issue in London. Indeed, it is likely why the capital is leaps and bounds ahead of other parts of the country when it comes to tackling these twin threats.

We ought to be really clear that are talking about duties which are legally binding on the Government to deliver, so I believe that it is perfectly right—and so do my colleagues— and acceptable that we give that duty to other tiers of government in this country.

I urge the Minister and the Government more widely to get on board with this and hope that the Minister can respond on why they are opposed to this statutory duty. How do they think that they are going to reach these binding targets without one? If they are waiting for a final report from the LGA, why are they not using this legislation to allow an enabling clause so that this can be achieved? I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for tabling this amendment.

We are fully supportive of the importance of addressing climate change and protecting the environment. The targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 are rightly ambitious and play a vital role in shaping national policy. However, we are not persuaded that placing an additional statutory duty of this kind on local authorities is the right approach. Local government is already subject to a wide and growing range of obligations. There is a risk that introducing a broad, undefined duty to take all reasonable steps could create uncertainty, duplication and legal complexity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, raised the issue of that survey of councils which wanted a statutory duty and the funding. This amendment would do nothing to address the funding and would potentially place quite significant financial burdens on local authorities without any funding to deliver on the duty. It would potentially compromise other statutory services. We believe that progress in this area is best achieved through clear national frameworks, through targeted support and partnership with local authorities, rather than through the creation of additional statutory duties of this nature—particularly if they have no funding. For those reasons, while we recognise the intent behind the amendment, we are unable to support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for Amendment 311 and for the useful engagement that I have had with her and with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this issue. I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for was held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and hope that she will get it shortly.

I have consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. On net zero, the Government offer support for local government, including through the Local Power Plan, published by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which sets out the UK’s largest-ever public investment in community energy. Backed by up to £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1,000 local and community energy projects. Great British Energy’s support also includes the £10 million mayoral renewables fund. We are investing a landmark £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan up to 2030, including the £2.5 billion allocated to the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We fund five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net-zero projects and attract commercial investment.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to biodiversity targets, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On climate adaptation, the Government work closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts.

Given such existing support, it remains my opinion that adding a broad new statutory duty is not the right approach. Local authorities already operate within a wide range of environmental and climate-related duties. Introducing an additional, overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, and reduce local flexibility. Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for this very short debate. I thank the Minister for her comments and the noble Lord for his. What I am hearing is that it costs too much to actually fulfil our climate change commitments. I find that extraordinary, given how much we are seeing climate change drive up so many other costs day in, day out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have just set out a wide range of projects, some of them running into billions of pounds that the Government are spending on this topic.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply to that comment, but I also make the point that we are talking about devolved authorities. If we have climate change sceptics as the mayors of these devolved authorities, I can see very few of these opportunities being taken up. But I take the point being made and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 311 withdrawn.

Schedule 33: Local audit: minor and consequential amendments

Amendment 312

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

312: Schedule 33, page 350, line 21, at end insert—
“18A In section 32(3) (consultation about proposed accounts and audit regulations)— (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) the Local Audit Office,”;(b) for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) any external registration body.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add two minor amendments consequential on the new local audit regime.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group I will address several government amendments to Parts 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, starting with government Amendment 312, which makes minor changes to an existing provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to ensure that it aligns with wider reforms to the local audit system. Technical amendments to the audit system at this time of night are guaranteed to be soporific, so I will get through as quickly as I can.

Section 32 of the 2014 Act enables the Secretary of State to make further provisions via accounts and audit regulations. These regulations can, for example, set requirements regarding the form, contents and publication of financial accounts. This amendment updates the list of consultees that a Secretary of State must consult before making or amending accounts and audit regulations. The amendment replaces the Comptroller and Auditor-General with the local audit office, and the addition of the local audit office reflects the fact that it will be central to the new audit system. The Comptroller, meanwhile, will no longer be responsible for the code of audit practice—that will pass to the local audit office.

The amendment also replaces recognised supervisory bodies with any external registration body, and this is in keeping with changes elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill maintains the concept of a register of local audit providers as the basis for the regulation, quality monitoring and oversight of professional conduct. The register will no longer be held by a recognised supervisory body. Instead, the local audit office will have the right to hold a register itself or to designate an external registration body to hold the register and deliver these regulatory functions on its behalf. The amendment would ensure that whichever body holds the register—either the local audit office or an external registration body—is consulted on accounts and audit regulations.

Government Amendments 319 to 324 are essential amendments to expand the scope of Schedules 7A and 7B to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to ensure that tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after 17 March 2026, and any subsequent rent reviews during the term of the tenancy, are also within scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type, such as options and rights of first refusal, may require the tenant to enter into a new tenancy on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used by landlords to avoid the ban’s effect and encourage gaming of the system, which we want to prevent.

Government Amendment 325A is an essential technical amendment to ensure that delegated powers across the Bill, which have been inserted into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, are consistent with the intended position. This would bring them into alignment with the position described in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum.

Government Amendment 327 will allow for regulation- or order-making powers within the Bill provisions concerning local scrutiny committees, charges payable by undertakers, executing works in maintainable highways and the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles to be commenced by commencement regulations at the appropriate time. The amendment achieves this by preventing these powers from commencing upon Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 318C. But in what is possibly my final contribution to the proceedings of this House, I want to make a couple of brief valedictory comments. It has been a privilege and an honour to have been elected to this place some 11 or 12 years ago and to take part. I do not say that lightly. I have had so many helpful tips and hints from Members on all sides of the House who have helped me stumble through the protocols. I include the doorkeepers and other officers of this place in my thanks and remarks.

I am disappointed that it should end with expulsion, not choice, but my family has form. I follow a tradition in that the first Thurlow in this place, in the late 18th century, was also expelled. He sat on the Woolsack at the time. I got off lightly.

I turn my attention to the Bill and thank the Minister for the meeting with the team last week. I refer to my interests as a former chartered surveyor who still has some practice in commercial property markets. My comments relate to Part 5 and banning upwards-only rent reviews, which has already been touched on by the Minister. This is a revision of the Landlord and Tenant Act and has no place in this unrelated Bill. It shows all the signs of an afterthought slipped in late in the day.

There was a lack of consultation. The Library briefing in the other place described it as a “surprise”, “not trialled” and “not a manifesto item”. Now before us and still with no proper consultation, it is being inserted into the Bill.

There was an impact study, but it was deeply flawed. I read it and it was very one-sided. There was not a single reference to the loss of capital value to landlords in this clause. Rental value is one of two principal elements of the valuation process for commercial property. Did the Government forget to consider it? Did they not understand how these values are arrived at? They should have consulted.

The clause is designed to help SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—and I agree 100% with that sentiment and with that sentiment being applied to banning upwards-only rent reviews. But the Bill treats SMEs in small properties as though they are the equivalent to office blocks in Canary Wharf or the City of London, data centres worth hundreds of millions of pounds, or other large logistics operations. They have nothing in common with SMEs. This is not a one-size-fits-all subject. SMEs need support, but the Bill should focus exclusively on them, not on big business.

There are good reasons for excluding large commercial properties. These days, large office blocks retail at over £1 billion each in these centres, and the buyers are sovereign wealth funds and big international investors. Removing upwards-only rent reviews rocks the stability of our landlord and tenant system and reduces the attraction of the UK versus competing centres abroad, and that, of course, impacts growth.

At the end of 2022, the IPF estimated the total value of the inventory of commercial property here at £900 billion. The property market was estimated at £138 billion by the LSE in 2024. I mention this to underscore the importance of the sector to the wider economy. If the Government really want growth, this clause is a clear act of self-harm. Destabilising the valuation base of the UK commercial property market will reduce inward investment. This clause adds risk.

00:15

I shall make a brief reference to commercial property valuation. Adding risk by removing these upwards-only reviews will impact valuations. Commercial property income will become more volatile. Higher returns will be expected by investors. Values will fall. What about development? Development is funded by debt. Much large-scale development is speculative. Banks provide the finance and rely on valuations. Those valuations will fall, absent upwards-only rent reviews. Loan-to-value margins will have a shortfall in the building costs to be financed through more expensive means. The continuing development of best-in-class commercial properties will slow. This is a break on growth. Sadly, the loss of value resulting from these provisions may lead to insolvencies and repossessions in the development sector and commercial property. Have HMG thought of this? It is a terrible own goal.

I have not mentioned pension funds, which invest up to 10% of their funds in the commercial property sector. In future, valuers will have no choice but to reflect the new risks and uncertainties in their valuations. The loss will flow through to all shareholders in the quoted real estate sector as well, as the adjustment is embedded. Absent consultation, I wonder how the Government will explain this value destruction to pensioners and shareholders.

Small retail businesses, the stated target for these provisions, are unlikely to be helped at all. Upwards-only rent reviews usually occur at five-year intervals in a 15, 20 or 25-year lease. Small shops frequently have only a three or five-year lease. This becomes irrelevant in those circumstances for those small businesses that we are trying to protect and help. Any consultation would have revealed this fact. All I ask is that these provisions apply exclusively to SMEs, the sector we are so keen to support.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Good morning, my Lords, and indeed it is good morning. I support Amendment 318C, which has just been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thurlow. I should start by declaring that I have a son who works for a commercial property company.

My noble friend Lord Thurlow made a series of powerful points about the effects of this amendment, and I agree with him that a one-size-fits-all approach to rent review clauses is not appropriate, given the very wide range of properties rented by businesses, from perhaps a single office or lock-up garage rented by an SME to thousands of square feet of custom-designed and built warehousing rented by a global corporate.

The Government’s intention of assisting SMEs by preventing upwards-only rent reviews is consistent with protecting tenants from exploitative landlords, and I have, and I am sure most noble Lords have, no difficulty at all with that. However, negotiations between large corporates and commercial property companies are conducted between well advised and experienced professionals. Such tenants are large, powerful and of high value, and commercial property companies make great efforts to attract them and agree terms across a variety of issues, of which rent reviews are but one. These often complex negotiations between large organisations are conducted by staff with, I suggest, a good deal more detailed training, knowledge and experience of the subject than, with the greatest of respect, most parliamentarians. Neither party needs any help or interference from Parliament about the specifics of rent review terms they negotiate to include or exclude as part of their discussions.

This all seems very far away from government business, much less any manifesto commitment, and more like a hastily considered afterthought to the Bill for the residential sector that was before this House some months ago. As my noble friend Lord Thurlow has set out, for large businesses it will introduce instability, destroy value, damage the confidence of lenders, shareholders and investors alike and harm the much mentioned growth agenda.

That brings me back to where I started: dealing with the difference between an SME and a large business and how we determine the cut-off point between them. Will the Minister consider revising this aspect of the Bill so that a prospective tenant that is a publicly listed company will have the ability to opt out and retain it as a negotiating point, rather than have this aspect of their negotiations predetermined by the Government? These are not SMEs brow-beaten by a grasping landlord but large and powerful entities quite capable of navigating the give and take in negotiating leases that meet their needs. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion as a practical way to improve this amendment and mitigate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I will be brief. I support the valedictory amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I also associate myself with what may be valedictory comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It is going to be a shame to lose their surveying expertise and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has contributed so valuably over the last year in all manner of property-related matters covering the built environment which underpins our economy and social infrastructure.

Clause 85 and the related Schedule 34 provide for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it is going to have so many unintended consequences that will chill new investment in all manner of privately funded capital projects. I note that this provision was not in the manifesto nor trailed prior to the publication of the Bill. It has simply been fly-tipped at the end of this Bill, where it sticks out like a sore thumb in a jarring juxtaposition with the Bill’s other provisions.

I support Amendment 318C and its intention to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, but there is a serious risk of further damaging overseas investor confidence in the UK. If we are to attract private investment in large-scale developments, which may include data centres, city office blocks, mixed-use developments with residential property above them, the City of London and huge warehouse fulfilment centres, some sort of revenue growth is required over the life of the asset, without which investments will be placed elsewhere in other countries and other jurisdictions.

Setting small and medium-sized enterprises to one side for the moment, the large-scale tenants of these buildings are, so to speak, grown-up adults. I am not sure that Amazon needs additional protections from the law when contracting for a distribution warehouse. It is for the market and the law of contract to determine that precise equilibrium between those who take the risk of putting up the building and those who take the risk of occupying it. It is certainly not for government in a market economy to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach. This will chill not just future building but also the existing carrying value of those property assets which are owned by pension funds and whose rents support our senior citizens in retirement. Once again, it is the poorest in society who will be adversely affected by this misguided and misdirected sixth-form debating society approach to our economy.

I am grateful to the former Ernst & Young ITEM Club chief economist Martin Beck, who tells me that a blanket ban, as contemplated by this Bill, will cause an £11 billion downgrade of pension fund assets, meaning £2 billion less construction investment per year in the UK—and overall, when everything is taken into account, a £4.2 billion a year hit to our national economy. We need large-scale investments to grow the economy and to provide work for groundworkers, brickies, roofers, painters, decorators and our pensioners.

Schedule 34 represents yet another act of self-inflicted harm to our economy and our way of life, reducing our international investor confidence in the stability of UK plc with our rule of contract and well-established property rights, chasing away inward investment by a Government who say they are keen on growth but act in every respect to damage it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential in nature, relating to Parts 4, 5 and 6, and we do not intend to challenge them in any way.

I am pleased that I have this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well, although he has not actually said that this is his valedictory speech. When I was a Minister on the other side of the House, both noble Lords were supportive at times but challenging at other times. We had quite a lot of fun doing Bills such as what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and I sincerely thank them both for the knowledge of the industry that they brought to the House. That has been excellent and has helped me a great deal to understand the industry much better. They are going to be really missed. I thank them very much for everything that they did to help me in government—and they have helped me a bit in opposition, as well.

The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Fuller, raises important questions about the scope of provisions relating to upward-only rent reviews and their application, particularly to SMEs. All I can say at this time of night is that I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response on this one because there are questions to be answered.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I had not realised that the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, may well be leaving. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has said, it has been a pleasure working with them over a long time on a range of planning and infrastructure Bills. Their level of expertise has been incredibly valuable, along with that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has retired, and they are going to be missed. I say to the Government that the House of Lords has to have the expertise required to undertake the examination of Bills like this. The quality of contribution has been very high, and I personally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, have appreciated that immensely.

There is an issue about upward-only rent reviews. I am, in theory, supportive of enabling SMEs to benefit from rent reviews that can reduce costs. The issue of the very big rent payers, huge property, is one that we need to think further about. For the moment, as I have been supportive of the Government’s intentions towards upward-only rent reviews, I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Cromwell, for their service to this House. In my relatively short time as a Minister, their expertise on all three of the Bills that I have brought before the House, and when I was a shadow Minister working on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, has been invaluable. Their engagement has always been constructive and thoughtful, if sometimes a bit more challenging than a Minister would hope for—but that is a good thing and I am not criticising it. I have truly valued the expertise that they have brought to this House, particularly about commercial property markets. That has been incredibly helpful to all of us. We will miss them.

It is true that tenants from larger businesses that do not meet the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise are likely to be fully aware of the effect of upwards-only rent review clauses and have the ability to negotiate out of them if they so wish. However, the inflationary pressures on rents caused by such clauses affect all businesses, regardless of size or sector. Allowing exemptions of this kind for a limited number of businesses that meet certain criteria would risk creating a two-tier property market that would lead to significant geographical variation. While some effect on property values is possible as a result of the policy counteracting rent inflation, our analysis in the Bill’s impact assessment suggests that economic costs would be outweighed by the wider benefits, including to business competitiveness and market dynamism, and there is clear evidence around having a more level playing field with international investments.

00:30

Furthermore, we are yet to be presented with any proposed exemptions that would be practicable to apply. The exemption from the ban of businesses that are not categorised as SMEs will be based on employee numbers and turnover, both of which will fluctuate through the length of the lease. This creates questions as to what happens, for example, if a business increases from 249 to 251 employees during the term of the lease, meaning that it can no longer be classified as an SME. Who would monitor this? Who would be responsible for administering the exemption? We would be at risk of creating a significant administrative burden while continuing to expose businesses, including exactly the kinds of businesses we wish to help, to upwards-only rent reviews. Let us not forget that upwards-only clauses have been a long-standing concern for many businesses across various sectors.

In the other place, the British Independent Retailers Association, UKHospitality and others made it clear how damaging the practice is, and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. Ahead of introducing the legislation we also engaged with a wide range of landlord and tenant representatives to ensure that the ban is implemented in the most appropriate and considered way. We have always recognised the importance of striking a balance between the objectives of the ban and the legitimate benefits of de-risking mechanisms, particularly for longer-term developments, such as data centres, that require some level of surety for investors. That is why a variety of other options to de-risk investments in commercial property will remain available following the ban, including stepped rents and inflation-indexed rents. We have also committed to consult on how we can use secondary legislation to best set parameters for the use of rent caps and collars. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that we have given proper consideration to this policy and to his concerns, and I ask him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 312 agreed.

Amendments 313 to 316

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

313: Schedule 33, page 361, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 104(9A) (which is inserted by Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act and introduces Schedule 5AA to LDEDCA 2009), omit “and audit committees”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.

314: Schedule 33, page 361, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) In Schedule 5AA (inserted by Schedule (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act)—(a) in the heading, omit “and audit committee”;(b) omit paragraph 9 and the preceding italic heading.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.

315: Schedule 33, page 361, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 15(1A) (which is inserted by Schedule (MayoralCCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act and introduces Schedule 1A to LURA 2023), omit “and audit committees”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.

316: Schedule 33, page 362, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) In Schedule 1A (inserted by Schedule (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) to this Act)—(a) in the heading, omit “and audit committee”;(b) omit paragraph 9 and the preceding italic heading.”Member’s explanatory statement
Other amendments in my name would make provision about overview and scrutiny of mayoral CCAs, including provision which would maintain the current arrangements for audit. This amendment would repeal that wording about the current audit arrangements when the new local audit provisions in Part 4 come into force.

Amendments 313 to 316 agreed.

Amendment 317

Moved by

[Baroness Berridge]

317: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Rutland: status as a ceremonial county(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain), in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—

“Rutland

Rutland””

Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would preserve Rutland’s Lord Lieutenancy and ceremonial county status.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 317 seeks to amend the Lieutenancies Act 1997 to ensure the continuation of Rutland as a ceremonial county with its own lord-lieutenant. I am grateful to the Minister for her email today relating to this matter, and for acknowledging

“the unique circumstances, given that Rutland’s ceremonial status derives from its reestablishment in 1997 as both a district and a county for its area”.

The local government reorganisation criteria automatically require Rutland to lose its county council status. That is perhaps not surprising, as it had at the last census a population of around 41,000. So yet again Rutland will disappear as a local government entity, and due to these unique circumstances the lord-lieutenancy will also disappear. The dissolution of Rutland County Council also ends the lord-lieutenancy of Rutland.

This is the second time in my lifetime that I have been involved in a campaign regarding Rutland’s status. Back in the 1990s it merely meant obtaining a Rutland passport. Yes, there was even talk of Rutland becoming like the Vatican, and Rutlanders delighted in sending photographs from far-flung places to the local newspaper showing off their Rutland passports—for example, outside the Sydney Opera House—as well, of course, as getting stamps from local shops, which was the real purpose.

I say this as it exhibits the level of local feeling that still exists. This led to the largest wet-signature petition in the 21st century, with 7,100 signatures presented to Mr Speaker in the other place by Alicia Kearns, the MP for Rutland and Stamford. I am grateful for the reassurance from the Minister that there are existing legislative powers, by which I believe she means Section 15 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which will be utilised to ensure the continuation of the ceremonial status. However, reading the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 7 and 10, which would be used to issue a dissolution order for Rutland County Council under this Bill, can the Minister guarantee to the people of Rutland that there will be no gap between such a dissolution of Rutland as a local government entity and its recreation as a lord-lieutenancy under Section 15?

From my reading of this Bill and that statute, it is eminently possible that we will end up with two sets of statutory instruments: one dealing with dissolution orders and then a later one under Section 15 dealing with the incidental provisions such as recreating Rutland. There could then be a gap between these two sets where there will be no lord-lieutenant for Rutland. If there is such a gap and therefore for that time no lord-lieutenant because of Rutland’s unique circumstances, which the Government have admitted, who would perform the functions of the lord-lieutenant? What if in the gap there was a potential royal visit to Rutland or the gap covered a time where there was consultation for honours such as OBEs? What if the gap is when there might be recommendations for royal garden party tickets or the personal delivery function of 100th birthday cards from the King?

Surely it is much better for His Majesty’s Government to play it safe and accept this amendment, which guarantees that there would be no gap. The amendment merely adds Rutland to the list of lord-lieutenancies in the 1997 Act so that whatever happens to Rutland County Council would have no effect on the lord-lieutenancy because it would be secured by this amendment. The amendment is a simpler, cheaper, quicker solution.

Rutland’s motto means much in little. There is much concern for the county’s ceremonial status and, sadly, if there is a gap in the lord-lieutenancy, as I have outlined, rather than the guarantee in Amendment 317, I fear that many—possibly thousands—of Rutlanders, who, as I say, would go to the lengths of issuing passports, might take it upon themselves to write to the King to check that they are not missing out on those lord-lieutenancy functions. I hope that even at this late hour, and late in this Bill, His Majesty’s Government might bring at Third Reading an acceptance of this amendment and give the people of Rutland the guarantee of their lord-lieutenancy.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for pointing out the possibility of the gap. I have to confess that I had not fully understood that there was likely to be a gap between the two. I have been told that this matter would be satisfactorily resolved by the actions the Government were planning to take, so I hope very much that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest here.

Although this amendment relates to Rutland and its status as a ceremonial county—and there is a specific set of circumstances around Rutland—there may be other ceremonial issues in other places which require action to be taken to ensure there is continuity. Does the Minister agree that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that there should be no gap in status, has to be addressed at one and the same time?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important issue on which we have tried to come to a solution. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for bringing forward this amendment and explaining the issue so well. It speaks to the wider issue of ensuring that local identities rooted in geography and history, as we have heard, are protected amid local government reorganisation. The people of Rutland know and care deeply about this.

As I have said before, authorities are not just interchangeable abstract units on a map to be neatened out or tidied up for the convenience of any Government; they are places that people call home, with traditions developed organically over time and with all the inevitable quirks and differences that brings. They are not something to be glossed over but must be enshrined at the heart of any Government’s approach to local government and its reorganisation. That is true community empowerment, by recognising exactly what it is that constitutes community. I am really grateful to my noble friend for highlighting this issue with the current legislation. I hope that the Government will give this serious consideration and that the Minister can tonight make it very clear that there will be no time when the county of Rutland will be without its ceremonial county status and its lord-lieutenant.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her amendment. One of the reasons I love local government is the variety of unique and special issues that we come across all the time, and this is one great example of that. I acknowledge Rutland’s unique circumstances, given that its ceremonial status derives from its 1997 unitarisation rather than from direct reference in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. However, there is no need for this amendment as Rutland’s current ceremonial status is not under threat and remains as it has been for the last 29 years. No change is needed to preserve Rutland’s lord-lieutenancy or ceremonial status as it stands.

This amendment is also not the solution with regard to preserving ceremonial status through the ongoing local government reorganisation programme, and I am happy to repeat the assurances already given on this matter. There are existing legislative powers, including those provided under sections of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, that can be used to ensure the continuity of Rutland’s ceremonial status if necessary. The Secretary of State will consider using these powers following any decision he takes on proposals for local government reorganisation that affect Rutland, which are currently out for consultation.

I can reassure noble Lords that these provisions have previously been used successfully when there has been a change to a county during reorganisation, for example in Cumbria, to define the areas covered by a lord-lieutenancy. Should similar provision be needed for Rutland following any decision to reorganise local government in the area, its ceremonial position would be secured through secondary legislation. I can further reassure the noble Baroness that the Government intend the continuity of ceremonial arrangements and will ensure that Rutland retains its existing lord-lieutenant throughout the local government reorganisation process. With this explanation in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance of continuity. I would have been grateful for clarity that there cannot be the possibility of two sets of statutory instruments, because that is where the possibility of a gap exists, but I am grateful for those reassurances. I hope that that is the situation for the people of Rutland, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Amendments 318 and 318A not moved.

Amendment 318B

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

318B: After Clause 85, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and (b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each body specified in Part 1 of this Act and such other bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(b) publish an invitation for other interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, Governments since 2008 have been committed to undertaking post-legislative scrutiny of Acts three to five years after enactment. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, reminded the Committee that she was a member of the Government who accepted the recommendation for such scrutiny to be the norm and she reiterated the Government’s commitment to it. She noted her role in promoting the case for such scrutiny to Parliaments elsewhere.

Not only is there a government commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, but some departments have gone above and beyond by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of a Bill. During the passage of the Football Governance Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, took the initiative in bringing forward a detailed amendment to provide for a review of the Act within five years of its enactment. On the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, introduced an amendment providing for a review within three to seven years. The Minister said that she had listened carefully to the concerns of noble Lords and that her amendment would

“ensure that this Government and—I emphasise this—any future Administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence-based review of the Act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations”.—[Official Report, 3/3/26; col. 1202.]

Both departments—DCMS and health—are to be commended for their commitment and for their willingness to engage on the issue. They recognise the value of post-legislative review.

00:45

In Committee on this Bill, the Minister took the view that, because Clause 19 provides for an annual report, this renders a review unnecessary. This is to confuse description with analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, said earlier in Report in discussing an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the report constitutes updates; the clause makes no provision for independent analysis of the events being recorded.

I previously argued the case for putting a requirement for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of a Bill where it is large, complex and contested, and where it makes significant changes to the law and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill is a prime candidate for putting such a review on its face. As I argued in Committee, it is in the Government’s own interest to accept. It would send reassurance to all those bodies affected by the Bill that it will be reviewed and that they will have an opportunity to comment on its effect. Given that, the amendment I have tabled now extends to include expressly all those bodies listed in Part 1.

Post-legislative review is core to ensuring that law is good law and that any deficiencies can be identified and addressed. I trust that even at this late stage, and indeed late hour, the Minister, having had the opportunity to reflect, will recognise the merit not only of reiterating the Government’s commitment to post-legislative scrutiny through words but also by deed, by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of the Bill. The Government have nothing to lose by doing so but have a great deal to gain. I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the advantages of having volunteered to stay beyond the Whip issued to these Benches tonight—and it is 12.50 am—is that it gives me the opportunity briefly to comment on Amendment 318B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is great merit in the idea that post-legislative review should be conducted. It is a principle that applies not solely to the Bill under consideration tonight but more generally.

If I can draw this brief comparison—I have no intention of speaking for more than 60 seconds—we encourage the committees of this House to look at issues that they have previously dealt with, with a view to following up to see what has happened. I have been a member of a committee that looked at a particular issue that it had considered five years previously and, incidentally, came to the conclusion that things were no better.

In principle, the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord has some merit. I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in response but, having spent the entire day here until now in great part listening to the debates on this Bill, I am pleased to have the opportunity to invite my noble friend the Minister to say whether or not the Government accept the amendment, and I hope that the principles behind it will be taken very seriously.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for proposing it. I support it, but I think the Government will want to do things more quickly than five years. What is being proposed is a review of the impact of the whole Bill over a five-year period, which means you are, in effect, starting after three years to do the research work required. That work may or may not be done by the Government; it might actually be done by university research departments or somebody else. I believe there are a number of errors in the Bill that the Government may find do not work well when we get the Act. Therefore, the Government will need room to effect change more quickly than five years on a number of aspects of the Bill. With that comment, these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 318B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, is a modest and sensible proposal but one of constitutional importance. The amendment would simply require that, within five years of the Act coming into force, the Secretary of State conduct a review of its operations and impacts, publishing the findings and laying them before Parliament.

As we have discussed throughout this Bill, devolution is an evolving process. It is only right that legislation of this significance is subject to proper reflection and reassessment. Without such provision we risk locking in arrangements that may not work as intended. It would not weaken the Act; it would strengthen it by ensuring that it can be reviewed, understood and, if necessary, improved.

This is a sensible amendment. We are grateful to our noble friend for bringing it forward. I urge the Government to take the request from my noble friend seriously.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for Amendment 318B and I welcome the spirit in which it has been tabled. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are already required in law to publish an annual report on English devolution and to lay it before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament already has an annual report against which it can hold the Government to account for delivering on the objectives set out in the English devolution White Paper and this Bill. We have also committed to evaluating the outcomes of devolution as more evidence becomes available. For example, the Government will evaluate the impact of integrated settlements, and this will include various activities to understand whether they are achieving their aims, including an evaluation of integrated settlements as a funding model.

The amendment as set out would be overly burdensome and somewhat duplicative, as it would require the Secretary of State to publish an additional report on the progress of English devolution within five years, despite already being committed in law to publishing annual reports. With that reassurance, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, good law is a public good. It is essential that Acts deliver what they are expected to deliver, and not all do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was touching upon. They may be misinterpreted or misunderstood, simply have no effect or have unintended consequences. That is why post-legislative review is essential, and why I stress “review” rather than reports. Putting provision for review in a major measure such as this is a means of ensuring that it is checked to ensure that it is having the intended effect.

I therefore regret that the Minister has not followed her colleagues in recognising the value of doing that by putting provision for it in the Bill. However, I welcome the fact that the Minister reiterated the commitment to at least report, which involves some element of review, although it is not really an overall assessment of the effect, nor does it subject the Act to independent scrutiny to see whether it is delivering in the way that Parliament has actually intended. It is important that we monitor to ensure that the department delivers on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 318B withdrawn.

Schedule 34: Business tenancies: rent reviews and arrangements for new tenancies

Amendment 318C

Tabled by

[Lord Thurlow]

318C: Schedule 34, page 363, line 26, at end insert—
“2A In this schedule, “business tenancy” and “business tenancy with a rent review” refer only to a business that is a small or medium-sized enterprise, as defined by the section 123 of the Procurement Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the removal of upward only rent reviews will apply only to SMEs, so as to mitigate any potential loss in value for larger commercial properties and to protect investors and lenders against loss in value as a direct result of this Bill.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions on Amendment 318C and particularly for the kind and generous comments from across the House to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me. I regret too that the surveying and property expertise is becoming depleted by the forthcoming cull and would simply like to remind the Minister that it is not too late to do something about it.

Turning to Amendment 318C, I seriously urge the Minister to reflect on leaving Clause 5 unchanged. It will cause great self-harm and frighten off inward investment and be bad for growth. There would be wisdom in seeking recommendations from the property profession as to how better to exercise this objective of upwards-only rent reviews. Meanwhile, I shall not move my amendment.

Amendment 318C not moved.

Amendments 319 to 324

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

319: Schedule 34, page 363, line 31, leave out from “if” to end of line 38 and insert “—
(a) at that time it is a business tenancy with a rent review,(b) the tenancy was—(i) granted, or(ii) varied so that it is subject to rent review terms,after this Schedule came into force, and(c) that grant or variation was not made under protected pre-commencement arrangements.(2) For that purpose “protected pre-commencement arrangements” means arrangements that were entered into before this Schedule came into force.(3) But arrangements under which the tenancy was granted are not protected pre-commencement arrangements if—(a) the tenancy is a new tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 7B, (b) the arrangements are a tenancy renewal arrangement within the meaning of Schedule 7B, and(c) the tenancy renewal arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026,(and see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7B for the meaning of “new tenancy” and “tenancy renewal arrangement”).”Member's explanatory statement
This would restructure paragraph 3 and make these changes: use “subject to” rent review terms (for consistency with paragraph 2(1)(b)); use “arrangements” (to catch any kind of arrangements, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract, eg. an option); and ensure that a tenancy is caught if granted by virtue of a pre-commencement tenancy renewal arrangement that is itself caught by Schedule 7B.

320: Schedule 34, page 364, line 27, leave out from “if” to end of line 2 on page 365 and insert “—
(a) at that time it is a business tenancy with a rent review,(b) at that time the rent review terms—(i) do not specify new passing rent, and(ii) include elements 1 and 2,(c) the tenancy was—(i) granted, or(ii) varied so that it is subject to rent review terms that do not specify the new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,after this Schedule came into force, and(d) that grant or variation was not made under protected pre-commencement arrangements.(2) For that purpose “protected pre-commencement arrangements” means arrangements that were entered into before this Schedule came into force.(3) But arrangements under which the tenancy was granted are not protected pre-commencement arrangements if—(a) the tenancy is a new tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 7B,(b) the arrangements are a tenancy renewal arrangement within the meaning of Schedule 7B, and(c) the tenancy renewal arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026,(and see paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 7B for the meaning of “new tenancy” and “tenancy renewal arrangement”).”Member's explanatory statement
This would restructure paragraph 6 and make these changes: use “subject to” rent review terms (for consistency with paragraph 2(1)(b)); use “arrangements” (to catch any kind of arrangements, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract, eg. an option); and ensure that a tenancy is caught if granted by virtue of a pre-commencement tenancy renewal arrangement that is itself caught by Schedule 7B.

321: Schedule 34, page 367, line 17, leave out “includes” and insert “is subject to”
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that the language of paragraph 11(2)(a)(ii) is consistent with paragraph 2(1)(b).

322: Schedule 34, page 367, line 23, leave out “includes” and insert “is subject to”
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that the language of paragraph 11(2)(b)(ii) is consistent with paragraph 2(1)(b).

323: Schedule 34, page 367, line 27, leave out “a contract” and insert “arrangements”
Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that any pre-commencement arrangements for the grant or variation of a tenancy would be caught by this provision, whether or not they would be regarded as a contract (eg. an option).

324: Schedule 34, page 371, line 3, leave out “after this Schedule comes into force” and insert “on or after 17 March 2026”
Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for the provisions of Schedule 7B to apply to a “new lease” if it is granted under a tenancy renewal arrangement entered into on or after the day on which this amendment was tabled.

Amendments 319 to 324 agreed.

Clause 86: Interpretation

Amendments 324A and 324B

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

324A: Clause 86, page 85, line 10, at end insert—
““LGA 2000” means the Local Government Act 2000;”Member's explanatory statement
This would add a definition of “LGA 2000” to the Bill.

324B: Clause 86, page 85, line 11, at end insert—
““LGPIHA 2007” means the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007;”Member's explanatory statement
This would add a definition of “LGPIHA 2007” to the Bill.

Amendments 324A and 324B agreed.

Amendment 325 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 325A

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

325A: After Clause 88, insert the following new Clause—
“Certain orders and regulations provided for by Parts 1 and 2(1) Section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) In subsection (2) for“An order to which subsection (2A) applies”substitute“Subject to subsections (2A) and (3), an order under this Part”.(3) In subsection (2A)—(a) for“This subsection applies to an order under this Part other than—”substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply to—”;(b) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) an order under section 107FA,”;(c) in paragraph (b), omit the second “or”;(d) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) an order under section 113E,”.(e) at the end of paragraph (c) insert“, or”(d) an order under Schedule 5BA.” (4) In subsection (3A), after “107K(1)” insert “or Schedule 5AA”(5) In subsection (5), for “(2A)(a) or (b)” substitute “(2A)(za) to (ba) or (2A)(d)”.(6) Section 252 of LURA 2023 (regulations) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (9).(7) In subsection (2)—(a) for “(8)(a)” substitute “(8)(aa)”;(b) before “, includes” insert “or (8)(l), or regulations under Schedule 1A”.(8) In subsection (5)(a)—(a) after “subsection” insert “(8)(ac) or”;(b) after “(c)” insert “or (8)(l)”.(9) In subsection (8), before paragraph (a) insert—“(ac) under section 33A;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would ensure that new powers added to LDEDCA 2009 or LURA 2023 by the Bill are subject to the intended level of Parliamentary scrutiny and do not include the power to amend any enactment.

Amendment 325A agreed.

Clause 89: Regulations

Amendment 326 not moved.

Clause 92: Commencement

Amendments 327 and 328

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

327: Clause 92, page 88, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(1A) But none of the following provisions comes into force in accordance with subsection (1)(c)—(a) section (Mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) (and Schedules (Mayoral CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees) and (Mayoral combined authorities: overview and scrutiny committees)) (mayoral combined authorities and CCAs: overview and scrutiny committees);(b) section 25 (and Schedule 7) (charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways);(c) Chapter 3 of Part 3 (licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles);”Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for a single subsection setting out which powers are excluded from royal assent commencement under clause 92(1)(c). In the new subsection, paragraphs (b) and (c) replicate the current effect of clause 92(2) and (3); and paragraph (a) relates to the new section and Schedules that would be inserted after clause 10 and Schedule 3 by other amendments in my name.

328: Clause 92, page 90, line 2, at end insert—
“(za1) section (Limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation) (limit on delay of election in connection with local government reorganisation);”Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for commencement two months after Royal Assent for the new clause which would limit the power to delay elections in connection with local government reorganisation.

Amendments 327 and 328 agreed.

House adjourned at 12.57 am.