English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

17:27

Division 1

Amendment 197 agreed.

Ayes: 247

Noes: 187

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

17:42

Division 2

Amendment 214 agreed.

Ayes: 257

Noes: 180

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

18:09

Division 3

Amendment 217 disagreed.

Ayes: 69

Noes: 332

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

18:48

Division 4

Amendment 218 disagreed.

Ayes: 178

Noes: 231

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

19:00

Division 5

Amendment 219 disagreed.

Ayes: 65

Noes: 173

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

19:24

Division 6

Amendment 246 agreed.

Ayes: 214

Noes: 156

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

21:30

Division 7

Amendment 248D (to Amendment 248) disagreed.

Ayes: 135

Noes: 154

--- Later in debate ---

21:44

Division 8

Amendment 248 agreed.

Ayes: 162

Noes: 55

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

23:10

Division 9

Amendment 268 disagreed.

Ayes: 46

Noes: 117

--- Later in debate ---

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”

--- Later in debate ---

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”

--- Later in debate ---

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”

--- Later in debate ---

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”

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

--- Later in debate ---

23:22

Division 10

Amendment 280A (to Amendment 280) disagreed.

Ayes: 30

Noes: 130

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

23:45

Division 11

Amendment 307 disagreed.

Ayes: 27

Noes: 89

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.