Lords Chamber

Monday 13th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:36
13:37
13:37
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
at the time there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Simon, and I'm pleased to do that today. The position of clerk of the Parliament has a long and proud history. I know that Simon felt history. I know that Simon felt privileged to be in post as the 20th holder of that office on the 20th holder of that office on the 200th anniversary of the 1824 clerk of the Parliaments Act, although in 1824 the role was very different to 1824 the role was very different to that of today.

Since Simon joined your Lordships' House in January 1988, over 38 years ago, he's been dedicated in every role he has held. On leaving university, having applied for the Civil Service fast stream, his career plans changed, being sent information about work in the House of Lords. From then on, he was hooked. Starting the Committee office, eventually becoming the first clerk of our important Constitutional Committee and also setting up the Delegated Legislation committees, which have become central to the work of this House.

Between 1986 and 1999, he took on the position as Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. No easy task, I can tell you. My Lord, that's a key role in working with the leadership to manage the business and the work of the House. It was obviously a time of significant change. And as some noble Lord Sewell recall, not without controversy on constitutional issues affecting your Lordships House. Lord Carter, the then government chief whip, praised Simon's tireless, expert and dextrous work in facilitating the usual channels over those three years.

And in many ways, my Lords, those first 11 years perhaps set the tone for his career. There is no doubt that he has huge respect and admiration for the work of this House. Those qualities have helped steer us through political changes, internal changes, huge challenges and nationally significant and emotional events. And on becoming the senior officer of the House as the clerk of the Parliament, his commitment to managing that change has been more important than ever. With Covid, we had the transition to remote working and then the easing back to hybrid and then a physical house.

So many of the conventional wisdom about how we work had been challenged and needed to be managed. Of course, despite being involved with the huge challenges of the R&R project, it was never anticipated that joint responsibility would bestow on the clerk of the parliaments. But Simon fulfilled that additional role with his usual diligence. My Lords, of course, not all change is universally welcomed. Some may recall that there was a time when our table clerk seating arrangements involved a hard backless bench.

Simon introduced the radical move to bring in individual ergonomic chairs. A Yes Minister sketch which described it as a courageous move. During his tenure, we had the party of the late Majesty the Queen and the accession of King Charles, which was emotional time for the nation and this house. And although just one general election, he has worked with three Lord speakers and seven group leaders, including three leaders of the House. My Lords, the role of the clerk of the parliaments isn't just about leadership of the House and managing business, but about the whole House, its members and staff.

His personal commitment to junior colleagues to ensure they felt valued in their work and their careers has been greatly appreciated. My Lords, in many ways, Simon started his career here as a the same way as when he retired, and he retires while still maintaining that professionalism, commitment, dedication and affection for the house with which he started. My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, we thank him.
13:41
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
For. My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, in her elegant tribute to Simon Burton, our departing clerk of the parliaments. And yes, my Lords, we are all sad to see Simon go. As the noble Baroness said, he joined the house in 1988 and I checked. There are now barely two dozen peers who were here when the young, fresh faced Simon first appeared. And I say young deliberately, as whatever winds may blow, he is still as fresh faced and cheerful in his men as ever he was in 1988.

My Lords, the house values its clerks, and I hope they all know that we value that unique career and essential career, and all the associated skills of which Simon embodied so many. We value experience and loyalty, such as Simon, has exemplified not just to us, the peers, but to all those in our exceptional staff whom he has led with care and dedication in his time. As the noble Baroness said, many management changes have been effected and I know the pride that Simon takes in.

Having confronted outdated behaviours and promoting a more diverse and inclusive environment for all. The nobleman has referred to the many and varied roles Simon has held, and I would again pick out the fact he was the first to clerk. One of our most important committees that on the Constitution. Perhaps the noble Earl Lord Keen all refer to his long service in EU scrutiny, and maybe when I look at some of the current press releases, my Lords will need those skills again.

Among the many changes in which Simon was involved were the creation of the legislation office to which noble Baroness referred, which was important, and. Transformation of digital services of the House of Lords. My Lords, I first met Simon in 1997, when I became Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, the present Marquess of Salisbury. There actually wasn't much digital then. We used to have to staple the whip by hand and send it out by post. I reflect sometimes it would be a wonder if with today's postal service, the house would ever have been quiet in the 1990s.

Simon was then seconded to the Cabinet Office as private secretary to the Leader of the House, and they were, as the noble Baroness said, challenging times with the change of government after 18 years and sweeping manifesto proposals to remove hundreds of members of your Lordships House. It sounds quite familiar, perhaps, and he and I, in those difficult circumstances, found ourselves harnessed together as the operative elements of the usual channels. And it was with Simon that I learned many of those useful and mysterious arts, which I haven't entirely forgotten, which can sometimes bring us frustration, but which should always work for peace across this House.

My Lords, he was always the most congenial of colleagues then, and is today. The office of clerk of the Parliament is a great one, with immense responsibilities, as our leader has told us, and Simon found himself in partnership with colleagues in the other place, taking much of the brunt. Among other things, of the huge trials of R and R, which he can never have expected when taking the civil service exams all those years ago. I know it was a great satisfaction to him to see costed proposals finally laid before both houses, shortly before the end of his term.

Now, my Lord Simon starts a new, and I trust, less taxing part of his life as one who's already retired twice. I can tell him it's not too bad, and I hope that he will return to visit us in future through whatever form of entrance there then may be to your Lordships House. We also look forward to working with Simon's successor, Chloe Morrison, and with our new clerk, assistant Duncan James Sagar, who are both already so widely and known and respected by us all.

But for now, my Lords, I would like in the sincerest term, tones of personal fondness and friendship to thank Simon for his long service and to wish him the very, very best for a long and ever contented future. Yes.
13:46
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, there have only been 65 clerks of the Parliament in the 65 clerks of the Parliament in the 700 years or more since the role was formed, and, as the leader said, only 20 since the 1824 act, which governs the role now in statute, and argues then for the salary to be the princely sum of £40, it wasn't set on whether or not it was inflation linked or not, but I'm glad, I'm sure the new clerk will be glad that it wasn't.

That period included the 77 years of the father and son's role of the Scottish Rose family, almost hereditary in nature for the clerks of the Parliament and the clerks of the Parliament at that time, including a spell of which his sitting MP at the time was also clerk of the parliaments in this House, taking joint services a step too far. The role today is, the leader said, is sometimes is in many respects greatly different from that as set out in that legislation then, and it has been an uneasy one, perhaps being chief adviser on procedure, master of Norman French, but also head of procurement, overseeing security and responsible for almost constant catering complaints also.

Simon's career since 1988 and the house has been marked by a courtesy and openness, as well as a deep love of parliamentary practice. Those who chaired committees which he clerked and those such as I who have worked closely with them more recently, have found common features. Tirelessness of work, professionalism, courtesy and a real sense of dedication. But also Simon was at the forefront of innovation and change, words sometimes unfamiliar in many years about the House of Lords. But they've been led by Simon, including seeing long term security and safety of parliamentary archives, huge advances on digital services and professionalising, and improving staffing conditions for all who work in this institution.

This was put to very effective use as clerk assistant when he was responsible for parliamentary services through the very testing times of Covid. Ironically, for some, the House of Lords moved faster and more effectively than the House of Commons and indeed we have learnt lessons that us have benefiting us today and we thank Simon and the whole team for that. He took up the clerk of the parliament's role when Covid restrictions were still in place, and the Duke of Edinburgh died on his second day in office.

His role as part of the term of the connected ceremonies and procedures for that, but also for the state funeral of Her late Majesty and the accession of King Charles, was seen not just by us as members of this House, but around the world, and put this institution in good stead with great respect, having carried out those functions with great success. The changes in procedures and standards approach to working, and indeed, as referred to by noble Lord Lord True, the R and R project, which he has had much more hands on role, perhaps, than the roses did as his predecessors in the 1840s and 50s all mark an extremely active period of which can be rightly proud.

On a personal note, I often reflect on the working environment of the House now, compared to a period when I was an assistant to a peer in 1997, Simon working first with and then leading colleagues across the House, have transformed this place to a more professional, safe and respectful for all who work here in whatever form. And perhaps that is his legacy, which he can be proud of. And we can be most thankful that the House of Lords not only carries out its constitutional functions well, but it does so in a way where all members and staff are valued.

And we are extremely grateful for his role that he's done that. These benches, of course, wish his successor as the 66th clerk the greatest of success. We are very confident that she will bring all of her outstanding skills to that role, and it will be a great success. But I share with the leader and the noble Lord Lord Bruce remarks that these benches with Simon are very, very happy retirement and was grateful. Thanks. Amen.
13:51
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Purvis, and indeed to hear the wonderful remarks from the leader and from Lord True earlier on. And I'm in the rare and happy position of agreeing with every word that had been said so far in support of the motion. Paying tribute to Simon. Simon was born in 1964. This, of course, was the year of that most important album, and indeed the Oscar winning film so relevant for his career.

Hard Day's Night. Indeed, 40 years ago, on his very first day in the house. The house sat until nearly midnight. The regular pattern that we know so well. Simon's career was very much connected with the select committees of our house, and on becoming the clerk of a select committee for the first time in what was then another era, he famously was told by his chair not to arrange meetings on Wednesdays. When he asked why, he was told, and I quote, you see, it ruins both I quote, you see, it ruins both weekends.

Simon's outstanding record as a committee clerk has been very well covered. And here the noble Lord Lord True anticipated me because it would be wrong for me not to comment on his time as clerk of the European Union Committee. His chair at that time was Lord Grenfell. He and Lord Grenfell were very much responsible for the tuning of the structures that allowed for the effective scrutiny of the 900 or so legislative proposals that came out of Brussels every year, scrutiny by the main EU committee and its six subcommittees.

In my. Seven years later on, as being member and then chair of the committee, I greatly benefited from the smooth machinery that Simon had had such a hand in building. Simon had become clerk assistant by the time that I became deputy speaker in 2019. At the time, it had been some time since the new deputy Speaker had been appointed. Indeed, there was only one other deputy speaker below the age of 70, and they, a sprightly 68 and Simon agreed to conduct a training course.

I was blissfully unaware of just how busy the clerk assistant is, but Simon always seemed to have time for me and went carefully through the Deputy Speakers manual with me. Sessions punctuated by good humour and his great booming laughter, he made careful notes of a number of anomalies that we came across in the manual, and an updated manual appeared a few months later. But as ever, Simon took no credit for what was his work. I turned briefly to Simon's time as clerk of the parliaments, briefly, not because I couldn't have said a lot, but that it's already been said.

But I would observe these two things. First, at the core of Simon's style is the care for the welfare and interests of his staff. And secondly, that we all know and enjoy the very high quality level of expertise and can do attitude of each and every one of our staff. These two things are surely connected and the nexus is Simon. It is no surprise, therefore, that his successor comes from within his ranks. And on behalf of these benches her much.

I congratulate Chloe Mawson and welcome her to the role. Simon's last late night duty, just before our recess, took him to 1:45 a.m. A final hard Day's Night, and it is for that and for all his many achievements, that on behalf of these benches, I thank him very warmly and wish him a long and happy retirement after.
13:55
Lord Bishop of Southwark Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords. From these. those noble Lords who have gone before me. I pay tribute to Simon Burton, whose service as clerk to the. Of the Parliament's has, I believe, been of lasting value to the House. The strength of our parliamentary life depends not only on those who speak in debate, but on those who ensure that our work is carried out with integrity, order and constitutional faithfulness. In that vital task, Simon has served with distinction as clerk of the parliaments.

He has been both guardian of ancient, custom and wise guide. Through modern complexity. He has exercised that responsibility with clarity of judgement, intellectual rigour and an unfailing sense of proportion. His counsel has reminded us that procedure is not an obstacle to good government, but one of its essential safeguards. He has always displayed a can do and hands on attitude, exemplified by one query from our benches sent to Simon relating to the prayers in the House.

It turned out that this required removing an artwork from the Upper West Front Corridor to read the only surviving original draft of the relevant standing order, which was on the artworks reverse. Simon dutifully obtained a screwdriver, removed it, read it, and replaced it from all those on these benches. I wish especially to acknowledge his attentiveness to the character of this house as a place of respectful disagreement and careful scrutiny. His advice has always been impartial, measured and deeply informed by a sense of the public good.

He, as Clerk of Parliament, meets all new bishops to give advice and support and in his previous role of reading clerk, had the unenviable task of reading all our complicated summonses to the House. Simon has led his team, as has already been observed with humanity and supported colleagues with generosity and calm, particularly in moments of pressure. He has shown that true authority is most often exercised quietly in the finest traditions of the House, at a time when confidence in institutions can be fragile, his service stands as a powerful example of professionalism, integrity and devotion to duty.

His legacy will be found not in prominence, but in the strength and dignity of this House itself. On behalf of the Lords, spiritual and indeed of the whole House, I offer Simon our sincerest thanks and our very best wishes for the future here.
13:58
13:59
None Portrait Declaration: The Clerk Of The Parliaments
-

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Whereas the office of clerk of the parliaments of us, our heirs and successors, has become vacant by the resignation of our trusty and well-beloved Simon Peter Burton Esquire, now know ye that we of our especial grace do constitute and appoint our trusty and well beloved Chloe Kate Sevgi Kilcoyne Moorsom, officer of our Most Excellent order of the British Empire, to be clerk of the parliaments of us, our heirs and successors, in the place of the said Simon Peter Burton, to hold an exercise the said office during her good behaviour therein for a period of five years, with effect from 2nd of April 2026, together with all privileges, profits, advantages and emoluments due and of right belonging to the said office, and that she, the said Chloe Kate Sevgi Kilcoyne Mawson shall be eligible for reappointment thereafter, and we do declare that the duties of the said office shall be executed by the.

Said Chloe Kate Sevgi Kilcoyne Mawson in person, and that she shall be removable by us, our heirs and successors. Upon an address of the House of Lords to us, our heirs and successors for that purpose, in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster, the second day of April, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant, under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chloe Mawson, be pleased to make your declaration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

your declaration. I Chloe Kate Sevgi, Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson do declare that I Kilcoyne Mawson do declare that I will be true and faithful and truth. I will bear to our sovereign Lord, the King, and to his heirs and successors I will. Nothing, no, that shall be prejudicial to His that shall be prejudicial to His Highness, his crown, estate and dignity. Royal. But that I will resist it to my power, and with all speed I will advertise his grace thereof, or at the least some of his counsel, in such wise as the same may come to his knowledge.

I will also well and truly serve his Highness in the office of clerk of his Parliament, making true entries and records of the things done and passed in the same. I will keep secret all such matters as shall be treated in his said parliaments, and not disclose the same before they shall be published. But to such as it ought to be disclosed unto. And generally I will well and truly do, and execute all things belonging to me to be done appertaining to the office of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consistent, Consistent, my Consistent, my Lords, Consistent, my Lords, forming Consistent, my Lords, forming a selection process. I have appointed Duncan James Sagar to be the clerk. Assistants in the place of Chloe Assistants in the place of Chloe Kilcoyne Mawson. Appointed clerk of the parliaments. I beg to move. Question is that this motion be Question is that this motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, non content.

The contents First First Oral Question by.
14:04
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of developments in artificial intelligence on current levels of employment
-

14:04
14:04
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:07
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:14
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementing the recommendations in the UK Gigafactory Commission report 'Britain’s Battery Future'
-

>> Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> I thank the noble Baroness for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution to the Commission and its report. A resilient domestic battery sector is
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:18
14:19
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:30
14:31
14:31
14:32
14:32
14:33
14:34
14:34
14:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Extent and risks of the use of nitrous oxide gas by young people
-

Oral Question Lord Storey. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
The noble Baroness will know my >> The noble Baroness will know my answer with respect to the Defence Investment Plan and as I say, that will be published in due course. In will be published in due course. In terms of HMS Dragon, in terms of HMS Dragon, that is, that is available in the Eastern Mediterranean and is currently, as she says, undergoing some limited work, but it's still available with respect to the air defence weapons that that it has to be respected at.

But I just say to the to the noble Baroness, in terms of that, I pay tribute to to the last government about the 13 ships that are being built in Scotland and the importance of. With respect to that. But in terms of in terms of what the government is doing with respect to the capabilities, in terms of minehunting in the in in the region, I've spoken and talked about in the answer that I gave to the noble Lord Best about the autonomous minehunting capabilities that are already deployed there, she will know, because the noble Baroness is well aware of these things, that the hybrid navy that the first sea Lord wants will ensure that not only do we have ships, but Minehunting capabilities of the future will actually involve much more the use of drones.

And that is why the point I made about RFA Lyme Bay, although no decision has been made to deploy that yet. But RFA Lyme, Lyme Bay being made a mothership from which drones can be used to tackle a mine hunting a mine threat is also the way forward with that. So of course ships are important, but there are many other ways you can tackle mines as well. said.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> High speed rail crew. Manchester bill carry over motion. The Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. >> My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the motion made in my name in the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Report of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that the English Devolution and. now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now. Further considered on report. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, before the first group is considered, I wanted to remind the House of the previous guidance on conduct during the Report stage. This is the final day of Report stage and proceedings on this bill. Need to conclude today. I would therefore urge all noble Lords to apply good discipline to ensure we can conclude business at a reasonable time. First, the House has generally resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and particularly relevant to companion states, arguments fully deployed in committee should not be repeated at length on report.

Contributions should not summarise or repeat points made at length by others, and debates must be relevant to the precise amendment being debated. Thirdly, although interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, they should be brief questions for clarification and lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made as this is report, not committee. A continued collective focus on these points will help us to make progress.
15:02
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
In clause 57, amendment 187, the >> In clause 57, amendment 187, the Baroness Scott of Bybrook. >> My Lords, I rise to speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the first group of amendments in my name, which reflect the concerns that we've repeatedly expressed during the passage of this bill about about imposing top down reorganisation of local government without local consent. Amendment 187 and 194 oppose clause 57 and schedule 26 outright. Schedule 26 is currently drafted and enables the Secretary of State to not just invite, but my Lords to direct local authorities to propose mergers of single tiers of local government.

My Lords, this throws into serious question whether this Bill does in fact enable community empowerment, or if it just gives the Secretary of State more power to bring councils into line with the 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 who have been doing their jobs well and kept taxes low to be merged with others. Less well performing councils. All my Lords, Disaggregating district councils into pieces to suit the government rather than the people adding them to urban areas in order to allow more greenfield greenfield development.

We believe, my Lords. And that again takes the pressure off use of brownfield. Amendment 188 would remove the wording to direct, allowing the Secretary of State to make an invitation only to local authorities. Amendment 189 would then require the express consent of all relevant authorities affected by the proposed reorganisation. Alongside the significant significance of local consent, it is important that democratic oversight of the changes occurs at national level two, and not just in the corridors of Whitehall.

Amendment 190 would require the Secretary of State to show Parliament that any direction is in the interests of effective and convenient local government, whilst also representing the views of the affected authorities. Similarly, amendment 191 strengthens the requirement of the Secretary of State not only to believe the direction is in the interests of local government, but to be satisfied having regard to the views of affected authorities and local electors. My Lords, we return to the point that we have made consistently throughout this process.

Changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent. And can the Minister confirm whether the purpose of this legislation is truly to enhance community empowerment? And can she also explain how these provisions will save taxpayers money, improve local service delivery and strengthen existing local geographic identities? My Lords, these are questions that we will not just ask now, but we will continue to ask them as this project moves forward and this bill moves into an act, it is not clear why schedule 26 has been drafted in this way.

It has. Without strong, with in this way, the way it has, without stronger democratic safeguards. And so I look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the minister's response. I assume the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to move her amendment. So I move my amendment. Amendment proposed leave out clause 57.
15:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
>> My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on local government reorganisation. Before I comment on reorganisation. Before I comment on the amendments, I wonder if the House would just indulge me for one moment to pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham, who died during recess. Jeremy Beecham's passion for local government, as well as his wisdom, kindness, fierce intelligence and sharp wit, as well as over 55 years of service to his community in Newcastle. 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 day yesterday in Newcastle, where Lord Shipley and I attended, along with other members of this House, and I would just say I hope Jeremy will rest in peace. May his memory be a blessing. Thank you. In relation to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I've said before, the government is 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 be able to benefit from strong unitary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just might I just ask the noble Lady whether she's winding, because if so, I think a number of because if so, I think a number of us wished to get in as part of the debate, and I'd hate to cut her off,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but but I think that there's some contributions to be made. It was my understanding that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we'd moved on to winding speeches. I realise that we've moved on to winding speeches, but I certainly would wholeheartedly endorse what the noble Baroness has just said about the noble Lord, Lord Beauchamp, and also would add my condolences. But with the leave of the House, I would like to comment briefly on the amendments 187, which has been moved by my noble friend Lady Scott and my noble
15:08
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
friend Lord Jamieson in the. In the intentions of their amendments to this group, I would support them. this group, I would support them. They seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to direct mergers of single tiers of local mergers of single tiers of local government to cases where all the local authorities concerned have given their consent, and I strongly given their consent, and I strongly agree with that of their amendments. I prefer the two which are more far I prefer the two which are more far reaching, namely 188 and 194, because the provision for local authorities to merge exists already in clause 57 and schedule 26 are only there to implement the power of the Secretary of State to enforce such mergers without consent of the authorities involved.

In any case, I would like to ask the noble Baroness to explain how, as envisaged by schedule 26, the proposed additions to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, 2007 concerning 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 cannot understand how a district council can be a single tier. I would observe that the act is concerned with mergers of principal authorities.

Could 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, which is seeing many counties being divided up into smaller unitary authorities, which will certainly result in massive increase in costs, which will have to be borne by hard pressed council taxpayers.
15:10
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to speak in the strongest possible support of the amendments laid by my noble friends from the front bench, and I would like to make two introductory remarks. First off, I was the leader of the council for 20 years and had a ring site in L g r in my own area, but also as part of my chairmanship of the District Councils network, I saw it firsthand. Apart from saving money, LGR has precipitated the bankruptcy of Somerset and elsewhere in Yorkshire, created a so-called local council spanning the whole width of England at that point nine miles to encompass Skipton, Selby and Scarborough.

Secondly, I note that a lot has changed in this space since the Committee stage. The government has published its LGR proposals for Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire and the lofty ideals of strategic leadership. Better value for money, economies of scale, together with the published criteria which the public took at face value and responded to, have been dashed on the rocks of partisan gerrymandering. I don't know why I'm surprised that the party that sought to rig the local government elections would seek to pervert the process, as it has.

But we can see what's happened here. The labour authorities that connived with the government to cancel the election on the flimsiest grounds so weak the government wouldn't take their chances in the court, have been rewarded with small unitary councils desired, designed to fail. The goalposts have been moved and that's why amendments 189 and 191 in particular are so important. They would stop the abuse of process where the public, who play by one set of rules, only stymied by Ministers playing another.

Let's compare what Ministers advertised in the current round of LGR against what has been delivered. It was said that LGR proposals should respect and be based on existing councils, as building blocks themselves grounded in the historic county boroughs, the poor law unions, the ecclesiastical hundreds in all but the most extenuating circumstances. And there are good reasons for this. The government's in a hurry, and there are easy building blocks to make aggregations simpler and better value and quicker. Whilst there always might have been extenuating circumstances, perhaps to bring the awkward extremities of a national park within the ambit of a single unitary, we've been served by a gerrymander where cities have been given the choicest parts of their neighbours, ignoring travel to work areas, breaking communities of interest and making the process more expensive, take longer and be more disruptive.

Precisely the moment councils are meant to be delivering growth, not shuffling around the deckchairs. In the case of Norfolk, we see the announcement of a conversion of seven districts into three unitaries. It won't just merge seven into three, which would be hard enough as it is. But in this proposal that breaks up the existing councils as building blocks, we will see 14 disaggregation and weldings together in a cut and shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. And of course, the consequences of all just Breaking long term contracts with orphaning leisure centres, disrupting the local plan and unknowable permutations around allocating staffing, which will need to think of all the 14 functional parts of our county, each of which delivers 136 council activities stitched together contractually software financially, legally and safely in just a few months, without even being clear about the perishing in the former county boroughs.

It's designed to fail. People were told to propose new councils based around at least a half a million population. We were told that that was the economic optimum that combines scale with efficiency. Now I know we can't be precious. You can't snap, can counties aren't exactly in in half million pound increments, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see a 10 or 15% variation around that half a million figure. In other words, anywhere between 425 and 575,000, perhaps.

But we've been served a set of councils, many of whom many of which rather will see a population beginning with a two as late as 2040, condemned by design and scale to that special council death zone population similar to the existing unitary cohort are in trouble. Places like Swindon, Slough and Stoke. If that's what the government had in mind, they should have been upfront and open at the outset. It would have stopped the nods and winks to the counties who were clearly doomed, but whose consent was required to endorse the mayoral elections.

My Lords, the government has acted dishonestly in their dealing on this. They've said one thing and done another. They've abused their position and spoken with forked tongue. The government told us it would strengthen democracy, led South Norfolk for 20 years. Norwich is to be inflated with the balloon, but not so much that Labour's client vote will be diluted, peeling off a few wealthy parishes here and there to pay off the city's historic debts without regard to the rump authority left behind.

Labour's unthinking approach has been that the rest of the countryside can go hang. Labour's proposal in Norfolk will create Britain's poorest council in east Norfolk on the altar of shoring up Labour's prospects in the city. It's the same in Suffolk and Essex. Let me explain. Take the proposed East Norfolk unitary. It will comprise north Norfolk, which has England's oldest population with the greatest social care needs and the lowest economic population. Great Yarmouth, my home town, which has some of the country's most deprived wards, and those essential parts of south Norfolk outside the Norwich Fringe, where the main industry is agriculture.

Miles of open fields with little generating industry. It's all the cost and none of the revenue. Norwich and its gravitational pull will be excised on this territory, leaving a rural rump bisected by the river and amid wild marsh from east to west without a crossing, say, for a two car chain ferry at reading that closes at 10 p.m. and doesn't open at all. In January, the Boundary Committee Commission, rather, would not be able to lawfully create a parliamentary constituency given this fact, so I've no idea how the government just thought this would wash for council unless it's on the basis that I'm all right.

Jack in the city. And this had just better get used to being chucked in with wells next to the sea. Two hours away by car. There's no bus. Then we were told that only proposals which could demonstrate value for money would be entertained. But there's been no published cost analysis. Nobody knows what council tax might be in the new arrangements. Nobody's got a clue about council tax harmonisation or debt apportionment or the pension fund strain costs, which the times said could be as much as a billion.

A staff with the longest service can retire on grounds of efficiency at the typical quarter of £1 million a pop. People who told us that LGR would save a fortune in 2020 now say it won't save a beam. Yes, they were suckered, but no one. The government has not published any financial analysis at all, and we know they haven't published that analysis because they haven't got the first idea of the costs, because they've split the districts by not following the rules that they set at the outset to use districts as building blocks.

Forgive me interrupting. Thank you for giving way. You're giving us a lot of very, very interesting information. But we are at Report stage and I just wondered how much more you have to give us. Thank you, thank you. Not very much is the answer, but I'm getting to the nub of the point because the government has said one thing and done another. And it's an important legal point, because when they try to use these same provisions in 2007 under the local Government Public Involvement in Health Act that they now seek to rely on.

In his judgement in January 2010, Mr. Justice Ouseley found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has changed the decision making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said the Secretary of State has repeatedly set out the basis upon which he would refuse proposals and, without warning, adopted a wholly different approach and reached decisions which the original approach he would not have reached, the judge said. On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State made a mockery of the consultation process, and now it's important we get to this amendment, because this amendment would stop the jiggery pokery and the changing and the moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today.

And furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr. Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits, alongside a full, plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man in the street, which includes a full statement of the total forecast cost. Council tax had not been done and of course it hasn't been done. Our county is subject to LGR in this round, have been pushed into a financial leap in the dark, brought to you by the same people who said the business rates wouldn't be put up for pubs.

My Lords, I hope that my learned friends do run the rule. Following Justice Owsleys and Cranston's 2010 judgements as a guide, but it's now clear that the government never intended to follow the rules and hasn't even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man's land of councils placed in too big to be too small to be big, too big to be small. We were promised better than this, but I strongly support the amendments because what we have seen is a gerrymander on this process, and that's not good enough.

And these amendments would prevent it happening in the future. I hope the councils don't waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because solely they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to. Perhaps I would like just to respond to that by saying there's respond to that by saying there's an awful lot of questions there for the Minister to answer, and I think it probably is better for the House it probably is better for the House if the Minister responds to those. But in particular, the nub of the question that the noble Lord Fuller question that the noble Lord Fuller and Viscount Trenchard raised. If I just pay my own tribute to the
15:20
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
just pay my own tribute to the noble, the late, noble Lord Beecham. He was a councillor in Newcastle for 55 years, 17 of which were as leader of the Council, and he was, of course, the very first chair of the Local Government Association, and I spent a number of years as Leader of the Opposition to Jeremy, as he was leader of the Council, and we enjoyed sparring, as indeed we continue to do after 2010, across the floor of this chamber.

He was a new broom in the late 1970s in the post Dan Smith era, and he was young. He created the social Services department. He fought an unrelenting battle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against poverty, creating a welfare rights service in Newcastle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newcastle. That he understood also the importance of growth in the city. importance of growth in the city. He. We discovered yesterday, which I did not know, that he actually I did not know, that he actually was. Convinced the Chancellor that there should be bus passes for there should be bus passes for older and younger people, and particularly pleased about that. I know that the family have appreciated the large number of tributes that have been paid to Jeremy nationally and locally and in the media.

And can I just say, finally, there is a book about what he did in those 55 years. There is a copy in the library. There's also, I think, a copy in the government whips office as well, which I was privileged to contribute a chapter to. So it's a very, very interesting piece of work on the history of local government over the last 40 years. So just to add my tribute to Jeremy's huge contribution to Newcastle and to the country as a whole.
15:22
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord Shipley for his comments. And indeed we did learn about the bus pass yesterday, which for which I'm eternally grateful, as was my dad who loved his bus pass. So that was just another one of Jeremy's achievements that many who knew him didn't know about. My Lords, as I've said before, this government is committed to fixing the foundations of local government and 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, and I know the noble Baroness. Lady Scott is a powerful advocate of this. From her time in Wiltshire, I would just, in response to her specific questions, say that both the value for money and the strengthening of geographic identity came out very clearly in the submissions made by the local authorities. In response to the call for proposals for new local government structures and the community empowerment side of her question, the neighbourhood governance proposals we've set out in this bill will provide.

I think the most powerful basis for community empowerment in a generation. So I look forward to the further discussion about those. And we will be providing further regulation to set out exactly how that's going to work. And in response to Lord Fuller, I'm not going to go into all the details of the Norfolk process, but all I would say to him, the process was extremely rigorous. The there were locally submitted proposals which were considered very carefully against the clear criteria that had been set, and we'd always said that the 50,000 population limit was a guideline, not a hard line that had to be met.

And when we looked at the proposals, it was very clear that in some local areas, that's that was that we needed to be flexible on that. So we've made our decisions against the criteria, and they are now back with the the priority program areas for them to have a look at. We're 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 progressed simultaneously. In some parts of the country. It is very 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 must stress that any proposal that might require 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 in the future.

I hope that with these points in mind, the noble Lady Baroness Cox will be able to withdraw her amendments. My Lords, from these benches, can we also
15:26
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
align with everything that's been said? I wrote a number of things down to say, but it's all been said down to say, but it's all been said about the great Lord Beecham. He was a hero in in local government, and he meant he was the one person that when I became a new young councillor, it was the one name I was. I was always a bit scared of. was. I was always a bit scared of. Actually, to tell you the honest truth.

But. So we from these benches do send our thoughts to his family and all his friends, and may his memory be a blessing. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister for her response, but I'm also grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller. I know he spoke for a long time, but he spoke for a long time because he was explaining actually what's happened on the ground from local government reorganisation that started even before this bill has even finished.

It's its passage through Parliament and that's quite important. I think that we hear what's happening on the ground. I happen to live in Norfolk at the moment, and I can tell you it's gone down like a lead balloon there. But you know, we are where we are and Norfolk will make it work because and most local authorities, that's what they do. But it certainly doesn't reflect what I hear from local people as to what they wanted or what they expected.

As I've said, our concerns were scheduled. 26 reflect our wider concern about the true purpose and impact of this bill 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 the bill titled Community Empowerment. Local Government reorganisation should genuinely be and and have the consent of all parties it affects, in consultation with local communities, they are elected to represent.

We're not here to try and frustrate reform. I as the noble Baroness, the Minister said. I am an advocate of of unitary authorities. I led one for ten years and I led it into a unitary. But that was with with, with, with the people of Wiltshire all the way through. The as I've said, the first tranche of LGR seems to us to be contrary to that, to that that way of doing things, and therefore I do hope the government will give serious consideration as it moves forward to the approach it's taking for reorganisation.

We know it's going to happen, but please listen to the people more than you perhaps have done with the first tranche. It does seem to us that some of it is for political purposes and some of it is for quick, cheap housebuilding. My Lords, we talked about adding district councils onto urban areas. Well, this just takes more and more of our precious green fields, rather than making both councils and developers do a little bit more work to deliver on our brownfield sites, my Lords.

But at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 188 Baroness Boycott not Amendment 188 Baroness Boycott not moved. Amendments 189 1991 not move moved. Amendments 189 1991 not move amendment 192 move. Formally, the question is that amendment 192 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. 193 move formally, the question is amendment 193 be agreed to.

As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The The contents have it amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

194 Baroness Rock not moved, not moved. Amendment 195 Baroness Pinnock. Sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. This group of amendments neatly follows. The previous group.
15:31
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
follows. The previous group. empowerment. >> To be strengthened for the most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 and in my name ensures that governments have a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils and requires an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding this democratic footprint. The creation of large unitary authorities by the government, as we have just heard, result in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focussed, more focussed on the narrow remit of service delivery.

Being the service delivery arm of national government. For instance, the delivery of adults and children's social care, which constitutes three quarters of a budget of a unitary council. So this focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large count council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide. Now, my own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority, which serves 450,000 people, supports that view.

Hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, small town or even a suburb of a large town. Failure to do this will result in people being disenfranchised more remote from the. The decision making at large local level, and will feel that their voice doesn't count. And that is a. As a danger, I think, for our democratic institutions. Those of us who care about local democracy care, that people's voice is heard.

An amendment 196 follows that because it creates a statutory duty to consult. So where parish and town councils have been created or do exist under this amendment, the local authorities have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications such as parks and open spaces, and other very local services and amenities. very local services and amenities. And what this amendment 196. Seeks to achieve is that a local authority must have regard, must have regard to the representations by these councils before a final decision is reached.

No consultation has become rather a dirty word in. In local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box that local people have had to say, and then disregard it. This makes it a statutory. You have to listen and take note of representations. So supporting these amendments, ensuring that the promise in this bill of community empowerment is a reality.

So I do look forward to the noble Baroness and Minister's response to give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.
15:35
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Clause 58 insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. as printed on the Marshalled List. >> I rise to speak. >> To my amendments 216 and 318 of this group. There are two amendments that relate to the parish and town councils. 216 makes provisions for unparished electors in unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by clause 62. Petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept raising councils. Separately, my 318 applies to those largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part, districts billing authorities before, but henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.

So to turn first to my amendment two on six, my Lords in committee, the penny dropped for the first time. That in so far as those form those parts of England that were former county boroughs, 20% of the land mass so much greater for population such as Kingsley and Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage. Home to the noble Lady, the Minister would be in the most part unparished and thus second class citizens in the new arrangements. So that's what's recommended by the amendment two and four in the name of Baroness Scott, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely.

I have no problem with those, but I do think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the to the right for Unparished areas to become parishes. If the measures in clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory. The government tells us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who've been around for a while, I've heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops with no resources, capacity or status.

This is what we discovered in committee. People literally from out of town will try and sweep up the crumbs left over once the social care has feasted on the preset to find what money's left to sweep up the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two thirds of the precept, what resources will these toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.

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

Don't talk to us about pride in place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life the sheriff, the burgesses that illuminate our nation's story. Now, under the dismal and undemocratic clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards, the budget, the representation and the staff to hold everyone else over a barrel because there isn't a parish council. And of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either. All the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.

So my amendment offers hope to these places to reject the way in which this bill creates sock puppet sinecures. For out of town councillors from miles away, where an appointed community council is established, those residents can affect, can petition to incorporate to create the empowerment that this bill purports to foster and encourage to create that town and parish council with proper elections, with a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, not to rely on the cast-offs from the social care monster, the LGR costs and the debts recast, and the pension fund liabilities that have eaten the rest.

I want to help people make their part of England better, more local, more responsive, more accountable. And my amendments give hope for the democracy, for these places, the cathedral cities, the coastal communities and the new towns, places like Stevenage. And for the other part, Galston, from where I take my territorial designation within the borough historic County borough of Great Yarmouth. Now I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and on my signal, intention to divide on the House the House on this, because I think the requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.

Now to move on to the council tax and for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities districts may become parishes under the new arrangements, or perhaps not unless my amendment two on six is carried. Charging council tax. These areas will benefit from formula grant redistribution. So where they've been, districts they've been able to benefit from formula grant redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there's a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost shunt parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped onto these parishes and they will need to find space in their precept to pay for them.

But they'll be on their own because they'll have no central support, just living hand to mouth. And my noble friend, the Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax in Salisbury Town Council is up 44% in just four years. The band D is £383. In my own district in South Norfolk, where I'm a councillor. We collect the bins, clean the streets and house the homeless, build a new generation of housing for just £180. Less than half of the parish.

And the problem with this bill is that it lumps tiny little how in my own ward, a hamlet of 50 souls in. With the village of Hempnall, where we will welcome the new vicar, Austin. Oh, God, I should have practised this next week, perhaps a thousand. Together with Horsham, a district of 146,000 in law. All will be equivalent places of 50 to 150,000. And that's crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham. But the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.

So my amendment will create a new subclass of third tier authority, a population of 50,000, or where the precept exceeds a million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. Now, I don't want you to think this is anti tan or anti parish. In fact, quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb. And to create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to those parishes. So my amendment will strengthen their hand in the negotiations as part of LGR so that so that parishes will be able to push back and say no if they don't think they can afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they.

The. They will not have to take them all. So I'm seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability and put the largest parishes on a proper financial footing so they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This isn't a dig at parishes. They do a lot of work, valuable work that's at the level closest to the people. But with this amendment, I have their back because it'll stop those councils with the broadest shoulders from imposing liabilities and cast offs on those with the most limited means.
15:43
15:45
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Living through the reality that my noble friend Lord Fuller has my noble friend Lord Fuller has just outlined, living in Eastbourne will be completely unparished. The people have been consulted and I think, having listened to my noble friend beforehand, have decided that they don't want an unlimited precept in the town of 150,000, thank you very much. They. And also that the proposals. The smaller parishes based on wards which have been designed to be equal in population and nothing to do with the actual community boundaries, really don't work.

So I really support my noble friend on the front bench in her amendment and my noble friend Lord Fuller. But I would add to it that people must have a usable mechanism to decide what the boundaries of their parish should be. This must be a local conversation, and there must be options and support for that debate. And it shouldn't be something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's imposed. My Lord, I am. I'm grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. To my noble friend Baroness Pinnock for making most of the points that I would have liked to, points that I would have liked to, to, to make myself. So I need to move on. I will try to be brief. move on. I will try to be brief. And also this bill is about English And also this bill is about English devolution and it is about in practice, decentralisation. From Whitehall to mayors, there is actually a very little in community empowerment as proposed, because powers are going to move upwards from Whitehall to mayors and mayors from mayors will simply get increasingly important.

And I've 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 my Lords, so far to no avail. I think this is a fundamental group of amendments. My name appears on several of the amendments in this group, and there are huge dangers in the government's planned changes to local government, not least as we've heard, that decision making will get more remote from people as local authorities get larger.

Yet town and parish councils have neighbourhood expertise, knowledge and that must not be lost in the upward drift of decision making. Neighbourhood area committees should have mandatory representation from town and parish councils. They must not be duplicating existing structures or behave as if town and parish councils don't exist. Now the bill, as it stands, appears to remove a right, which is currently held by parishes in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Section two, nine, three G and article 25 of the Town and Country Planning, Development Management Procedure England Order 2015. My Lords, I'm advised that this is what is about to happen. This is a serious omission. Parish councils are responsible for neighbourhood development plans, part of the statutory planning framework and to remit parishes is to disregard and to marginalise neighbourhood development plans, which Ministers, I understand, said that they do not wish to do that. I just hope the Minister will confirm that that is not the government's intention.

And then to hear further as to what it is the government might do about that, 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. So, my Lords, I'm looking for the assurance of the Minister that the government does actually understand what they are doing in terms of the powers of town and parish councils.

I think they need empowerment. I think all of the amendments in this group are justified, a number in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, which I want to support. I think governments have to strengthen the role of town and parish councils, given the large, you know, large councils, that the government seems to be intent on creating, there has to be meaningful involvement with parish and town councils and neighbourhood level decision making in planning does need to be protected.

And so I hope very much indeed that weight is going to be given by the government in this bill to the crucial role that town and parish councils can perform. And I would say that if in this group there are any amendments which the noble Baroness Carr Baroness Boycott would be minded to move to test the opinion of the House, she would have our support.
15:50
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Thanks. >> My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords for the for their valuable contributions to this debate? It is. contributions to this debate? It is. It's extremely important. Group of amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her tabling of of her amendments and. And, as always, for making the eloquent case for those amendments, we on these benches are united with the Liberal Democrat benches in wanting to see an expansion of parish and town councils, as well as strengthening of their role in local government.

And now, as we've heard from Lord Shipley, it's much more important now than it ever was regarding to amendment 213 in my name, we have brought this forward from Committee stage with the support of my noble friend Lord Lansley, to secure the role of town and parishes within the government's. What the government is calling neighbourhood governance. As we've said previously, town and parish councils are the closest to local people with unique insight into their needs and their wishes.

The Minister said at Committee stage that there ought to be a more, the more flexibility to design neighbourhood governance. But, my Lords, these are long established, familiar and democratically elected bodies who deserve more of a role in this bill. That said, I appreciate the Minister has verbally recognised the crucial work that parish and town councils do for their communities. So this brings me on to my amendment two. One for to encourage the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas through existing processes and supportive guidance for principle authorities.

If the government are serious about valuing the work of town and parish councils, why are they going to oppose this amendment? Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop a strategy for parish governments for unparished areas in England, including the issue 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. My moulds. I just don't believe that town and parish council governance has a proper place in this bill.

We believe this to be a balanced amendment to provide a reasonable way forward. And and I intend, if I don't hear the right decision to move forward from the government, then I do intend to divide the House on amendment 214, but I do hope 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 world, but perhaps for the. From the government.
15:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Fuller, noble Baroness, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock for their amendments on neighbourhood governance and to the noble Lord Wallace. Lord Lucas and Lord Shipley have all spoken on these issues. I'll begin with amendment 195. The noble Baroness quite right to say that both myself and the government 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 their effectiveness is maximised.

However, I reject the amendments 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 perishing arrangements in their area. These are locally led, responsive to community's priorities and ensure that new town and parish councils are created only where there is a genuine local appetite. I hope that responds to some of the issues raised by the noble 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 decisions on how best to support these councils where they already exist. Turning to amendment 196, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, 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. And we do want to see good partnership working between local authorities and town and parish councils to help ensure that decisions made about about their areas reflect the priority 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.

This approach to mandate 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. Turning now to amendment 213, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Let me be clear again. The government really values 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 the intent behind this amendment is to make sure their role is reinforced through the new duty on local authorities.

Excuse me. My recess flu is taking its toll, I'm afraid. It's reinforced through the new duty on local authorities to have in place effective neighbourhood governance arrangements. Can I reassure the noble Baroness that town and parish councils already have statutory functions and powers under under existing legislation, 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 which 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 parish or town council, have effective ways to influence the decisions that matter to them in their local area. Turning now to amendment 214. The government, as I said, understands and values the important role of parish councils.

However, as I mentioned in response to the amendments from Baroness Pinnock, through community governance reviews, there is already a process in place by which local authorities can evaluate perishing 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. Turning now to amendment 215 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, which seeks to ensure that where local authorities are making neighbourhood governance arrangements, they consult and engage with parish and town councils.

I really recognise that valuable role that local, 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, introducing statutory requirements to formally consult town and parish councils in their area regarding neighbourhood governance arrangements, this amendment will 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. Turning now to amendment 216, tabled by the noble Lord Fuller like the noble Lord. And as I've said many times, we value the role of town and parish councils. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The community governance review process already enables local people to petition their local authority to consider the creation of a new town or parish council.

This amendment proposes a flat threshold of 5% of local elected support, instead of the existing staggered thresholds, which account for differences in population size. The current approach ensures that the community governance review process is proportionate and that petitions lead to a review. When this accurately reflects the will of the community, this amendment would endanger that approach. My Lords, the Neighbourhood Governance Duty introduced by this Bill aims to ensure that all communities, whether or not they are served by a parish or town council, have effective ways to influence the local decisions that matter to them.

And can I just say, in response to the noble Lord Fuller comments about pride in place, that the Pride in Place funding and the project which sits alongside all of this, have put the resources and that's £20 million in the case of many local areas have not just generated great interest and excitement in our communities, but will enable them at last to address many of the issues that the noble Lord mentioned and to tackle the neglect they suffered as funding was decimated for them over the last 14 years.

Far from sidelining these councils, neighbourhood governments aims to complement and strengthen the important work of the parish sector. Finally, regarding amendment 318, as I said in response to a similar amendment at Lords Committee stage, this amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State has the power to set referendum principles for any type of council if he chooses to. This would not be affected by reclassifying some parish councils as major preceptors. The government's ability to consider prevailing circumstances and balance the generation of income for local services and the pressure on taxpayers is an important element of the local government finance system.

The government does not support attempts to change it. Successive governments have so far decided not to set referendum principles for parish councils. However, this is kept under review each year. As always, the government strongly encourages councils to consider the impact of council tax on residents and to mitigate the need for increases wherever they can. Parish councils, large or small, are close to the residents and communities they serve. They are already directly accountable to residents for their spending decisions. And lastly, can I just comment on the noble Lordships point about neighbourhood plans? There is no plan for the government to remove the ability to work on neighbourhood plans.

For all the reasons I have set out, the government cannot support the amendments in this group and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would ask noble Lords to withdraw them. I thank the noble Baroness Limb

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness Limb Minister for her response to this, and I'm pleased we've had this and I'm pleased we've had this debate at this on this group of amendments about parish and town councils. But but I'm very disappointed in the noble Baroness minister's response, citing the community governance review as an example of how more parish or town councils can be created depends on the local authority wanting a local town and parish councils to be created.

And if they do, as in my own council, currently doing a community governance review, do it in the lowest possible key. Then guess what? There's not much of a response and this is why it's important that the national government takes the responsibility for all our local democracy by encouraging it, rather than doing
16:03
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
it. Diminuendo. These are important. Town and parish councils are Town and parish councils are important and become more important as large unitaries are created. Now as large unitaries are created. Now they're. We will not be dividing on they're. We will not be dividing on one nine 5 or 1 nine six because that's a noble. Baroness Boycott that's a noble. Baroness Boycott has said there is agreement between both of us in principle that a. These. This this layer of very local, local councils is important.

And as the noble Baroness Boycott has indicated that she is likely to divide the House on amendment two and four, then if she does, we on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these benches will support her well. I beg. Lordships pleasure. Is it your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 196 Baroness Pinnock not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 197 Lord Shipley. What to move amendment 197 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What to move amendment 197 and we'll speak to amendment 212 in my name. And I should say at the outset that unless the Minister can give a very convincing response about the rights of a local authority and local people to adopt a committee system if they want to, in their governance structure, that I am minded to divide the House. I want to say also that I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Blunkett, who spoke on the value of a my case is that it is for local people to decide the governance structure that they should have, as indeed they have done very successfully in Sheffield.

And this bill, as I keep repeating, is about devolution and community empowerment. So I ask the Minister, why can't a community and their local authority decide for themselves their own model of local democracy? It is surely for the people who pay taxes to that authority to make a decision about the governance structure that runs their local area. So that is a quite fundamental issue for me, that I think it is not for central governments to make those decisions.

It is for local people to make those decisions. And I was very surprised when I first read. Well, each time I read the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, explanatory explanatory notes, paragraph 98. On page 23, I found the argument very surprising. It is essentially a set of assertions by the government that the committee system is a less effective form of governance for local authorities. Particularly, it
16:07
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
claims the larger unitary councils. claims the larger unitary councils. It says that the system suffers from more opaque and potentially from more opaque and potentially siloed decision making, a lack of clear leadership and accountability, clear leadership and accountability, with decisions taking longer to be with decisions taking longer to be arrived at. Now, at previous stages of this bill, I've asked the Minister for the evidence base on which that statement, paragraph 98, has been written. Where is the research that tells us that a committee system, apparently very successful in a number of places, notably Sheffield, where the people decided to reintroduce a committee system? How does anyone know in London that a committee system is a less effective form of governance? Is it not for local people to make that decision? And anyway, might the government consider that the quality of decision making, where the decision has been reached by a committee, might actually be a better decision than one that has been taken within the leader and Cabinet model when many fewer people are involved in it.

For those who are, you know, may be less familiar with the number of committees that I'm talking about. It's committees on housing, the environment, social care, economic development, transport, and so on. As to whether you have a number of people, cross-party working on a specific area of government, or whether you have individuals who actually are making decisions. And I think you get more considered decisions from a committee structure. The scrutiny system which underpins the leader and Cabinet model, is after the event, it comments afterwards as to whether something is successful or not.

A committee is assessing policy proposals before they have been agreed, and ever since the committee system was invented in the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act, that committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together and engaging all councillors, all elected councillors, with the decision making processes of that local authority. Now, if anyone has any doubt as to whether a committee system is a good thing, we just need to look at ourselves. We operate a committee system.

When a bill is going through your Lordships house, imagine what it would be like if there had not been a committee system, a Committee stage in this bill, or any bill. I just submit to you, Lordships, that actually having a a committee structure can lead to better decisions. I accept that it can be slower. I submit that sometimes. Too many people may be felt to get involved in a particular issue, but I do think that democracy is enhanced when that happens.

And I do believe that the quality of decisions by a committee are generally better. But at its heart, it is not for central government to control decisions of local areas as to the governance model that they prefer. Yeah, I think we have to trust the people better than the government seems to want to do. And for that reason, my Lords, I beg to move.
16:11
16:12
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Fowler I will rise briefly to speak, particularly given my noble friend Lord Shipley comments around Sheffield. I did find it around Sheffield. I did find it ironic that when we were at the Committee stage that we were talking about not allowing others to have a committee when we in your Lordships' House have a committee. And if you look at the title of the bill, as we heard earlier from Baroness Hollins, it is about community empowerment and I recall my.

I'm about to finish my 20 odd years on Sheffield Council the next fortnight, and I joined the Council in 2004 when it was a strong leader model and we. I see my good friend Lord Scriven next to me. When we took control of the Council in 2008, it was under a strong leader model. But one of the things that I remember Lord Scriven saying is that a test of whether we've been successful or not is do we have the same amount of power when we leave them, when we inherited, because we were about devolving powers, and at that time we set up a committee system in the sense of devolving down to what we called community assemblies, which was devolving power down to local level and taking it out of, in the case of Lord Scriven leader at council or myself as the Cabinet member for Parks and Countryside and etc.

and we genuinely believe that local decision making was far better. So I'm surprised that we look at this bill and we think that we should centralise power, that Whitehall should tell all councils that there's only one governance model. And I think what happens, my Lords, is that we will end up in a situation that Sheffield was in. I just want to read out to you, Lordships house, a plaque. Since we had the committee meeting in your Lordships House, that a plaque has gone up at Sheffield Council and it reads, My Lords, in recognition of the courageous campaigning campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council.

And a reminder to all that such failures of leadership must never happen again. And my Lords, that happened under a strong leader model when our 24 councillors, just ten people picked by the leader at the time. Not me, not sorry, not not Lord Scriven the the leader at the time, basically ramming through decisions that fell healthy street trees. And it took thousands upon thousands of signatures for ultimately an inquiry to find that actually it went wrong. And you said there was scrutiny.

But the problem was we heard earlier from Lord Shipley and others is that scrutiny looks at decisions already made. And when you have such a powerful executive on the council, then often those scrutiny boards were also chaired by the same ruling group. And if you wanted to keep that job, you were never going to take on your leader. So all I'll say to you is based on that experience. I urge the noble Baroness to look at the experience of Sheffield, where 90,000 people voted in a referendum, 2 to 1, to change to the current governance model of the committee system.

And we have a system where we have councillors from all parties who are able to contribute and are able to do what we do best in your Lordships' House, which is to actually amend and improve legislation. And I say to the Minister, please learn from some of the, you know, mistakes that have happened elsewhere in the country, not just in Sheffield. Look at what's happened in Birmingham. You've had a strong leader model there. What is it led you to? So therefore, let let's just let go of the power in Whitehall.

Let local elected members through their communities, decide their governance model. And hey, if they say we want a strong leader model, that is fine by me, but at least let them have a say. And if they want a committee system, then let them have it. Because ultimately, guess what? It'll be the local voters who will judge them. And if they get the committee system wrong and they can't deliver for local residents, guess what? Elections like we got around the corner may result in different politicians, and I really hope the Minister, when she does get up, does consider the experience of Sheffield and the lessons learned, because otherwise I don't want to see plaques like that outside many other town halls.

Lordship.
16:16
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Will you try to save. >> My Lords? >> I'm grateful for all noble Lords who have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who have. Contributed to this important debate, which goes to the heart of what we mean by devolution and what we mean by devolution and local choice. My Lords, on this side of the House, we believe in democracy and we believe in devolution. The amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord Shipley raises the fundamental question do we truly trust local authorities to determine the governance arrangements that best serve their communities? Now, this isn't a radical approach. Rather, it's rooted in a simple democratic principle that decisions about how councils are run should, wherever possible, be made locally, not prescribed from the centre.

Now Lord Shipley and other noble Lords extolled the virtues of the committee system, and we can debate whether that is the best or not the best system. I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council and we very successfully ran a leader and Cabinet model. But the fundamental principle underlying all of this is that this should be a local decision involving local residents. That is why the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Boycott 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. My Lords, 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, not about obstruction, they're 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. And if the noble Lord Shipley is minded to move his amendment, we are minded to support. My Lords, if this 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 and cities and rural areas and the people that they serve.
16:19
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before I respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, can I extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, noble Lords, Black of Brentwood. Lord Storey Lord Fox, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their constructive engagement during 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 I've been in local government.

I'm sure they'll continue to be so. However, following that debate, the government has reflected carefully and brought forward government amendments to ten 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, which was 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 to allow the review to determine the best long term approach. This will ensure that 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 Shipley, the issues the noble Lord has raised were explored in some detail in Lords 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 continues 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, strong accountability and more streamlined decision making.

Certainly, when my own authority moved to that model, it did all of those things to respond to the noble Lord Shipley about scrutiny. Of course, councils can use their overview and scrutiny committees for scrutiny of decision making if they wish, and in the example given by Lord Mohammed, all decisions of Cabinet in the leader Cabinet model are subject to review by scrutiny. And we also know that good practice suggests that scrutiny should not be chaired by the ruling party. So I know many authorities don't 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 the resulting structure was extensive and meeting heavy with six policy committees, nine subcommittees involving almost the entire membership of the council. That same review also highlighted ongoing difficulties with coordination, 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 they were not delivering the intended benefits.

Brighton and Hove 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. And finally, my Lords, where decision making is dispersed across multiple committees, it can become less clear where responsibility ultimately sits. And in my work as a as a peer reviewer, as I was for the LGA for for many years, that was certainly my experience, that it was less clear where the responsibility ultimately sat in those councils with complicated systems.

My Lords, I turn now to amendments 198 3 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 does agree with the noble Baroness is on the case for treating differently, those councils that have adopted the committee system more recently. As your Lordships will know, we're 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 ten 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 has 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 believes that a one year decision period provides sufficient time for 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-mirror model, which provides by default for the change to take place at the next annual meeting of the council. Of course, in the case of protected committee councils, they 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 believes 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 would invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, and I commend government amendments 210 and 211

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House. Well, my Lords, I'm grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I'm grateful to the Minister for her reply and for reminding the House that the government has agreed that three government has agreed that three councils Sheffield, Bristol, Isle of Wight, can stay with the committee system temporarily. I would, however, remind the House that we're talking there of only that we're talking there of only three councils. My Lords, it is a simple issue here. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it central government or is it local people? I submit that it is a matter for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area, and for that reason, my Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
16:27
None Portrait Division
-

Question is that amendment 197 be agreed to? As many as of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content. Content contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. when voting is open. Voting when voting is open. Voting is when voting is open. Voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment The question is amendment 197 The question is amendment 197 be agreed to. As many as of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content and to the contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. Content will go to the right by the throne. The not content to the My My Lords, My Lords, the question is that amendment 197 be My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have voted. Contents 247 not contents. voted. Contents 247 not contents. 187 and so the contents have it. My Lords amendment 197 has been agreed to. I must read the following statement to the House.

My Lords, the House has agreed amendment 197 to leave out clause 59. Clause 59 introduced schedule 27 amendments 198 to 211 are amendments to schedule 27. I remind the House that our Standing Order 46 says an amendment to a bill must not be inconsistent with the previous decision given on the same stage of the bill. It would perhaps be helpful for me to add that amendment 212 would leave out schedule 27. I understand that amendment 197 has been agreed to.

The government will not oppose amendment 212, so schedule 27 will be removed from the bill. Noble Lords may wish to bear this in mind in considering amendments that were about to consider amendments 198 to 211. And now I call amendment 198 Baroness Stedman-Scott not not Baroness Stedman-Scott not not route amendment Order 199, 200, 201, route amendment Order 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 Baroness Boycott all not moved.

Amendment 210 and 211. Baroness Lawlor not moved. Amendment 212 Lord Shipley not moved. Sorry. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry I couldn't help. Move formally. This is a consequential. The question is that this amendment be question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have. It. Amendment 213 Baroness have. It. Amendment 213 Baroness Boycott not moved. Amendment 214 Baroness Boycott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Boycott. I was really disappointed by the response from the noble Baroness. The Minister, on my amendment. All it asked to do was to promote from government and to support principle authorities to consider. My Lords, consider the creation of town and consider the creation of town and parish councils where appropriate. We did not get anything positive from the noble Minister. Therefore from the noble Minister. Therefore I wish to divide the House.
16:42
16:42
16:53
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, this bill proposes. some of our elections with the supplementary vote, which is a step forward, but it isn't a great step forward, which is why I wish to propose amendment 207, along with the consequential 2262241, to replace the supplementary vote with the alternative vote now having the right system in place for mayors matters all the more with the government's vision for more mayors with more powers, that makes this the right moment to further improve their democratic accountability for single member vacancies, such as for mayors and indeed for police and crime commissioners, both first past the post and supplementary vote rely in part on voters being able to confidently predict who will finish in the top two in a contest and so therefore, being able, if they wish, to cast a tactical vote effectively under first past the post or with a supplementary vote, being able to cast a second preference that has a chance of actually counting.

The problem, of course, is that in the multi-party world, we're in one populated as well by many independent candidates. Neither of those systems are well suited for our politics. The reality with supplementary vote is that often people cast a first preference for someone who doesn't make it into the top two, but then also a second preference for someone who also doesn't make it in the top into the top two and therefore ends up impotent. It's just like the voter only had first past the post in the first place to use.

Now, that's not a rare or theoretical problem. It's a real widespread one that we have seen repeatedly with the use of the supplementary vote previously in England. I referred in an earlier stage of this bill's passage to research by Make Votes Matters coalition that was carried out a couple of years ago, covering 217 different elections conducted by the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that over half 54% of people's second preferences were due to come into play after the first round had to be discarded, because they were not for a candidate who made it into the top two.

And that research note is for elections using SRV. Since 2000, and for many of those years, we had fewer, larger and medium sized parties jostling for contention than we do now. So even in those more favourable circumstances in the past for the supplementary vote, those more favourable circumstances for people to successfully second guess who would be in the top two over half of all second preferences correctly filled out on the ballot paper, and that should have got used, nonetheless got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the top two.

And that is quite simply a flaw with the supplementary vote. It also, if I might say, runs counter to what the noble Lady the Minister said in February during this committee's bill stage. Sorry. During this Bill's Committee stage, namely, where the noble Lady, the Minister said, quote, the government believes that mayors should have a broad base of support amongst their electors. Well, alas, discarding over half of second preferences in the way that I talked about does not sit at all well with that aim of a broad base of support amongst electors.

So often for so many voters, supplementary vote ends up being the same as first past the post. Now, of course, it's not only in local government elections in England for mayors that voters suffer from the limitations of first past the post. Hence my other amendment in this group calling for the use of the single transferable vote, as well as its use in Northern Ireland. STV has been used successfully for nearly 20 years now for local government elections in Scotland and, as I suspect we may hear from some noble Lords opposing STV.

I should point out it is used in Scotland with broad support across different parties, including those parties who oppose its introduction for local elections in England. So, I hope, mindful of the widespread acceptance of STV in Scotland for local elections across the political spectrum and indeed of its successful use over such a long period of time that perhaps noble Lords will consider if it's good enough for Scotland. If it works in Scotland, why not have it in England as well? But returning to Mayer's, we are in a political world of more candidates, more parties, more confusion.

Who is going over who is going to end up in the top two? And that's why the alternative vote is the right voting system, not the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supplementary vote. And therefore I beg to move. Proposed clause 61, page 64,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed clause 61, page 64, line four. Leave out supplementary and insert alternative.
16:58
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
and insert alternative. >> Notes. Different voting systems have different advantages and have different advantages and disadvantages. As the Minister knows. First, past the post is simple and allows the winner to be representative of all those who voted for them and of those who did not. It reduces the chance of minority led, unstable administrations. It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats did better at the last general election under first past the post than they would have done under a proportional system.

The bill seeks to change first past the post in mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections to the supplementary vote system. The noble Lord Lord Pack argues that in a multi-party contest, the alternative vote system is fairer. But I think there are stronger arguments for retaining the system overwhelmingly preferred by the public, as shown in the 2011 referendum. And I don't think there's much evidence that views have changed dramatically on this question since then. Besides, the alternative vote system is not used for any elections in the United Kingdom, as was pointed out by the Minister in committee.

Besides that, I think it's undesirable to have many different electoral systems for different elections, and I support my noble friends in their amendments. 218 and 242 to retain first past the post. As my noble friend Lady Scott said in committee. Moving to a supplementary vote system would add complexity, increase the chances of confusion, and risk more ballots being rejected. Besides this, I'm a bit puzzled about the application of these amendments to PCC elections because I thought the government is going to abolish PCC elections and replace elected commissioners with those appointed by mass, at least in mayoral strategic authorities.

Could the Minister explain when she expects the last elected police and crime commissioner to leave office? I strongly support my noble friends in amendment 220. The public outrage which followed the now reversed decisions to delay many elections was predictable. I also support amendment 221 in their amendment 223. The noble Lord Lord Pack and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seek to require local government elections to be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote system. This would require the establishment of multi-member electoral wards for councillors, which would certainly confuse many voters and is quite different to our strong tradition that the elected representative represents all his or her voters.

I would also support my noble friend Lord Fuller in his amendments 2 to 4 and 2 to 5.
17:01
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To speak in favour of amendment >> To speak in favour of amendment 217 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pack, who has set out clearly why it is so important to have the why it is so important to have the right voting system in place for mayors. Given the growing powers that they have and will have in the future, Democratic accountability is really important. And as one of a handful of members in this House who has run for mayor of London, I wanted to highlight the impact of the supplementary vote system on the London mayoral elections, and I'd like to thank the Electoral Reform Society for their figures.

If you look at data from a number of London mayoral elections, 2000, 2004 and 2021, in each of these elections, the winning candidate received between 36 to 40% of first preferences, and you had a range of candidates standing from 11 to 20. And as we've seen in elections, the number keeps going up. And if you remove those people who use their second preference for the same candidate, which happens, or those who chose a candidate already in the top two so their vote wouldn't transfer.

We have calculated that around half of valid second preference votes were just non-transferable. So basically wasted in each of these London mayoral elections. And that's because their second preferences were non-transferable, as they've been cast for candidates who did not make the top two. So for each of these elections, between 53% and 49%, hundreds of thousands of votes just wasted. And a mayor who was elected without the majority support that we all desire. And that's why I fully support this amendment.

217 bringing in the alternative vote for mayoral elections, which means every vote and transfer will genuinely count. We'll be able to engage the communities far more in these elections. It's a better system to ensure genuine democracy and action here.
17:03
17:05
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Pack for this group of amendments. Pack for this group of amendments. The government does recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance, and I welcome the noble Lords interest in this topic and I respect his very great knowledge and expertise. We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially single executive positions like mayors and police and crime commissioners.

It's precisely for this reason 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 Trenchard mentioned the referendum that was held, as did the noble Lord Jamieson in 2011. In regard to parliamentary elections, and I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come, I don't think that's going to go away, but it's true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.

And in relation to the noble Lord Katz question about our devolved administrations, the voting system used for elections on 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's 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 that noble Viscount Trenchard point about the elections to police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I'm. I haven't had a definitive answer, but I'm assuming that we're putting the provision in for PCC elections in case there should be a by election that needs to be held in between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time they will all be. Those posts will go. So we therefore don't support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate.

And I would ask that the noble Lord Pack withdraws his amendments.
17:07
17:08
17:23
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this group includes three substantive issues supplementary voting for election of mayors, election delays and 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 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 in 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 had manifesto backing.

In contrast, my Lord's labour. Labour's proposals on supplementary voting for mayoral elections are not backed by manifesto commitment and therefore we do not support this reintroduction of supplementary voting and we intend to test the opinion in the House at the conclusion of this debate. Turning now to amendments on flexible voting to challenge the government on 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 a proper parliamentary scrutiny, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to reassure us on that.

On that point in her response. Turning to the important issue of local election delays, this has been a topic of deep controversy over the last year and it has caused enormous problems within local government, particularly and in the face of campaigning by those of us on this side of the House. I'm very pleased that 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 this place where this cannot ever happen again. My amendment 2020 would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying any local government elections by more than one year. If the delay results from the local government reorganisation. That is the right approach, my Lords, and I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her engagement on this. I am pleased that the government have listened to our case and they've tabled their own amendment 2018 A, which delivers the same legislative outcomes to our conservative amendment.

This is an important achievement, my Lords, and we support the Government's amendment 218 a. Before I conclude, I should briefly mention the noble Lord. Lord PAC's amendment 219, which we have considered very carefully, and I think the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat benches have much the same concerns as us about local election delays. But I don't we election delays. But I don't we don't agree that 219 is a workable proposal. The principle behind amendment 218 a.

The government amendment, we believe is the right one, and we will support that amendment to prevent future denials of local democracy, and I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness Minister's reply.
17:27
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Proposed leave out clause 61. government's power to cancel elections several times and has already been mentioned. I think it's only fair to acknowledge the it's only fair to acknowledge the government has responded with its plans being put forward in this group. However, for reasons I am going to set out, I don't believe they go far enough, which is why I wish to speak to my amendment 219 and 222 in this group. Given where everyone's views currently appear to stand, I will concentrate on 219.

But note simply that amendment 222 offers an alternative route, perhaps to address some of the points raised previously by noble Lords, if that would meet favour. But the reason for my amendments, and why I would suggest they are preferable to the government's new plans, is there is an important point of principle here. It's 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.

And although the government's amendment in this group would be absolutely a step forward from the status quo, it still would leave, alas, many steps not taken. It should be that we have the full protection of primary legislation being required to access scheduled polling day or as two, two, two offers only very tightly constrained circumstances where it can be done by secondary legislation because 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 properly neglected consequences, and the knowledge that the government to get its measure through, has to be supported, not only in the Commons but in this House. We've seen in other countries how quickly you 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 of relying on secondary legislation in a way that both the government's amendment and the amendments from from noble Lords in the Conservative Party propose, because with with with such legislation, we run into the difficulty that for a point of principle which we can leave to debate another time.

But whichever of Labour or the Conservatives in this House are in opposition, they are committed as an act of principle not to support fatal motions on secondary legislation and therefore any government knows, however controversial its proposal is, on a piece of secondary legislation, that this House will almost never oppose it. And so that is a fundamental problem, that if the idea of the safeguard is a piece of secondary legislation, but that safeguard is also one that the two largest groups in this House are essentially committed never to use.

It is not really very much of a safeguard at all. Now, beyond that important point of principle, there are two other aspects of the government's proposals that I think are less than ideal. One has to be fair, the noble Lady the Minister was very upfront and clear about in her letter to all peers is the government's amendment does not cover all scenarios. There are still. As the Minister's letter sets out and illustrated, circumstances in which elections could be put off by more than a year.

The government's amendment is limited in its scope. It is not a general across the board protection for our elections. And thirdly, and I will readily admit, this is very much the lesser of my three points, but the proposals in the Government's Amendment 218A are worded in, can I say, perhaps less than a clear way? We get told the circumstances in which election orders are invalid before we even get told what election orders are. When you read the amendment. And so whatever else happens today, if this wording does progress, I hope the government will look again at the wording and the sequencing in its amendment, because bearing in mind it is useful to have law about elections, that is clear to everyone, not just the specialists.

And I think it is certainly possible to make wording clearer so you don't first get told when something is invalid before you even get told what it actually is. But returning to the main point, comparing the government's plans with those in my amendment 219 under the government's plans, there are still too many ways in which it would be too easy for a government to delay too many elections for too long. So I hope noble Lords will support the stronger, clearer protections for our democracy in amendment 219.
17:32
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Support all the points on elections made by my noble friends elections made by my noble friends from the front bench, but they focus on council elections and LGR and ignored the simple truth that and ignored the simple truth that local mayors in amendment 2 to 5. My amendment and the Police and Crime Commissioners in 224 are also part of that local government landscape. So my amendments 2 to 4 and 2 to 5 would bring the mayors and the PCC into the scope of the wider changes that the government has been dragged to Parliament to repent now.

Democracy is important. We know that. We sit in the mother of parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those that represent them in pursuance of stronger lives, better lives, and all those other things that the state should provide, and that consent lasts till the next election. But I do concede, and this is where I depart from the noble Lord Lord Pack in 2009, there may be some quite exceptional circumstances, perhaps because of war, where a delay subject to parliamentary consent, of course, would be justified.

So in these circumstances, my amendment would ensure that the powers existed on the statute book for a two step, super affirmative process where permission must be sought and received from both houses, and then only an affirmative resolution would be laid for the House in the circumstance of war, for example. I think there'll be some much more important things to be sorting out than passing a bill to cancel local government elections. So I don't go against entirely what Lord Pack says, but as to echo the words of Lady Scott from the front bench, I think there is unworkable.

So I think my amendments would remedy those. But in any event, my resolution, my resolutions would be to cancel the elections no less than three months before the date of the publication for that election, simply so that the parties and the individuals could earn enough time to prepare the manifesto, select candidates, raise funds and address all those practical points. So my amendments will ensure the preparation can take place, effectively allowing voters to mark their choice clear on the ballot with lots of notice, not just for the councils, but for the mayors and the PCCs.

Without hog tying parliament to pass primary legislation. When the super affirmative secondary legislation can achieve the same outcome quicker, cheaper and in the right way.
17:34
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I just want to say one thing in response to this group, and try not response to this group, and try not to repeat anything that anybody has said. I am very puzzled by the Conservative Party stance on first Conservative Party stance on first past the post electoral system. I think it is past its use by date. I think it is hopelessly out of date. I think it is inappropriate for candidates to be elected, as will happen, a great deal in the local elections coming up with under 30% of the vote.

I think candidates who get elected, who are then required to to trusted to spend public money, should actually have the confidence of a much larger number of people at the poll and to count in the system which simply says the person who comes top in that ballot, which could be between 25 and 30% of the poll, just seems to me to be totally out of date these days. With the multi-party system we now have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords PAC and Lord Fuller and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments on elections. I their amendments on elections. I will begin by discussing the government amendments in this group. The history of reorganisation under The history of reorganisation under the previous government, as now, has taught us that the process typically gives rise to circumstances where there are circumstances where there are strong reasons for postponement. Early on in the process, postponement can release vital 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. My Lords, the reorganisation process is not always predictable and 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 in time.

The length of postponement, of course, will always be a consideration, but it should not be the sole consideration. The Secretary of State said on the 23rd of February that the government would reflect carefully on the amendments that have been tabled at this stage and the concerns raised, and that's exactly what we've done. We have tabled an amendment that will 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 legal of legislative drafting, and I will set out in more detail shortly why the government cannot agree the amendments tabled by your Lordships.

We consider it would be wholly disproportionate to remove the powers entirely, or to be over prescriptive as to their use. However, the government has listened to and does 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, and that's why we've brought those amendments forward and I beg to move our amendments.

Turning to amendment 219, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Pack for his amendment 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 will require councils, which are to be abolished in the current round of reorganisation, to hold elections to seats that will be abolished less than 11 months later.

This is because the current reorganisations are proceeding under existing powers rather than under the local government organisation, which will be enabled under or by virtue of this act, including amendments to existing legislation as required by subclause two B little one. 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 appreciates that noble Lords have concerns about the postponement of elections, and that is why we've introduced the government amendment two one Aytay, which I've already explained. Turning now to amendment two two. Oh, firstly, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her engagement on this issue. Noble Lords, 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 the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I turn now to amendment 222, which 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 overprescribed. It would not, for instance, be possible to align parish council elections with those of newly created councils without fresh primary legislation. The resulting standalone elections would be at the expense of those parish councils, both financially and in terms and 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 might also gently remind the noble order 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 the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I will reiterate the government's position again 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. And this is why Parliament has, on many separate occasions, granted to 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. Instruments which implement a simple yes no decision. There would be no meaningful recommendations that the 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 is considered once by each House under the affirmative procedure, as the government is proposing with our amendment.

I would also 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 this bill is to allow for the situation where a by election may occur before 2028.

Turning now to amendments 218 and 242. I've been clear throughout the passage of this 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 clearer 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 is committed to improving participation in our democracy. To support this goal, we must continue to ensure our democratic processes keep pace with technology and with the way in which 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 have 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 also repeals the Secretary of State's order, making power to apply piloted procedures to other local government elections. Let me reassure noble Lords there is already sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. If we decide to roll out piloted changes at local elections, I think the noble Baroness Cox 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 a 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'm grateful to the noble Lord Pack for his amendment 223, which intends to introduce a single transferable vote system for electing councillors within English local authorities. The government recognises, as I said earlier, 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 Lords interest in this topic.

We will no doubt continue to have many debates about different voting systems that are available, but the government has no plans to change the electoral system for local council elections in England. We believe that first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives, well understood by voters. And while not perfect and no voting system is perfect, provides for a direct relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. We therefore believe it's appropriate for elections where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as councils, as the likelihood is that candidates representing a range of views will be elected.

With the explanations I have given. I would ask all noble Lords to withdraw their amendments in this group. My Lords.
17:46
17:48
17:59
18:00
None Portrait Division
-

advise the House when voting is open, I. Voting is now open. Clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. My Lords. My My Lords. My Lords. The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content the that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On On the On the existing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment be agreed Amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 65 not contents 173. So Contents 65 not contents 173. So Contents 65 not contents 173. So The not contents have it. Lords amendment 220 Baroness Boycott not moved. 221 not moved Baroness Cox 222 Lord Pack not moved 223. Lord Pack not moved 224 Lord Fuller not moved and 225 not moved. Are we now come to 226 Lord Pack not moved. We now have a whole series of amendments in Lord Katz name.

So with the leave of your Lordships' House, I suggest that we take amendments 226 to 241 En bloc not moved. On. So that then comes to government amendment. 243 Baroness Lawlor move. Formally, the question is that amendment 243 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now come to the Sixth Amendment two four for after clause 62 Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. of Pickering.
18:11
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to speak briefly on this revised amendment, which I've brought back from Committee stage. At the outset, I would like to echo the words of the noble Lady, the Minister, on the loss of Lord Beecham, who was a very charming colleague and a very hard working and assiduous member of this House. He will be missed. But his legacy, as the noble Lady said, lives on. My Lords, the. In response to the amendment at Committee stage, I was delighted to get such warm words and encouraging words from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield.

He did accept entirely that the. This issue of sparsity of population distances to travel, and the fact that counties like, particularly North Yorkshire. With. Now the introduction of combined authorities has compounded this issue of rurality and sparsity of population. What I took great encouragement from in the response to the amendment and why I've thought to sort of echo the wording that the noble Lord Lord Wilson of Sedgefield used was. I'd like to quote from his comments.

He said the government have been clear in their ambition to reset the relationship between central and local government, building a genuine partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we serve. A key part of that partnership is giving councils the tools to modernise engagement and make elected roles more accessible, in-person debate and public engagement remain at the heart of local democracy, but we also recognise that circumstances can make physical attendance difficult, and that is why local authorities should have a choice whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format.

He went on to conclude local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and makeup, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies. We would therefore not want to prescribe the conditions to which this policy would apply. We reaffirm our position as set out in our consultation response last year, and I repeat it today. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation parliamentary time allows to deliver this play that is robust, inclusive and properly scrutinised.

While, my Lords, this is the time, this is the place and this is the legislative opportunity and I'm completely baffled as to why the government is not seizing this opportunity. Having responded formally to the consultation last year to grab this issue and enshrine it in statute commentary time does permit this today, and I hope that the noble Lady will look favourably on this new amendment. 244 My Lords, this bill on English devolution and community empowerment, in my view, is the right time to implement this legislation, and I would like to understand from the noble Lady why, in the government's view, this is not the appropriate legislation to introduce what Lord Wilson the noble Lord Wilson so eloquently set out in his response to my amendment at Committee stage.

So I'd like to invite the noble Lady and the government to commit to this amendment. And were they not to, will the noble Lady confirm that this legislation will be announced in the King's Speech? I beg to move.
18:15
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause 62 insert the following new clause as printed in the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. I recognised my noble friend Baroness O'Neill, Lord Forbes and many others from those Covid conversations, including the noble Lady, the Baroness, the Minister, now remote working, worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures who could remember the Jackie from Cheshire who had no authority, but she still managed to press the off button for the chap who was needling her.

Some councillors, not in my own authority, I hasten to add, fell asleep in Covid. I saw some clips on YouTube about others had gone to the toilet and left the shower. Children bundled in. But for all of that. But for all of those mishaps, by and large it worked pretty well. So yes, it can work now. At committee, I find it difficult to support all the various remote working amendments. They were widely drawn, sort of somewhat nebulous, but I'm very taken with my noble friend's amendment two, four, four, because it constrains it to certain circumstances that encourage participation and engagement, but limited to those cases for disability, bad weather and other emergencies which could happen foot in mouth, I mean war.

I've mentioned it in the last thing, and I also am persuaded by this amendment because I think we need to recognise that in local government there are different types of meeting, each with different consequences and purposes. Yes, there's the full council meeting where everyone gets together and it's important that everyone has their vote, their executive meetings like Cabinet meetings, and there are scrutiny meetings which aren't executive but sit on the other side of the scrutiny executive defined. And then there are policy formation committees which are not for decision making, are part of scrutiny, but don't often vote.

So we've got the distinction about what is decision or non-decision making. And then there's quasi judicial planning and licensing. And I must say that I think in-person attendance is really important for those. The decisions taken in those sort of meetings do carry the weight of law. But this amendment allows for all that texture to be captured and limited. So we have the best of both worlds. And I, as I say, I favour it. Also, we need to recognise that local government is becoming more complicated.

There's certainly the need to travel more, particularly in the larger authorities such as North North Yorkshire. Home to my noble friend, there are more combined authority meetings and. And this. Upon the passage of this bill, there'll be an even greater need for people on a much wider canvas to come together more frequently over long distances. One has to account for and allow for remote meetings. In some of those circumstances. In my own authority, we have trading companies where councils, which may not necessarily be neighbours, club together at arm's length.

They may they they are not the council, but they are owned by the council. We've got to take that into consideration too. And on that last point, I think it's important because we cannot just leave this to the councils alone. In the case of a trading company, it needs regulation. What would happen if one council in the partnership permitted remote meetings and the others didn't? How on earth would that work? So having regulations, the sort of regulations contemplated by my noble friend, are really important.

So this is a big improvement on the proposals that came forward for committee. In my view, there are now capable of going forwards and I support them, especially with the support them, especially with the affirmative safeguards proposed.
18:19
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to my >> My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment and to all noble Lord amendment and to all noble Lord Barwell Lord Fuller who have contributed to the debate. While we recognise the intention behind this proposal, and 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 did do them and we had the powers to do so.

But we're not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They're 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're 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, weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

The government believes it should be local authorities themselves who 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. And like the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Pickering Lord Fuller mentioned, I too have taken part in those 2D meetings. Everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I'm 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, and 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 is 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 and the various examples given by the noble Lord Fuller show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector to ensure that we have taken account of all the many issues and examples that he raised, and we do not believe that the noble Baroness amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and that is why we are committed to legislating, and I'm afraid it's well above my pay grade to say what's in the King's speech and what isn't. But when parliamentary time allows to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:35
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we've discussed earlier today about the word earlier today about the word communion, words in a community empowerment that are on the title empowerment that are on the title of the bill and and that we haven't had sufficient discussion as to what that will mean and how it is going to be empowered, included in the in the bill and made a reality for communities. So the word empowerment in the bill is without meaning. If communities are left powerless to save the very assets that they value the most.

Amendment 247 in my name addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. Now, for example, these could be a local village pub that is no longer. No longer no, no longer in use a village shop or a community centre which is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value, which means that the local community has already made the efforts to gather the the necessary names to support making that that particular building, that particular asset, one of community value.

Now, the the process then is that if a fair offer is made based on a professionally determined value price. But the owner then rejects that offer and proceeds to let the building sit empty, decaying and therefore dormant for years, refusing to sell to the community or indeed to anybody else. That's the dormant asset of community value to which I. This amendment refers. So what it does, this amendment is provides a necessary backstop for those situations. It empowers a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been effectively abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public.

Now, this wouldn't happen immediately. The amendment set out quite stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is only used as a last resort, so the land has to be on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years, and notice of disposal must have been issued. And yet the owner rejected a fair market offer and the owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that same period. So when those those those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant.

It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value, and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, we. The amendment. The amendment ensures that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. So the amendment gives communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them. The pride in place that we them.

The pride in place that we have heard throughout this bill, the hope. The noble Baroness, the Minister will welcome this amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 63 insert the following new clause as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed in the Marshalled List. I have three amendments in this group 251263ZA and 263ZB. So I'll group 251263ZA and 263ZB. So I'll start by giving my general support to amendment 247 by the noble to amendment 247 by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock has just set out and that was actually. Councils do already have quite a lot of do already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them. So I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.

Amendment 251 it may seem like Groundhog Day. I'm very grateful to Lordships who your Lordships who voted for this actually in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and at the time we got a concession from the planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I did remind the Minister at the time that I would bring this back, if necessary, because we hadn't heard anything about what was going on with this particular issue. And the issue in particular in two five, one is actually about at the moment, there's only a handful of asset types which are protected from demolition.

And my experience have been when being an MP that in a local community, actually the owners of the place that had asset community value designation on it decided to demolish it rather than allow anything further to happen. And I felt that was unjustifiable. What I'm hoping is that the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she did at Committee stage, when apparently the idea to consult would happen in due course. Well, for those of us who served in government, we basically know that is speak for never.

And that isn't encouraging. So it's why I wanted to listen to what the Minister has to say today in response to any further consideration that's been given of when there might be a timely consultation and ideally, legislation. But down on that, I'm now reserving the right to test the opinion of the House, subject to the answer of the Minister. Amendments two, 63ZA and 263ZBA263ZA may seem familiar. Was actually table at committee by the
18:42
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
noble Lord Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but not as good an amendment as that not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. And in essence, what this does currently. essence, what this does currently. The greater protection being given to sporting community assets as being set or sporting assets of community value. In effect, they're only there available to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. So I think it's really been designed for areas, football clubs in non-league and indeed league where we've seen in the past where suddenly things have gone wrong when the owner has gone bankrupt or similar.

And I felt, as did the noble Lord Lord Bassam, that really this should go further, this should go into a lot more community and playing fields particular approach in consideration of protection. Now that is available today again in the same way, but not with the same amount of proactivity by the local authority that is currently required for what is being proposed as sporting assets of community value. Going further again, 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough that we already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat.

It's an expressed view of the government. They wish to no longer have Sport England b a consultee. When it comes to planning applications currently covering existing playing fields, I know that it went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the government. This would effectively marry 263ZB and 23263ZA by bringing Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities both designate and consider the weather, particular areas should be considered to be a sporting asset of community value.

I think it really is being quite a surprise to the government at how communities right across the country have stood up and supported Sport England in their response to the consultation, and rightly so. I'm conscious that there are other aspects in the MP, but the reason I put this in here is to make sure that we continue to have for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, that statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation, and I believe that could be done in proactive way.

So I'd be interested to hear from the Minister further about why the sporting ground has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage in report, because we haven't really covered that. And where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come, that is why I'll be moving my amendments.
18:44
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I rise to support amendment 247. >> I rise to support amendment 247. My noble friend Lady Bennett did support noble Lady, Lady Pinnock on support noble Lady, Lady Pinnock on on this amendment and also to speak to amendments two, five, five and 257. I'm grateful to the Minister for the time she gave to meet with me following the Committee stage. That was very generous. However, I'm much less grateful about the fact that that it is still what I asked for is still missing from the government's bill.

I'd hoped that the discussion might lead to some movement on this issue of environmental interests, but they're still missing from the legal definition of assets of community value at committee. And again, at our meeting, the Minister expressed a concern that including environmental assets could turn this scheme into something of a proxy, part of the planning system. I want to address that directly because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of what these amendments do. Assets of community value give communities a fair chance to come together and buy a valued asset.

If it comes up for sale, then not a back door planning system. They do not grant a right to veto development, and they do not override the local plans. That's already true for social and economic interests. No one suggests that allowing a community to buy a pub, a shop or a community centre turns this scheme into a proxy for regulating the economy or blocking development. So why is the environment treated differently? This is where the government's position gets very difficult to follow.

On the one hand, Ministers say that environmental assets, woodlands, allotments, green spaces can already be nominated where they further social or economic well-being. On the other hand, they stop allowing communities to refer explicitly to environmental interests in the same way. I do not think that communities think like they don't say we value this woodland only for its social benefit, or we want to retrofit this community building only for economic reasons. In practice, we pursue social, economic and environmental goals together, just as every part of our planning system already recognises.

Yet under this, as the bill stands, a community can nominate a woodland but can't actually properly articulate the environmental outcomes that they want to protect or enhance. They could seek to acquire a community centre, but not refer to plans to improve energy efficiency or biodiversity. As part of their case. That weakens their chance to make a credible case. The government's answer remains that this may be addressed in statutory guidance, but guidance is not law. It can be changed. It carries less weight and as a committee debate showed, it risks embedding the very confusion we're trying to resolve confusion between the asset itself and the interests it serves.

Finally, I want to return to the broader principle everywhere else in policy, planning, law, national frameworks, sustainable development. We recognise that social, economic and environmental goals belong together, and this bill in many respects seeks to devolve power and trust communities. But in this one area it holds back, leaving environmental interests out of statute isn't being neutral. It is a signal that they matter less. Which does not surprise me coming from this government, in fact, because that's what we've seen again and again on environmental issues that risks missed opportunities and poorer outcomes for communities.

I want to thank. The my colleagues on the on the other benches, Baroness Freeman of Steventon and Lord Freyberg, for supporting these two amendments. And I do hope that they're going to say something in support, and I reserve the right to ask ask the House to vote on this, because, quite honestly, it's a principle that I just think the government misses completely. And that distress as a green that distresses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me hugely. Lord Mawson I will briefly I will speak briefly to my group of will speak briefly to my group of amendments concerned with cultural assets of community value. The same group I tabled at Committee stage, and I'm very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg for these amendments. I Freyberg for these amendments. I have done so primarily to allow me to thank the Minister for the encouraging reply she gave at encouraging reply she gave at committee that such assets will be explicitly recognised in the statutory guidelines guidelines.
18:49
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
The Minister has kindly invited feedback for that guidance, and Lord Freyberg and I have drawn up a more comprehensive list of categories of possible cultural assets than we have discussed, in the hope that this may be of practical use, and I have forwarded this in the letter to the Minister over the weekend, so she may not yet have had time to have a look at this, but it is a longer list than the examples contained in my the examples contained in my amendment 262, which then would have been cited in the bill.

And the interest of completeness contains perhaps some unusual examples, but it may be the unusual that a local community wishes to maintain. One outstanding concern which occurred to us in drawing up this list, is about potentially movable cultural assets, such as archives or furnishings, or even a single object of cultural value. And of course, this will be particularly a concern for heritage sites. Now may be a question of whether such assets are integral or not to a property in which they are housed.

This is not something we have previously discussed, but hope nevertheless, that this dimension might be acknowledged within the guidance. So I do ask the Minister to consider that specific point. Of course, with historic buildings of national significance, one would hope that other measures come into play and the conscious inclusion of cultural assets within the scheme should not negate responsibility to others, particularly local councils, ought to have, with regard to many of our cultural assets. But the great thing about the scheme as it is, is about people, power and the local people are often the first to recognise an asset's importance.

And in that sense the scheme is not a replacement for, but an important additional part of the armoury. My Lords, the rest of my amendments raise the status of cultural assets within the legislation and being less important, I do so. I do still protest against cultural being treated as a subset of social and being less important, rather than equal to sporting assets within the legislation as it stands. But I'm not going to press this at this stage. Rather, I will congratulate the Minister and her team for the clear progress that has been made, ensuring that cultural assets will be much more widely recognised as potential candidates for this scheme.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to briefly move amendment two, 36A and 236B and amendment two, 36A and 236B and also support 263ZB on the consultation with Sport England, which I think is very important, we which I think is very important, we must not remove Sport England as a consultee, I declare an interest as the Honorary President of the the Honorary President of the London Playing Field Foundation, the charity that was founded way back in 1890 to protect, promote and provide playing fields at a time when the pressure to build on open green spaces was intense.

Very little has changed since then. However, the activities that can take place on well managed playing fields, I think we all know can
18:52
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
improve lives, especially at a time when we know how the situation is with young children and obesity. Sport can provide the motivation to being more active and and giving being more active and and giving confidence and social skills. But of course, none of this would be possible without a pitch to play in possible without a pitch to play in the first place. And it's therefore vitally important that we protect playing fields to remain, to remain playing fields to remain, to remain accessible, affordable, and attractive to current and future generations.

Getting rid of our fields is a false economy because we've seen research commissioned by the London Playing Field Foundation, which showed just how much money could be saved, doing an impact study on the activities that took place at the Douglas Sports Centre in Walthamstow over a 12 month period, and it found that the minimum saving to the public purse was 4.8 million, mostly in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. Let's not forget, once the playing field is lost, it's lost forever. Now to my amendments.

First, can I say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that I support her new government amendment 252, which is very important, and also the new category of indefinite sporting acvs in this bill, which is most welcome, it makes clear that once a playing field, always a playing field, and thousands of playing fields have been lost to speculators and the bills right to buy for sporting assets of community value has the potential to ensure our remaining playing fields become community owned assets in perpetuity.

The right to buy mechanism could be a game changer in saving playing fields, but there is a flaw in the bill. It is silent on hope value, which, if left unaddressed, means communities will always fail to compete with speculators, the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor, said in committee we want to ensure that communities have the best opportunity to purchase valued assets and are not priced out by inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential. And she was so right. Inflated sales prices is the lay definition of hope.

Value that amendments two, six, three A and B seek to remove from assets of community valuation valuations for valuations, the principle of removing inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential is accepted by the government. Lay as an inflated sale price is a non-legal term or definition for what we all call hope value. You could also say that it's the key definition. Hope value is the amount of inflated sale prices based on redevelopment potential, and hope value is so big in playing fields because the valuation is a playing field is low because the playing field run by community sports clubs, is usually a volunteer dependent, dependent on volunteers.

And let's break even social asset. The same acreage, of course, with planning for housing is worth many millions. So the hope in committee, the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor, dismissed the amendments very similar to these that I've tabled here two, three five and 235ZA on the grounds of, and I quote, striking the right balance between communities and asset owners. And I agree with that. And I think we all agree with that. But there are two scenarios where a speculator owns a sporting asset of community value with the intent of change of use for abnormal profit, and a speculator that owns a playing field that is subsequently determined by the local authority as an ACV has a right to appeal the designation of ACV, and the speculator can also afford a judicial review of the council decision.

And secondly, a speculator that buys a playing field that has already a sporting CV does so at their own financial risk, speculating that they can remove the ACV designation to enable change of use for profit. So the amendments, my amendments do not disrupt the right balance, which the historic loss of playing field has proven. What we all know that it still favours the speculator. Speculator has more funds, more specialist knowledge to pursue their aims than the community house to protect. Sporting a CVS at risk.

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

So why do so many groups working to protect playing fields feel so strongly and support these amendments? Well, let me just finally lay out starkly why these amendments are needed. And I use Abney Park in Richmond as a reference case. It was opened in 1922 as a war memorial sports ground by old Merchant Taylors Rugby Football Club, and was redesignated under covenant in 1937 to Saint Mary's Hospital Medical School, which then merged with Imperial College in 1988. In 2014, Imperial College decided Abney Park was surplus and put it on the market.

In 2015, Imperial College sold it to a UK speculator who gazumped the £2 million community bid with a £6 million winning bid. So 4 million of hope value or inflated sale price based on redevelopment potential, probably about 30 million. The UK speculator took five years then to get their planning application to public inquiry, spending a further 4 million on professional fees. Abney Park became an asset of community value in 2016 thanks to all the campaigners. In 2020, the planning inspector refused the change of use and the UK developer then put Abney Park back on the market in 2021.

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

And as a noble Lady, the Minister must know local people in all cases of playing fields being threatened put huge voluntary effort into trying to save them, and I want to pay tribute to the Abney Park Playing Field Trust led by Mark Jopling, who, as I know, also written to the Minister and the shadow Minister and has been working closely with the Liberal Democrat MP for the area. The trust has been tireless in its efforts, but faced with the wealth of a developer, they have virtually no chance of saving them for their children's children to play on.

If we don't even up the situation and hope value. And that's why, my Lord, these two simple amendments are so,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so important. I beg to move. I rise to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak. To amendment two six, 3ZA and 263ZB. In doing so, I declare I am Chair of Sport Wales. I've recently been appointed to the Board of Active Travel England and I'm a patron of Field's interest. Sport England are only notified if there's loss or damage to sports there's loss or damage to sports fields, and while I admire the government ambition to increase building of housing and attempt to stimulate growth, it's really important that people and especially children, have a place to play and the work that Sport England does in terms of safeguarding these areas is really important.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance have done some work in this area, and these places contribute more than £2,000,000,002 billion a year to improve well-being. They impact 4 million adults and around a million children. And while as a country we celebrate big moments of sporting success like the Red roses or the Lionesses or the recent Olympic and Paralympic Winter games, most athletes start their career in a playing field. In fact, that's where my career started. So protection of playing fields is also goes beyond elite pathway.

It's thinking about how people are able to be active. And if we just look back to the 80s and 90s national planning policy alone proved completely insufficient to prevent building on playing fields. Between 1980 and the mid 90s, about 10,000 playing fields were lost. And the planning policy guidance note 17 in 1991, the protection policy of that failed to protect the playing fields. So Sport England been given a statutory consultation status in 96 I think was a really important move forward.

Currently, Sport England protects around 1000 playing fields every year and only objects to 0.0, nought 1% of planning applications. So of around 300,000 planning applications year, they object to just three. They respond to planning applications 99.2% within 21 days. And for me, it's, you know, removing Sport England as a statutory consultee won't actually speed up housing delivery. But actually what it will do is risk losing more fields. And also I see fields being targeted as windfall sites if local authorities struggle to meet their housing needs, all local authorities may indeed allocate their own fields, especially rules on capital receipts have changed.

My Lords, this is not about pathway. This is not about elite athletes. This is not about elite athletes. This is actually about the role that Sport England plays in protecting the health of the nation. And my Lords, health of the nation. And my Lords, I believe their role is vital.
19:02
19:02
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
correct the anomaly of cultural assets sitting subordinate to sporting assets in a way that DCMS sporting assets in a way that DCMS own cultural policy does not intend. I also wish to associate myself with the email sent yesterday by with the email sent yesterday by the noble Earl to the Minister, referred to in his speech, offering referred to in his speech, offering suggestions for the statutory guidance on cultural assets. I wonder if the Minister can confirm wonder if the Minister can confirm that the that there will be feedback on this and that comprehensive guidance will be published before the bill commences.

That brings me to amendment two, five, five and 257, which I think deserve particular attention. They extend the community right to buy assets that further environmental well-being. But they do so carefully. The Minister raised a concern at committee that amendments should not become a vehicle for general environmental protection. The amendments wording addresses that concern directly because land already allocated in local development plans is excluded. That is a precise and principled limitation, and it means that what is left is exactly what should be protected.

The green spaces, woodlands and riverside walks that communities have already identified as central to their way of life. The minister's alternative that such assets should be captured through guidance under the existing social and economic well-being criteria, does not, I would suggest, provide equivalent security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb put it in committee once you leave something out of legal safeguards, you invite people to ignore it. Guidance is precisely what gets set aside when other pressures arise.

A greenfield matters to a community just as much as a music venue. It deserves the same legal footing, not a footnote in statutory guidance. Yet recognition alone is not enough if an asset can simply be demolished. So amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey addresses that gap. And I too also supported that in the planning bill. As she knows, the Minister confirmed that the Housing Minister has committed to consult on this in the next review of permitted development rights, but a commitment to consult is not a commitment to act, and a future consultation offers cold comfort to a community watching its assets face demolition.

Now, the government has already acknowledged there is a justified argument for this to change, so the time to make it is in this bill. I look forward to the minister's response.
19:05
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
OK. >> Very quickly, once I add my support to amendments two, five, five and 257, I won't repeat what's five and 257, I won't repeat what's been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. But I did want to say that as the noble Lady the Minister pointed out in committee, she said that environmental assets can be included into the register of community assets of community value if they're shown to support social and economic well-being.

But I'm very concerned that the fact that the wording of this clause says that these have to be non ancillary uses will rule out many areas of green space, and we know how important that green and blue spaces are to communities. And if you take for example, a row of trees or hedgerows, that's acting as a filter between a road and a community, and that would be an important filter for health. It's filtering noise, it's filtering visual amenity. But none of that would be easily captured in a way that would allow a community to be able to defend in a legal context that this was a social or economic well-being matter.

It's a matter of environmental well-being. It's a matter of mental health, physical health, all sorts of things that wouldn't come under this. So I very strongly feel that guidance and trying to use the existing clause as it's worded, is not going to work for many of the purposes that the government itself set out. It wanted this clause to capture all the derelict areas which communities could take up and adopt as green spaces within their community areas. So I really hope that the government will look at this clause again, and I would support the noble Lady if she wishes to take this to a vote.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, at the heart of this group of amendments speaks to something fundamental the importance of preserving those local assets that bind communities together, whether they're pubs, together, whether they're pubs, sports grounds, community halls or green spaces. As we've heard, these are important spaces for local people. They're the places of shared identity and connection. In shared identity and connection. In that context, we see merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness 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
19:08
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
practical and necessary. Without such protection, there is real risk that assets could be lost before communities have a really meaningful opportunity to act. meaningful opportunity to act. Similarly, her amendments to broaden the definition of sporting assets, as we've heard, and to involve Sports England as a statutory consultee, as we've heard from a number of noble Lords, these reflect the importance of safeguarding grassroots 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 noble Baroness Brady Pinnock, which seeks to address the issue of sole 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 really careful attention by the government. The amendments from the noble Lord Earl of Clancarty and others, which seek to expand the definition of community value to include cultural and environmental well-being, and we acknowledge their intentions, as we have throughout the whole bill and the important role that such assets play in community life.

However, my Lords, these provisions do not sit in isolation. They depend on wider, wider funding landscape if they are to be meaningful in practice, the government has placed considerable emphasis on pride in place funding as the means of supporting local regeneration and community assets there. 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 Pride in Place program offers £5.8 billion over ten years, my Lords, to over 300 areas.

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're not left behind? Can the noble Baroness Limb 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. And, my Lords, there is a further concern. To what extent has this funding been drawn from existing programmes is that, if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact of the decisions to withdraw that funding? My Lords, if we are serious about empowering communities and protecting the assets they value, it's not enough simply to repackage funding or redistribute it from one initiative to another.

Communities need certainty, they need continuity, and they need a clear sense that support is being strengthened, not my Lords replaced. And I look forward to the minister's response. 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 A CV and to all noble Lords for participating in the very useful and thoughtful debate. I'll 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 ACB 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's intended to empower communities while respecting the property rights of asset owners, and we don't 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 amendment is a fair representation of a dormant asset.

Asset owners may continue to own
19:12
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
and manage an ACV for the benefit of the community, even if they indicated an intention to sell 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, 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 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, and the example of the derelict property that the noble Baroness gave us is one where, in some circumstances that could be resolved through CPO powers. I'm not pretending it's easy, I. There are. There are steps that need to be taken, but it can.

Those powers can be used for that. Placing additional responsibilities on local authorities who would need to monitor and make potentially complex judgements on where 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 will turn now to amendment 251, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. This amendment follows the same amendment made during the Committee stage. As the noble Baroness pointed out, and indeed, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

As noble Lords will recall, we don't 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. And I will say there's a slight update on what I said at committee, because we intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish this year.

My Lords, I now turn to government amendments 252 and 264 and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising questions in committee about the appropriate listing period for an asset of community value. We have reflected on the points raised during previous debates that the current five year listing period is too short and may leave valued assets vulnerable to loss if the community does not successfully renominate them in a timely manner. We have, therefore tabled an amendment to extend this period to ten years.

This will reduce the risk that an asset of community value falls through the cracks. When a listing expires, it will decrease the burden on communities of Renominating, an asset every five years, which includes compiling evidence of an asset's community value and making an application to the local authority. It will also decrease the burden on local authorities in processing these applications and updating their local lists. We consider that a listing period of ten years strikes the right balance between increasing protections for assets, while ensuring they remain of value to the community, and restrictions are not placed on private property ownership unnecessarily.

Assets that are already listed when the new Community Right to Buy powers come into force, will see their original listing extended for an additional five years, so that they are also listed for ten years in total from the date they were originally entered on the list. We consider the impact of this extension on property rights of asset owners under the European Convention on Human Rights to be justified. As mentioned in previous debates, the indefinite listing period for sporting assets of community value reflects their unique value to the community and their particular susceptibility to redevelopment, and is appropriate for these types of assets, coupled with other provisions in the bill, such as the requirement for local authorities to notify the community and other relevant partners six months before an asset is due to be removed from their list, so that they have ample time to apply to the local authority to release the asset.

I hope noble Lords will agree that this ten year listing period will ensure stronger safeguards for assets. Turning now to amendments. 253254256 and 258 through to 263, for which I am grateful to the noble Earl of Clancarty. And I would say I have not received this letter yet, but when I do, I'll give it due consideration. We share the desire to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They are essential for artists to work effectively and play a very important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas.

A broad range of arts and cultural spaces will already be in scope of the ACV definition. Communities will be able to nominate any asset that furthers their social or economic interests, and the definition is clear that social interests include the cultural interests of the community. As set out in previous debates. Statutory guidance will be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy, and I will look at the email that the noble sent me. We do continue to welcome the Noble L's feedback as we develop that guidance, together with the protections for cultural assets provided through the planning system and other government support.

I hope this reassures the noble IRL. There is already a strong framework for supporting valued cultural spaces. I now turn to amendments 255 and 257 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and moved by the noble Baroness Lady Jones, regarding environmental considerations as part of the Community Right to Buy. The core aim of this policy is community ownership is about giving communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets, and the key word here is asset. All noble Lords in this chamber will know of a pub, a community centre or a public garden in their local area that is at risk of loss or closure, despite being at the heart of the community.

And this is what the policy is being created to protect. Many environmental assets will already be in scope, given they will. Be considered to further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the economic or Social. Well-being or interests of the. Community, and this could include allotments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

include allotments. Playing fields, woodlands and farms. Statutory guidance will. Make clear that local. nominations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of environmental assets. Where the community can demonstrate social or economic demonstrate social or economic value. With the current or. However, this is not a policy centred on environmental protection, nor is it environmental protection, nor is it designed to apply to assets that have no prior connection to the community. The inclusion of assets that further the environmental well-being of communities, but which have no demonstrable social or economic value to those communities, as the noble Baroness is proposing, takes away from the core aim of the policy.

It could potentially allow communities to nominate any piece of private land for environmental wellbeing reasons, which may have an unjustifiable impact on property rights of asset owners, as well as risking the misuse of the policy to block development. Environmental protections are best delivered through effective planning regulation, and it is important that we keep these systems separate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kofi, for her amendment, which seeks to extend the scope of the sporting asset of community value or SAC scheme so it is not limited to sports ground featuring spectator facilities.

The existing legal definition of a sports ground set out in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which specifically requires the presence of a spectator facility, does give councils a straightforward and impartial method for determining whether an asset can be listed as an SA CV. There is currently no equivalent or alternative legislation that offers an all encompassing or universally accepted statutory definition of a sports ground. Expanding the definition to also include land that is wholly or mainly used for sporting or physical recreation activities, would impose a significant burden on local councils.

It would require them to undertake complex subjective assessments, gather additional evidence and manage a larger volume of cases. Moreover, having a spectator facility is a practical and impartial sign of community value. If a venue can accommodate spectators, that demonstrates its intended for collective organised activities and is already fulfilling a broader community function. The current SA CV definition will markedly boost the number of sports grounds that local communities can acquire through the new Community Right to Buy scheme. Sports grounds at grassroots level that do not meet the criteria set by the 1975 Safety of Sports Ground Act, will still be able to be listed under the standard Assets of Community Value Scheme.

If the community considers them to be of value regarding amendment 260 3ZB, I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring local authorities make the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions on listing sa CVS. So that as many eligible sports ground as possible are given these protections. The provisions in the protections. The provisions in the bill provide an objective framework for local authorities to make decisions about listing SA CVS in decisions about listing SA CVS in their local area. This is clear that land is an SA CV if it meets the definition of a sports ground contained in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, a place where Grounds Act 1975, a place where sports or competitive activities take place in the open air and where spectator accommodation is provided.

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

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

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

Lastly, I would like to address amendment 263B, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The Community Right to Buy has not been designed to compel owners to sell their assets. The policy means that if they do wish to sell an asset, the community must have first right of refusal on its purchase. This amendment would provide that local authorities may use powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsory purchase acvs at their market value, but without paying hope value.

My Lords, local authorities can already make compulsory purchase orders under that act, which may be exercised on behalf of community groups or parish councils to acquire assets. Providing there is a compelling case in the public interest, introducing a new provision to compulsorily purchase an asset where the owner does not wish to sell would represent an unjustifiable interference with the property rights of asset owners. Section 14 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 effectively removes hope value from compensation for the market value of land acquired through the use of compulsory purchase powers for a certain category of schemes where this is justified in the public interest.

We agree with the noble Baroness desire to ensure communities are not prevented from protecting acvs due to inflated sale prices. However, we must also ensure the property rights of asset owners are upheld. A blanket rule removing hope value from the value of individual assets would not be sufficiently protect the rights of asset owners. The independent valuation process will determine a fair price for both parties based on market value, and all parties will have the opportunity to make representations to the independent valuer to support them in making their determination.

And this will be the final price that communities will have to meet to purchase an asset. If owners do not agree with the price, then they can choose not to sell it at all. If I can just pick up on the noble Baroness Lady Scott's points about pride in place, I think it would probably be more helpful for me to write to her, setting out the detail of how the the areas that are subject to pride in place funding have been chosen, and also about the schemes that are available for those areas that may not come into the pride in place category.

My Lords, to sum up, I beg to move government amendments 252 and 264 to the House and ask noble Baroness, lady, lady, lady in the noble Earl of Clancarty to not press their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And is the government actually saying that environmental assets, environmental benefits are secondary to social and economic, and that they are not all intertwined? I cannot believe such intertwined? I cannot believe such such blindness to such an important issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. No, I'm saying that if an asset is of value to the community for environmental purposes, that would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fit in with the economic and social purposes that we've set out. Then why not put it in? Why not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put it in? Pounds? I just wonder if I could ask her to define more carefully ask her to define more carefully the word's market value. So she said many times, market value and said many times, market value and hope value. And there could be negotiations about the value of a negotiations about the value of a piece of land. I think she means by market value. Current use value. Could you just explain what market value actually is? What is the market? If it's not hope value and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doesn't include hope value. This would be a negotiation. As I set out between an independent valuation process to determine a fair price for both parties based on what the market value of that on what the market value of that that asset is. And that means that both parties get the opportunity to make representations to an independent valuer to support them, and the final price will be and 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.

One final point. I thank the Minister, but surely the market value depends on what is going to be done with the particular playing field. I can't really add anything to what I've said already, that the valuation process would take all matters into account, and then it will be for both parties to make representations about what they consider to be their perspective on what the market value is. And the independent valuer will make the judgement between the two of them.
19:28
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it's interesting that we've had nearly an hour of debate we've had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of this bill. And 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 where they live, the place where they live, the pride in place that they have, which they hope that the government will endorse and support.

Now, the two government amendments in this section, I welcome them. That that enhances the assets of community value. But there is still much, much more to do. As the noble Baroness Hoey has said. And 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 Hoey that it's just a really good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most.

And when we come to the next group, that will be reiterated. So, my Lords, although we've had a good debate and we're not making any progress with the Minister, though, I will read her very detailed answer that she has given in Hansard and maybe follow up some points later in the next session. Maybe with that, I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by leave withdrawn after clause 63, amendment 248 Lord Banner. I beg to move amendment 248,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment 248, which is in my name, and those of Lord Grabiner and Panic veterans of Lord Grabiner and Panic veterans of the early debates on this bill and indeed the planning and Infrastructure Bill last year, will
19:31
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
be more than familiar with the problem that this amendment seeks to address. But given the prospect of divisions later, and in light of the considerable misapprehensions that have been disseminated by opponents of the amendment, I do need briefly to outline what it involves open spaces held by a local authority under the Public Health Act 1875, or the Open Spaces Act 1906, are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go onto that land for the purpose of recreation.

The Local Government Act 1972 provides that. Section 1232A that the local authority may not dispose of any such land until before it does so, it advertises its intention to do so in a local newspaper for two weeks, and considers any objections received in response to the advertisement. When that process has been followed, section 1232B provides that the sale of the land post advertisement then proceeds free of the statutory trust that is the existing law, and there is no controversy about that, where the advertising requirements have not been followed.

However, the effect of the Supreme Court's judgement in a case called day is that the statutory trust continues to exist after the land has been transferred, no matter how long ago that was. And not withstanding the absence of any challenge to the decision to dispose the land and even if the purchaser was in good faith and was completely oblivious to the issue. Now, given that the advertising cannot currently be done retrospectively, the land is then permanently blighted by the trust and cannot be repurposed, no matter how strong the public interest in doing so.

And this issue is causing damaging uncertainty in relation to land purchase from local authorities in good faith. Sometimes decades ago, even in some cases where the advertising may actually have been done, because in some cases the issue so happened so long ago. The sale happened so long ago, that the evidence about whether the land in question had been properly advertised prior to the sale may no longer be readily available, and this is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission.

The amendment has been wrongly characterised as being only about the high profile Wimbledon case. That's untrue. And indeed, the All England Lawn Tennis Club recently won their High Court case concerning whether a statutory trust ever existed in the first place over the land on which they have planning permission to expand. So as things currently stand, the amendment is in fact academic for that case. It is, however, of real importance. More widely, the amendment fills the gap in the current law for of in relation to any procedure to remedy the situation where the former open space land has been disposed of without advertisement and then is permanently blighted by a statutory trust without there being any corrective mechanism available in the law.

And it does so with the necessary safeguards to ensure that before a former open space land could be released from such a trust, there is an open process in which the public can participate. In summary, the freehold or leasehold owner of land in question must apply for statutory trust discharge order. The application is then subject to publicity requirements, including site notice and advertising the local newspaper for four consecutive weeks, which is double the existing provision for advertisement, which, if complied with at the time of the sale, means the trust is already in the current law extinguished.

So double and that remedies the original failure to advertise, meaning there's no consultation deficit. The four week period having been followed. There is then a public law decision as to whether or not it's in the public interest to discharge the discharge. The trust, having regard to all comments received from members of the public and indeed from any local authority in question who may respond to the consultation, there is provision for regulations which may provide for additional procedural safeguards, including the potential for a public inquiry in some cases, if that's judged to be appropriate and the safeguards are not simply procedural, they're also substantive in deciding whether the public interest test is met.

The Secretary of State must have regard to the following nature conservation, the conservation of the landscape. The protection of public rights, of access to relevant land, protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest development. Proposals relating to relevant land and economic, environmental or social benefits which the order would facilitate if made only if, having had regard to all of those considerations, the Secretary of State is rationally satisfied that it would be in the public interest to discharge any statutory trust.

May he legally do so. And these safeguards, my Lords, ensure that those statutory trusts which are otiose and serve to frustrate the public interest, will no longer blight the land in question following the due process, whilst maintaining any such trusts where there are justified social, environmental or other considerations. And importantly, my Lords, the amendment leaves untouched the substantive protections provided for by statutory open space trusts. All it does is provide a procedural mechanism for remedying a failure to advertise the disposal of such land.

It's also important to stress that the amendment leaves untouched the planning policy protections for open space. They are set out in paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Statement. I outlined those at Committee stage. It is very difficult to get planning permission under that policy for open space land, even if it's currently disused, even if it's in private ownership. Other substantive protections are also unaffected, such as the law relating to national parks, Commons and Greens and public access rights. Given that the substance of this range of protections would be unaffected by the amendment, there is no need for its coming into force or its operation to await or be affected by the promised review of open space protections.

There are various amendments to my amendments. My Lords, in the interest of politeness, I'm not going to comment on any of them. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 63. Insert the following new clause with the word as printed on the with the word as printed on the Marshalled List. Amendment 248A to 248C have been withdrawn. Amendment 248D as an amendment to. As an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment to amendment 248 Baroness Scott of Bybrook. My Lords, I rise to a move to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to a move to move amendment 248D, which is an amendment to my noble friend Lord
19:38
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Banner. Amendment 248. My amendment would prevent my noble friend Lord Banner amendment from coming into Banner amendment from coming into effect until the government's promised review of open spaces has been completed. If the government been completed. If the government chooses to proceed on the issue of statutory trusts for recreation, it is essential that due process is followed. We know many people across the country feel strongly across the country feel strongly about high profile cases involving statutory trusts, and many of them are concerned about the loss of important green spaces in their local area.

There is a reason for existence of statutory trusts for recreation, my Lords, and we will stand up for open spaces. We have long campaigned for a brownfield first approach to housing delivery and it is greater housing density, not urban sprawl that is needed. But we are not blockers. This is about building the right homes in the right places. My Lords, the Conservative Party is the party of housebuilding. In 2019, we committed to delivering a million new homes by the end of that Parliament, and I'm proud to say we kept that promise.

Now, my noble friend has already outlined the issues of the day case, so I'm not going to repeat them. But I will refer to paragraph 116 of the Supreme Court's judgement, in which lady Rose said, I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation in which CSC, the new owner of the land, no doubt bought the land in the expectation of being able to develop it. In the wake of this judgement, a rather messy situation needs resolving and I think noble Lords on all sides of this debate recognise that a solution is urgently needed, not least because the situation we face today is holding back much needed housing delivery.

So we recognise the problem and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Banner for his hard work in bringing forward a solution today. He's a very accomplished lawyer in this field and we rely on his expertise in this House so often. Turning to the noble Baroness, the Minister, I know she recognised the problem raised by my noble friend, and we welcome the government's engagement with the underlying issues created by the day case. However, as a responsible opposition, we need to ensure due process has been undertaken.

Ministers have committed to a wide review of open spaces and the sufficiency of those spaces. Surely it is right that Ministers should not proceed with a change in the law on this contentious issue, without waiting for that review. That is why I and my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook have tabled my amendment 248D, which would prevent the regulation in respect of statutory trusts orders from being made until the government's review on open spaces has been has taken place and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

review. I move the amendment. Proposed in subsection two after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inserted section 128A2B, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. Lord Whitehead. A large number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Whitehead. A large number of amendments to my noble friends. Amendment, and I've reduced these in the interests of simplicity and in the interests of simplicity and time. As my noble friend Lord time. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson has pointed out. At an earlier stage, we were promised a
19:42
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
government review in this area. To me, that seems entirely appropriate. This is a complicated area and also This is a complicated area and also one of huge importance to communities and to the country as a whole. My noble friend has, of course, devised a an extremely course, devised a an extremely attractive and competent amendment, but amendments introduced late on but amendments introduced late on in the bill's process in the Lords have a long history of having unexamined, consequent and unexpected consequences.

It really doesn't give time, particularly in a difficult area for government and civil society as a whole, to really get into the interstices of what needs to be done. Yes, we do need to do something, but we should do things in the proper order. And the amendments I've left in illustrate some of the areas in which I think my friend's amendment needs examination. I'm unconvinced by the arrangements or lack of arrangements for compensation, for loss for the. That it leaves in the ability for a developer to to Harris a community by putting in a new application immediately after a previous one has failed the arrangements for bringing an application to the attention of civil society are very weak in the context of the way information flows today.

The process can be initiated by a tenant without the freeholders involvement. That seems extremely odd. It doesn't deal with situations where land is being transferred between local authorities, as will happen a good deal in the context of local government reorganisation. There is no real assessment of the need for open space locally. The consideration of environmental loss is very weak. So for all those reasons, my Lords, I think we should go back to the promise made by the government.

And as my noble friend, Lord Jamieson amendment suggests, not put the banner amendment into effect until we have done the review. As my noble friend points out, Wimbledon have won their case. So there is no longer urgency. All this big beast of the All England Lawn Tennis Club are lobbying hard to. For this amendment, we can afford to take time to get this right and. Noble Lords know I dislike the actions of tennis club very much.

Well, there we are. I shall survive the fact that they won and my friends lost. Mine. I think only High Leigh of my noble friend who has, by bringing this forward, made it impossible for him to accept even a cup of strawberries from from Wimbledon for the next few years, and has also finds himself putting forward arguments which he will attempt to demolish when he opposes the development of the Chinese new Chinese embassy. So I think very highly of my noble friend.

There are a lot of things in his that I like, but I would really like us to take time to consider it properly. My Lords, if cream was added to the strawberries, I suspect it may be more attractive to the noble Lord. Lord Banner. My Lords, I support amendment two, four eight, and I have added my name to that of the noble Lord. Lord Banner. In a nutshell, amendment 248 has two purposes. First, it is intended to reverse the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the case of Doctor Day against the Shropshire Council.

Secondly, it is designed to provide full protection for members of the public who are rightly concerned both to have a fair opportunity to be informed of a proposed sale of recreational land to which they have access and, if so, advised, to
19:46
Lord Grabiner Portrait Lord Grabiner (Crossbench)
-
-
challenge that sale. As to the first point, the decision in day produces a very unsatisfactory result as a matter of law and result as a matter of law and indeed as a matter of common sense. We always hope that the law and We always hope that the law and common sense function in tandem. We do have a tandem here, but do have a tandem here, but unfortunately it's facing in the wrong direction. In the Supreme Court. Lady Rose and I think the point has already been made by the noble Lord Lord Jamieson.

She said this in paragraph 116 of her judgement, and I quote, I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation, end quote. The mess referred to by the learned justice is that although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and although the 1972 Local Government Act expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the Council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers in the two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place.

As a result, the land can't be developed. It is permanently blighted because the original failure to advertise, as I think Lord Banner pointed out, simply cannot ever be put right at a time when the government is rightly concerned to increase the housing stock, it will be immediately apparent that the day decision operates as a significant inhibition on that important social policy. The noble Lord Lord Jamieson recognises this point, but I with great, great respect, cannot agree with the conclusion that he arrives at.

As has been explained by Lord Banner, the form of this amendment is rather different from its predecessor. That is the one we put forward during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill some months ago. Now, just pausing there, the noble Lord Lord Lucas expressed the view that this was the one we're presented with in the House this evening was a later amendment. With great respect. I don't agree with that. This amendment was on the table at Committee stage in the course of this bill, and that's not a late amendment at all.

Now, concerns were expressed by some noble Lords. This was in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to the effect that reversing the day decision was all well and good, but it would leave members of the public who are rightly concerned to protect their recreational space, with no ability to challenge a proposed sale or to have their voices heard. A perfectly reasonable complaint, if I may say so. Now that brings me to my second point. The amendment takes full account of those concerns.

It provides for a robust public consultation process. It would mean that an application would have to be made for what's called a statutory trust discharge order, with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met. The qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, most importantly, what are called the new publicity requirements must be complied with and the Secretary of State must be satisfied, and I quote that it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the public trusts by virtue of the order which is qualifying condition.

F noble Lords will have noticed that the public interest is defined and again, Lord Banner has made the point, but it's defined in the widest possible terms. My Lords, I appreciate that there are more wide ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, which have been expressed by, for example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other interest groups. For those groups, we are told our amendment does not go far enough. As to that, I would respectfully make two points.

First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of parks, trusts and protections, and it should not be caught up in or delayed in my submission by that distinct political debate. The second point is that for practical purposes, this amendment would produce real improvements in the law. The advertising requirements in the 1972 act are minimal compared with what's proposed in this amendment. If the local authority had complied with the simple requirement to advertise locally for just two weeks, Doctor Day's claim would have failed.

Indeed, his claim would have been dismissed as unarguable. Now, your Lordships will, of course, appreciate that the noble Lord Lord Lucas has put forward something like 50 amendments to our amendment 248. To be fair to him, a very large number of them have been withdrawn, for which we are grateful. I have studied the noble Lords, suggested amendments with some care, but I'm not persuaded that any of them would in any way whatsoever improve or clarify our amendment.

248. Lord Stern I agree with the powerful speeches made by the noble Lord Lord Banner and my
19:52
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
noble friend Lord Grabiner. I just want to emphasise two points on want to emphasise two points on amendment 248 to which I've added my name. The first point I want to my name. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that if the local provides that if the local authority does comply with the statutory requirements and if it statutory requirements and if it properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser takes free from the trust.

That's section 123 of the Local Government Act, 1972. So there's no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law. The only question which this amendment is directed to is what should happen if there has been a failure by the local authority properly to advertise the trust. And the second point I want to emphasise is that if the local authority does fail properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is perfectly entitled to bring a judicial review to challenge the sale within a short time period, normally three months, but reduced to six weeks in the planning context and the vice of the present law, as stated by the Supreme Court, is that the purchaser in good faith remains bound by the trust, even though it is not responsible for the failure of the local authority to advertise.

And even though no legal challenge has been brought within the applicable time limits, the whole purpose of time limits in public law is to ensure that after the expiry of the time limits, people can go about their business and can develop land in the in their interests and of course, in the public interest. So that's the context. My note the noble Lord Lord Banner said that in the interests of politeness, if I heard him correctly, he would not comment on the amendments to his amendment.

248 well, my Lords, I'm less polite than my friend Lord banner. I'm grateful to Baroness Jones for confirming that she knows that already. Can I comment, I hope politely on amendment 248D in the names of Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson to which Lord Jamieson spoke, they wished to insert a precondition to the application of these new provisions for statutory trust discharge orders, and the precondition is that the Secretary of State must first undertake a review of the availability of open spaces in this country, publish a report, lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.

No doubt they would then be a debate and then have regard to the outcome of the review. Now this is going to cause very substantial delay in the application of the new statutory trust discharge orders, and it's going to cause very substantial delay, years of delay, despite the fact that we all agree, I think, that these new orders are needed urgently. Indeed, Lord Jameson himself expressly accepted that these new provisions are urgently needed. Now, if he accepts that they are urgently needed, it makes no sense at all to delay their application for many years.

In any event, I suggest to noble Lords that to await such a review would be especially inappropriate. And that is because the review would be general Amendment 248D in Lord Jameson's name, would require a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom. By contrast, new clause 128D ten, which Lord Banner is proposing, specifies that the qualifying condition F is. Whether I quote it is in the public interest for the relevant land.

My emphasis the relevant land to be freed from the trust by virtue of this order. So it really makes no sense. I suggest to Baroness Boycott and Lord Jamieson for a general review to hold up decisions on specific land, which raise entirely distinct issues. Indeed, that amendment from Lord Jamieson and Baroness Boycott is also unnecessary. If there are concerns about the availability of open spaces in the locality of the relevant land, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to take that into account in deciding under new section one, two, eight, D, ten and 11 whether it's in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the Trust's.

Like my noble friend Lord Grabner, I'm very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn by my counting, and it's perhaps an approximation. 39 of the amendments which he proposed to amendment 248. The noble Lord suggests that this is all being rushed and Lord Grabiner addressed that point. Can I just add that we've been over this ground since last September? There's nothing new about this. We spoke, many of us, on amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill earlier this session in support or in opposition to an earlier amendment from the noble Lord Lord Banner, which had a similar objective.

The Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, then and again today, said on the 15th of September last year, columns 1985 to 1986 that the government agreed with the intent behind Lord banners amendment. We've all known that since last September. The noble Lady. The Minister said that the issue needed to be given wider consideration to identify a quote, a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers. And that has taken place.

And here we are today, and it's high time that we resolve this issue. In my view, amendment 248 sets out a fair, a transparent, and a practical means of addressing the problem. It requires an application by the landowner. It requires detailed advertising, and it requires consideration by the Secretary of State, who has a broad discretion of whether it is or it's not, in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trust that, in my view, is the appropriate way forward.

And that's why I support Lord Banner amendment. Three.
20:00
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Just before. hesitate to follow the noble Lords banner grabbing A and and panic, but I do support amendment 248 in but I do support amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner and I, we heard in debate. This is very much come at the last minute. Well, by my reckoning, I said, this is the fourth time I've sat through this debate, and if I was to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth. I haven't looked at whether it was mentioned in the second readings of both the planning and infrastructure bill and the one currently before us.

My Lords, I've listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, in the under the chairmanship of lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards, and we've had quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there's no chance of pulling the wool over people's eyes, trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper. But the wider issue is we cannot orphan land, we cannot blight places in perpetuity.

That would be perverse to have that just for want of being able to find an advert in a hundred year old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that doesn't exist anymore. That's the prejudice that's before us. Sometimes you've got to look forward and offer a remedy. And that's not only in the public interest, that's in the interest of natural justice, too. We've heard in this debate this isn't just about Wimbledon that's actually been sorted, but we've heard that that shadow exists elsewhere.

The matter is not resolved, and lady Hale has told us to get it sorted. If we don't, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and the opportunity, a chance for certainty from all sides, from the protagonists in this particular issue. And now is the moment we've heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country.

We have a government in a hurry. We've got sites that are stalled. People are just hanging about, waiting, and now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let's get on with it. Let's make a decision. Let's pick up the baton that has been laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind two, four, eight. It's time we got it done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll start again. So we have an amendment signed by three three amendment signed by three three noble and learned Lords who have in their usual loyally way, made a their usual loyally way, made a powerful case for one side of the powerful case for one side of the argument here. AM I going to speak up for the community in a bill up for the community in a bill which is labelled in part, the Community Empowerment Bill? They.

I have two fundamental issues to be of of concern with with this amendment. The first is an issue of process, parliamentary process. And the second is a matter of principle. Now, as to the first, the issue of parliamentary process, the difficulty. One of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has. It has not been. And if it is passed this evening will never be put before the elected Chamber of Parliament.

And it seems to me it seems the amendment has been introduced at Committee stage in this House, and we are the second House to consider this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I suggest the noble Lady? Great respect. That cannot be right. If we approve this amendment today, If we approve this amendment today, the bill goes back to the other place, and it's a matter for them whether they agree with us or they don't. If they don't agree, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't. If they don't agree, they will say so. They are likely not to have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They are likely not to have the power to agree to have a debate on power to agree to have a debate on the amendment in, in as an entity, because it will be, as is likely to be the case, considering that the government is supporting this amendment to be included within the bill as a whole. So the the amendment as an entity will not be debated by the Other place, and that, it seems to me, when it has a very serious and extensive repercussions for public open space throughout the country is one of huge regret.

So. So that is, I think, something that we should be very much concerned with as we think about whether or not this amendment should be passed. The second bit of the process that I'm concerned with is that it is being introduced as as a remedy for an issue with which all of us should be concerned that there is a problem and no obvious route to accept the one that's being proposed to put it right. But it's being done as not a specific remedy for a specific case, but for a general proposal for any such issue, without knowing what the implications of that will be, it is unclear.

And the noble Lord Banner and others have not referenced any specific cases, apart from the one that is well known of the the Wimbledon Park case and of the Dave Shropshire case. Apart from those, it is not known what will be the consequence of this amendment if it is passed, what are the. What are the areas of of public land held in statutory trust by local authorities for the people they represent in their local area? It is not clear.

So we don't know. There's not the evidence there. That's the problem. And that's why I presume, while the noble Baroness, the Minister, made the pledge that she did earlier in earlier stages of the discussion on this issue, to do a review, and unfortunately, we we await the review and and that should have come really before any such wide ranging amendment is put into law. Now the. To move on to the second fundamental issue I have is that of the principle of this amendment.

So what we're being amendment. So what we're being asked to agree to is that, Lance, that it is believed that it's held in statutory trust by a local authority. And the word trust, I think, is really important at a time when the public are losing trust in how those of us who are elected or in this House not elected to make decisions on their behalf, do so while considering that at the very heart of that should be what the people for whom that land is held in trust, entrust that land is held in trust, entrust is held.

The. If it's set aside by, for, and held by the. In by the local authority in public trust and for the benefit of local people, then we need a remedy for the failure of that local bureaucracy. And I agree with the noble Lord Banner that that is what we must do. But it is not acceptable to do. To do that using the same or extended process that is being proposed by the the, the amendment, which is to have four weeks of notice in a public newspaper, local newspaper, which for which the circulation is plummeting.

If we want to do this effectively, we've got to have a different way of notifying local people that somebody wants to breach that trust and to have the land for development, and so that they can have a voice in opposing or supporting that change in the land that's been held for generations, generations in trust. The example of which we ought to reference of Wimbledon Park, where the freehold, it is said, was purchased in 1993 by the All England Club, was, I am told, with an express.

Condition that the area would not be developed. And would eventually return. The freehold would return to Wimbledon Park now, but as we've heard that that challenge is subject to the courts and the High Court has made a decision in favour of the All England Club, but it is going to appeal. So it is not yet been resolved and we wait to see what the arguments are. But certainly the community that benefit from Wimbledon Park are very, very unhappy at the situation that has become apparent.

And what while I while I understand both sides of the argument, at the heart of it is that Wimbledon Park is held in trust and that the local community should have a very powerful voice in deciding its outcome. The second part of principle, which I. I really do have huge concerns with, is the retrospective nature of this amendment. The amendment is proposing, and if accepted, it will become law to go back to 1980, 1980, nearly 50 years.

So anything where there is a question mark over the land held in trust. And it is only a question mark because often because of local government reorganisation, who knows what the situation is when papers have gone astray during transfer from one local authority to another, it is going to be retrospective and retrospective. Law is nearly always bad law, you know, so let's not do it. Let's at least get remove that it. Let's at least get remove that element of the amendment from it.

Finally, I think, my Lord. Well, it depends whether or not you regard land held in public trust for public benefit as important. And if you don't, well, then probably you're lucky and you're lucky in having land to enjoy. Whereas many people living in the communities that are represented by those in the other place absolutely rely on on public open land to provide them with access to green, open space, which is why this amendment is so important.

The one of the other elements of the noble Lord Banner's proposals amendment proposal is that it gives the Secretary of State the final say. Now, I have to say, as someone who advocates for local democracy, that is the final straw for me. This is a devolution and community empowerment bill, and the last thing we should be doing is taking power from the community, from local democracy and giving it to the Secretary of State. That will not do so.

Amendment 249 in my name restores the balance between. By ensuring the Secretary of State cannot make a decision on the statutory trust without express written consent of the local authority, and by confirming the termination of the trust is in the public interest by following up with a full and wholesome public consultation. This is the removing of public open space for the public benefit with no rights of redress. And it will not do. And those of who support this amendment.

And it looks as if the majority in this House will I won't those those who do, I can guarantee you will regret it in the future. What we need is evidence more thought given to a specific remedy for the situation that we are trying. In a rush to resolve today. Let's not do it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly. I will be brief just to say, first of all, I'm a member of the All England Lawn member of the All England Lawn Tennis Club of the committee Lord Rogan. So if you want to do that, but just to correct something that but just to correct something that was said about the the existing situation, the courts be absolutely situation, the courts be absolutely clear, made it clear there is no statutory trust on that land. So that's I'm afraid what you said was not correct.

I don't understand your point about parliamentary process. I'm afraid because this
20:17
Lord O'Donnell Portrait Lord O'Donnell (Crossbench)
-
-
bill will go to the Commons and then it will come back. So I'm confused. If after all my decades confused. If after all my decades of dealing with legislation, is there something I've missed? So I don't get that. Also, the point about putting it to the Secretary of State, I think, is it's very important that that process means important that that process means that they have to consult with the local community and the community, get their right to say it. So I just thought briefly I'd say those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three things. My Lords, to begin, can I thank the noble Lord Lord Banner for the noble Lord Lord Banner for amendment two, for a and for his engagement on this matter? It absolutely has not been a last absolutely has not been a last minute issue. Lord Banner raised this issue first in the planning and Infrastructure bill. There's been much engagement between myself been much engagement between myself and Lord Banner Lord Banner with officials over many months, and myself and officials have dealt myself and officials have dealt with a large volume of correspondence on the issue, as well as the noble Lord set out.

And as was discussed during debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Act, currently, there is no way to release statutory trusts where the original statutory advertisement procedure has not been complied with. The consequences, stark learned, can remain bound by a statutory trust in perpetuity, even if that outcome serves today's communities or the wider public interest. And I would just point out, and Lord Grabiner has already made this point, that if the local authority follows the procedure and does the advertisement, they can release the trust in the first place.

This is only a backstop in case that procedure has failed. So the fact that there is nothing to do this risks holding up important developments which may be in the public interest. For example, the
20:18
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
building of important new amenities, amenities and facilities for the local community. The government local community. The government does not believe that historic procedural failures should indefinitely frustrate sensible, beneficial outcomes in practice. This legal lacuna. I didn't know that word till I started working on that word till I started working on this, but I do know can prevent the delivery of much needed homes, community facilities, transport community facilities, transport infrastructure or environmental improvements which may come on strong local and national public interest support but are currently blocked by an inflexible legal position.

Since taking office, our government has 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. This amendment strikes that balance very carefully. It creates a clear, lawful mechanism to address historic errors, while ensuring that statutory trusts are only discharged where it is right to do so. Crucially, the amendment introduces 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 will have clear opportunities to make representations. Environmental and heritage considerations must be weighed and decisions will be taken transparently and published openly. The government is firmly of the view that green and open spaces play a vital role in well-being, recreation, nature, recovery and local identity. This amendment fully recognises that value, but it also 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. This amendment restores fairness, unlocks stalled opportunities, and ensures that decisions about public land are made deliberately, transparently, and in the public interest. While the amendment provides a failsafe for very specific instances where statutory procedures have not been followed, the failure to adhere to it is symptomatic of a wider issue regarding the protections for public spaces, which does require 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 struggling to safeguard valued spaces, and local authorities come to that, and it makes it harder for those local authorities to operate confidently within the planning system. To address this, my department is also 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, establish how each piece of legislation operates and interacts in practice. Drawing on evidence gathered from stakeholder engagement. For those reasons, the government strongly supports this amendment while taking forward work to review the wider framework for protecting recreational green spaces. Turning to amendment 248D tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, moved by the noble Lord Jamieson, this amendment 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 can't 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 this amendment lies in the breadth and uncertainty of what's being 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 doesn't 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 this amendment provides a further difficulty.

Land planning and open space policy are largely a devolved matter, and a review covering the whole of the United Kingdom would require the agreement and active cooperation 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 when all relevant conditions in England have been met. In practice, the provisions of this amendment would be highly complex, time consuming and likely to stall the statutory trust discharge regime altogether.

For those reasons, while the government remains 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. Turning now to amendment 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the 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 the 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 the amendment 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. The amendment 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's intended to address. It would turn a backstop statutory remedy into a process that can simply be blocked, even where it would be in the public interest for it to be exercised. This amendment 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. The amendment would also duplicate advertisement requirements that are already built into amendment 248, adding delay and complexity without improving outcomes. I will turn now to the amendments to the amendments to 248 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, excluding amendment 251A, which I'm going to address separately. I'm grateful to the noble Lord for the attention he's given to amendment 248 and for his very short notice meeting with officials in the department, which I hope he found helpful.

Taken together, his amendments would significantly undermine the purpose of the amendment 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 this specific legal problem. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lucas would recast that targeted remedy into a much more onerous regime, introducing new substantive tests and requirements that go significantly beyond addressing the historic defects. In particular, the amendments would require applicants in 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.

The amendment is designed to close. The additional conditions proposed by the noble Lord 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. And 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 further encourage litigation. Finally, amendments tabled by the noble law will make a statutory discharge orders rigid and high risk for decision makers, including by preventing orders from ever being amended or revoked once made. Taken together with High Leigh 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 251 seeks to preserve a statutory trust. Protection where land is 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 does not support this amendment. This particular issue is complex and the government needs more time to consider it and work through the consequences of changing the law, including the implications for national 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 Lucas which 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 intentions, I would ask him and the other Lords who have submitted amendments to withdraw them except for two, four, eight.
20:29
20:32
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment The question is amendment 248 The question is amendment 248 D be agreed to. As many as are of be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content contents will go to the right by contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to the Question Question is My Lords, there have voted. Contents 135 not contents.

154 so the not My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I have to run through a few amendments now as amendments to amendment 248 before I return to amendment 248. Amendment 249 Baroness Pinnock not moved. Amendments 250 and 250 A Withdrawn amendment. 250 a a Lord Lucas not moved amendments. 250 B to 250 d A withdrawn amendment. 250 E Lord Lucas not moved amendments. E Lord Lucas not moved amendments. 250 F to 250 H withdrawal.

And then 250 I Lord Lucas not moved amendment. 250 J withdrawn amendment 250 K Lord Lucas not moved amendment 250 L withdrawn amendment 250 M Lord Lucas not moved amendment 250 N withdrawn amendment two £0.50 Lord Lucas can't see him not moved. Amendment 250 Q Lord Lucas withdrawn amendment 250 Q A Lord Lucas not moved amendments. 250 R to 250 V withdrawn amendment. 250 W Lord Lucas not moved amendment. 250 x Lord Lucas not moved amendment 250 Y Lord Lucas not moved amendments.

250 Y H. 250 y V withdrawn. Amendment. 250 y w Lord Lucas not moved back to amendment 248.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, I agree with and endorsed the comments of Lord endorsed the comments of Lord Grabiner Lord Pannick my friend Lord Fuller Lord O'Donnell and the noble Lady, the Minister, in their responses to the various speeches. Opposing amendment 248 or advancing amendments to it. Very conscious of amendments to it. Very conscious of the. I want to make three short points. Response to the noble Baroness Brady Pinnock. She Baroness Brady Pinnock. She suggested that the advertising process may not be appropriate.

The principal advertising is already enshrined in the existing law. As I outlined already. It's sufficient to discharge trust if done at the time. There's no basis for criticising the principle of it. It is not retrospective. The statutory distrust discharge order would be prospective. So that's wrong. And thirdly, she asked the Baroness Cass well, what are the consequences? There's one consequence which is to serve the public interest for that is the test posed by the amendment. I can reassure my noble friend, Lord Lucas, I shall buy every single strawberry I consume for the rest strawberry I consume for the rest of my life.

And with all of that in mind as reasons I've given already, I wish to move amendment two, four eight and test the opinion of the eight and test the opinion of the House on it.
20:44
20:44
None Portrait Division
-

Not content. >> I think the contents have it. I think the contents have it content. The question will be decided by a The question will be decided by a division, and I will inform the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House when voting is open. For. My Lords. My Lords, voting is now open. Apologise. Apologise. I'm Apologise. I'm not paying attention. The question is that amendment 248 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contrary. Said the contents will go to the right by the throne and the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. OK. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment My My Lords, My Lords, there have voted contents 162 not have voted contents 162 not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 251 Amendment 251 Baroness Amendment 251 Baroness Coffey Amendment 251 Baroness Coffey not Amendment 251 Baroness Coffey not. Earlier, I did say I'd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Earlier, I did say I'd. Wait for the response by the Minister. And I think the House will be pleased that I think the response was sufficiently satisfactory. So it would be satisfactory. So it would be churlish for me to not press this, and therefore I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw. Not moved, not moved. Lord Lucas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved, not moved. Lord Lucas 251. A not moved amendment 252. Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question is amendment 252 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 253 the Earl of Clancarty not moved. 254 not moved amendment 255 Baroness Benjamin not moved. Amendment 256 Earl of Clancarty not moved. Amendment 257 Baroness Penn not moved. Amendments 258 and 259 the Earl of Clancarty not moved.

Amendments 262 263 not moved amendments 263ZA263ZB not moved. Amendments 263A263B Baroness Hoey not moved not moved. Amendment 264 Baroness Hayter moved formally. The question is that amendment 264 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 265 already debated. Baroness Teather moved formally. The question is that amendment 265 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

Amendment two, six six Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
20:57
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this government is 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 noble Baroness Casey's work, and regard the taxi and private hire vehicle elements of this bill as the first step ahead of wider engagement, which is starting to take place now, and possible future primary legislation. That's why these amendments we are seeking powers for the Secretary of State for transport to set in regulations the national standards that must be met in order to obtain, renew, obtain, retain or renew any taxi or private hire vehicle, driver, vehicle or operator's license and why? Having carefully listened to the views expressed at Committee stage, we are seeking further changes to improve regulatory oversight.

Government amendments 26626 9 to 2 seven, eight and 300 are intended to use language that more accurately reflects the intent of the standards. Licensing authorities would 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 would 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.

Amendment 279 we have listened to the concerns raised by the noble Lords, and particularly by the noble Baroness 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 authorities area. Following the noble Baroness amendments at Committee stage and subsequent discussions, the government has brought forward amendments which will strengthen which will strengthen existing enforcement powers and ensure that enforcement officers can take immediate action against any license, irrespective of which authority issued it, which is a key aim of the Baroness Shah previous amendments.

National standards will be enforced through licensing processes, both in terms of 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 must, within 20 working days, decide whether to suspend or revoke the license and inform the Reporting Licensing Authority of its decision to enable the use of this reporting requirement to be measured.

The clause will also enable the Secretary of State for transport to make regulations enabling data about its use to be collected, collated and published. This will provide transparency and reassurance that licensing authorities are meeting their obligations and licenses that licensees they suspect are unfit are being reported. I turn now to government amendments 2672 80 to 2 8628 8 to 2 95298299, and three zero 1 to 3 zero four, which all relate to the new power to enable licensing authorities to temporarily suspend a taxi or private hire vehicle, driver or vehicle license, or a private hire vehicle operator license.

Whether it was issued by that authority or a different licensing authority with immediate effect, if the authority deems it necessary in the interests of public safety, these amendments will significantly improve the regulatory oversight of licensees operating out of area, providing for the first time enforcement capabilities to robustly deal with immediate public safety concerns. They set out how licenses temporarily suspended with the duration of the immediate suspension, limited to 48 hours. What must happen if the licence holder, for example, the vehicle proprietor, was not driving the vehicle at the time of the suspension? What must happen if the suspended license was granted by a different authority, including notifying the authority that issued the license and what a licensing authority must do if a license issued by is temporarily suspended by the terminating the suspension, extending the suspension or letting it run its course.

Authorities can also set out the steps that their licensee must take for the suspension to be lifted. This could be, for example, a requirement for the licence holder to replace a defective tire on a vehicle. Powers are granted to the Secretary of State for transport to enable regulations to be made. Setting out further details on the temporary suspension process, such as the formal content of notifications with the ability to change the default 48 hour period of suspension if deemed necessary in the light of experience, the need to protect the public is being addressed, but it is only right that the sector is protected from any misuse of these new powers.

The short timelines proposed mean that the incidents must be considered promptly and if a suspension is unjustified, the licensee be able to resume working. The Secretary of State also has powers to make regulations about appeals to the magistrates court and compensation. If certain provisions relating to the suspension of licenses are not complied with, this will provide a check and balance, reducing the risk of such powers being used. Punitively and providing reassurance to licensees. I want to be clear that these powers are suspension are only to be used if it's necessary, in the interests of public safety, to immediately suspend the license, operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority, which issued its license to fulfil a pre-booked journey, is not in itself a risk to public safety.

It would be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, vehicle or phv operator solely for that reason, the suspension of a license must be related to the conduct of that licensee. It may, for example, be appropriate to suspend a driver's license as well as the vehicle's license. If the vehicle had a ball tyre, as the driver would or should have known that to be the case, it might not be reasonable for the operator to have known of this when the vehicle was sent, unless, of course, the driver and operator are one and the same.

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

Amendments two, two, nine six and 297, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have tabled these amendments to restrict the existing regulation making powers. These limit the power to make regulations amending Acts of Parliament so that it can only be used to amend acts passed before or in the same session as this act, and make all regulations about national standards subject to the affirmative procedure. In conclusion, the taxi and private hire vehicle measures in this bill are part of a package of immediate steps we are taking to address concerns concerns raised over safety, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and her national audit of group based Child sexual exploitation, exploitation and abuse.

These measures are absolutely not the end of the conversation. We know that more can be done to improve and reform the regulatory framework for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing. That's why my department is conducting stakeholder engagement over the spring, to look at the broader issues and build consensus on what the best mechanisms are to tackle. But the present measures are crucial to dealing now with the enforcement issues, which arise as a result of out of hours, out of area working.

I therefore beg to move that these amendments stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Part of the bill. Amendment proposed clause 64,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 64, page 65, line 26. Leave out minimum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 65, line 26. Leave out minimum. My Lords, I'd like to welcome the government amendments tackling some of the issues around taxi and some of the issues around taxi and private hire, licensing and enforcement across the country. This is an issue I raised through a
21:05
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
series of amendments at Committee stage and in discussion with the Minister, and I am grateful for this action. At Committee stage, I had suggested granting powers to all licensing authorities to be able to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. I felt this was a good way to help plug the safeguarding gap, which Baroness Casey had flagged in her report, but also it would allow the government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross border hiring ahead of any future legislation.

And we know cross-border hiring is a real issue and problem and does need addressing as soon as the government is able to. But I really welcome the government listening carefully to my concerns and also those of other members across the House, including Lord Bradley Lord Hampton and the Lord Bishop of Manchester, who added their names to my amendments. I think the government's amendments here ensure a duty to report concerns about driver's license in other areas to suspend those licenses temporarily in the interest of public safety and for that responsible licensing authority to respond to this and take action.

These are a solid way forward, and we on these benches fully support these amendments to start to close the safety gaps in the licensing and enforcement of taxis and private hire. There are a couple of amendments from Lord Moylan in this area. One, to take out the temporary suspension of a license and one on reporting. We do not support those amendments today, but I urge the government to move at pace going forward on consultation and research around the issues of the taxi and private hire sector, and to bring forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to Ensure that. Passenger safety. Is consistent across every region, but I would like to put on firmly on record our thanks to the noble Lords Minister for his constructive work on this important safety area.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. My Lords, in general, we welcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in general, we welcome most of these amendments. If I deal, first of all, with those that those repetitive amendments that say leave out minimum, leave out minimum all the way through, as I say, in general, we're supportive of those. The art here is to get the right balance between having standards which are predictable from the point of view of the operators of private hire services, while leaving sufficient scope for local variation to adapt to particular local circumstances.

We want to avoid circumstances where we have only what might be called minimum minimum standards nationally, and then every local authority has lots and lots of different standards of their own piled on top, which make it very difficult for large operators to to manage a fleet. But we don't want to have purely national standards with no local variation, because that would strike the wrong balance and prevent, prevent appropriate adaptations where necessary. On the face of it, we think that the government's amendments come closer to striking that balance correctly than the bill, as introduced to your Lordships House.

So we tend to support them. We would like to know if the government is going to be issuing not only standards but also guidance. Of course, the government will be issuing the national standards in due course, but also guidance on the question of what is appropriate for local authorities to be issuing their own licence conditions over. Is that an area the government intends to go into? And it would be very interesting to hear that, because, as I say, this is a question of balance.

And it's not not necessarily easy to get it right. We want the government to be able to get it right. This is better. But it might still be better. It might be better still, but it's better than what was here before. That's why we are willing to support those amendments. On the question of the suspension, I think we need to be a little bit more forensic than perhaps the noble Baroness Lady Pigeon was, or even the noble Lord, the Minister. What we're discussing here is three different licenses which are necessary for the operation of private hire vehicles.

The first is a license for the driver. This is not a driving licence as we normally understand it. It is a licence specifically for private hire and that's personal to the driver. The second is a licence for the vehicle. The vehicle has to meet certain standards, but it's local licensing authority has checked. Ideally, and it needs to meet those. But the third is a licence for the operator. Now the operator is very sort of difficult thing to capture in some ways.

On the one hand, the operator might be that booth at the end or in the railway concourse, which organises local mini cabs and has done for years in the way that we're all familiar with nowadays. It's equally likely to be a very large firm, like an Uber or an Addison Lee operating a practically national service. But it could be, as the noble Lord, the Minister himself said simply, the driver is his own operator. He takes the messages, he takes the bookings, and he goes and does and provides the service.

So what constitutes an operator is a very wide range of things. Now imagine circumstances where a driver who is perhaps licensed in Birmingham has a passenger to take to Droitwich Spa and runs into, which is not in Birmingham, I might say. For those who are uncertain of the fact. But it is not, I can assure you, and gets the Droitwich Spa and runs into an enforcement officer. Now the enforcement officer has an objection to the driver. I completely understand why.

Smelling his breath and deciding that he's drunk, he should have his license temporarily suspended immediately. Even though that license was not issued in Droitwich Spa, but was issued in Birmingham. Completely understand that entirely behind that provision of the new clause. Equally, I am completely we are completely behind the second provision in the clause which says that if the vehicle is not in a fit state and it's necessary for public safety, that it should be taken off the road immediately.

The bald tyre mentioned by the noble Lord, the Minister. But it might be something else. Then we're completely with the idea that the local enforcement officer in Droitwich should have this new power, that he can take the vehicle off the road, suspend the license. I don't know if he can actually seize the vehicle, but suspend the vehicle license and license immediately. So the continued use of that vehicle for private purposes would become an offence completely behind that. But then we come to the question of suspending the operator.

And here I have genuine difficulties in understanding what the government envisages. At an extreme, one could envisage circumstances in which the. In which the officer in Droitwich Spa, looking at his checklist of powers which has three powers, ends up inadvertently suspending Uber in Birmingham overnight. Just like that. Just like that. The drop of a hat. Every driver operating for Uber in Birmingham is now technically illegal in the whole city. As a result of the misapplication of this power.

Now what circumstances, I ask, and I did ask actually the Minister informally just before we started this debate, what circumstances can one envisage in which one would actually want such a power, given that the local officer has the power and we support this to close down the driver and the vehicle? Why should he want to be able to take out the operator, which might be a very large operator in a large city close by? And the Minister, to my disappointment, didn't address that question as fully in his opening remarks.

I think it's fair to say he didn't address that question at all, despite having a certain amount of notice of it. And it's not for me to supply the circumstances in which he might do so. But actually, even if I were willing to supply them, I have great difficulty in struggling to find the answer. Therefore, I have an amendment in this group. It is 280 A which seeks to remove the power to suspend the operator licence on a temporary basis immediately.

Those are the factors immediately and on a temporary basis. Of course, it is possible that the enforcement officer in Droitwich might find some evidence that the operator is not operating consistently with the law. Almost inevitably, that evidence would be partial. Almost inevitably, it would be disproportionate to take out the operator licence on that basis. The appropriate response to finding such evidence, it seems to me, would be to use the power, indeed the duty that now is being created, which we support of reporting matters of concern to the issuing authority, and then for a proper investigation to take place and for evidence to be adduced so that a decision can be made on such a portentous matter, quite separately from what might be happening at 7:00 on the streets of Droitwich.

So I really do find it very difficult to understand why this should be here. I'm giving the noble Lords Minister, if you like, one last chance in his speech to explain why such a power is proportionate, why it is necessary, why there are not better means of dealing with this, and why it is not going to be open, even if inadvertently, to abuse. I also then briefly, my Lords have amendment 287A, which seeks to oblige the government on the face of the Bill to collect statistics about the power, about the exercise of this power to to to cancel licenses, cross border.

I understand both from an informal message and and from the remarks made by the noble Lord, the Minister, that he's entirely in sympathy with that principle and will be able to give undertakings that this will be done without the need for it to be on the face of the bill. So I'm not minded to divide the House on two eight, seven a but I must say I will give the Minister one last chance. But unless he comes up with something, then I think it would be fair to test the opinion of the House on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

280 a. Lord Moylan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Moylan. My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Pidgeon and the noble Lord Lord Moylan for their. Their Lord Moylan for their. Their contributions. Before I respond on amendments 280 A and 287 A, I would just like to address briefly the just like to address briefly the the guidance question raised by the noble Lord Moylan. The Department has for many years issued guidance has for many years issued guidance related to safeguarding accessibility and the appropriate regulation of the sector, and that will continue.

So that would include guidance about the two local authorities, about local standards due to be applied, as well as the national standards. The noble Lord talks about his amendment 280 A and removing the power that we seek for all licensing enforcement officers to have the ability to temporarily suspend with immediate effects any. Both driver, vehicle and any vehicle operator license. If that. If the license relates to the operation of a vehicle being driven in the enforcement officers area, I should start by quoting the noble Baroness Casey from her National audit on Group based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

She said that most taxi drivers are, by extension, most operators are law abiding people providing important service to the public. The government echoes those sentiments. We agree that the vast majority of the trade, whether it's drivers, vehicle operators, owners or private hire vehicle operators, are hard working and law abiding people who take pride in their work. But we do want to keep passengers safe while protecting the good reputation of the trade for minority from a minority who are irresponsible and or potentially dangerous to their individual passengers and customers.

And we can do that now by giving the right tools to licensing authorities. We often hear about the inconsistent patchwork of licensing regulation and this amendment. The noble Lords 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 and we do have one man bands where a private hire vehicle driver license holder also holds an operator's license 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. However, I can imagine that what might be a reasonable and necessary to immediately safeguard the public may be different where the driver is also the operator compared with when they are not. It is an offence to knowingly used 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 licenses 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.

The legislation that protects the public. Suspending the operator license at the same time as the driver license 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 office officer did judge to be deliberate. A deliberate action on the part of the operator. Surely in that case, the noble Lord would want the operator suspended, if only well, for principally for reasons of public safety, unless unless noble Lords think that that might be so far fetched as to be unlikely.

It's quite clear. In my career I've come across private hire vehicle operators in London who have deliberately used unlicensed vehicles and drivers, and indeed in the in the bus and coach industry with which I'm familiar, it has been the case that operators, licensed operators have been found to deliberately use unlicensed vehicles and drivers. This is not. This is not so far fetched as to be. Beyond making regulations about. And anyway, we don't 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's certainly not intended to be used as a means of punishment. These powers are only to be used if it's necessary, in the interests of public safety, to immediately suspend the license, and certainly operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority which issued its license to fulfil a pre booked journey is not of itself a risk for public safety, and it would be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, reason.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So it's very kind of a noble Lord to give way. I appreciate it's late, but there aren't many late, but there aren't many speakers in this debate, so perhaps I can take a little time. The noble Lord said that context was Lord said that context was important, and he's absolutely right. The point about the context right. The point about the context of the driver is that if he's drunk, he's drunk there in front of you. he's drunk there in front of you.

Now, the bald tyre is there, present in front of you. You can see it, but any evidence that the operator is operating, for example, using other drivers or whatever. That sort of evidence can only be partial at a particular moment at 7:00 at night to a single enforcement officer officer operating in Droitwich Spa. And if it is true that that operator is operating, then that that way, then that evidence should be given and it would be given to its licensing authority, which in my case is in Birmingham for the licensing authority to investigate.

And no doubt, if the case stacks up to remove the operating licence, but not to do so on the basis of partial evidence. At 7:00 at night in Droitwich Spa. And the other difficulty that the noble Lord the Minister has is that the test for all of these three, for these three sanctions, immediate sanctions is the same test. It is a test of a threat to public safety. So if you're an officer and you're sitting there and you're saying, I've identified a threat to public safety, now, why shouldn't I put all three of these into operation at the same time? Because there's nothing in the statute that says, but the one for the operator is only to be used in really, really difficult, dangerous, odd circumstances.

So why would you not use all three? And I think to be the truth, the truth is the Minister, I think, is in a real difficulty over this. And no doubt he might want to force it through on votes, but it makes no sense at all what he's put together. I think he knows it, and I think he should be a little bit more generous in responding to this, so that we might actually reach some agreement, because in terms of trying to protect public safety, we're entirely on the same page.
21:25
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Labour)
-
-
And I think my my response to >> And I think my my response to the noble Lord is this, which is that if, if, if, if, if he is that if, if, if, if, if he is entirely committed to public safety, then the discovery by an enforcement officer, let's use his example of 7:00 in the evening and Droitwich Spa, though it might equally be 2:00 in the morning in some. In. In some dark and unfriendly place with a vulnerable passenger. If he.

If if he or she were to come across real evidence that that the vehicle and driver were unlicensed and had been used deliberately by an operator. The context in which this. The these amendments are framed is is that is that suspension is, I think, warranted in that case, that the operator's license. It would be a threat to a big operator, and therefore a big operator ought to take enormous care to make sure that they don't behave in such a manner.

But if if it were found to be true by an enormously large operator, then it is a matter that ought to be immediately addressed, and I think the public would expect it to be immediately addressed, and the public would not say, oh, they're big enough that that that actually the licensing authority, where their license can take a leisurely look at this. And it's always been a bit of a mystery to me actually, that in, in, in a, in a similar case in the bus industry, you can discover the or 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're doing the right thing and we're doing the right thing for the right reasons, which is that there is a genuine concern about public safety and taxi and private hire vehicles. And this, although it's an interim move because the whole legislation is frankly outdated and needs to be fixed. This this is an example of something which which would be proportionate.

And if the action taken was not proportionate, it can be quickly reversed by the processes which are embodied in these amendments. So I reject this proposition. I have thought it through. I'm not the least bit embarrassed in promoting it, and I think I think I'm rather more on the side of public safety than the noble Lord is. And to accept his amendment would lead to leave a gap in public protection and would perpetuate the inconsistencies in licensing enforcement. I'll turn very quickly to to his amendment 287A because I, I, I think in that respect, I heard from the noble Lord that he heard me say that the government has every intention of monitoring these arrangements very carefully.

And 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 are are operate in the light of the evidence that we've got. So I, I hope that I've said enough without using all the words that I've been given to persuade him to withdraw.

Two, eight, seven a because the government has every intention short of putting it on the face of the bill to exactly collect 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, that they can, that they can monitor and if necessary, change their own behavior. I've given these assurances. I hope that the noble Lord will feel feel that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can withdraw both his amendments. Thank you. Question is that amendment 266 be agreed to? As many of that be agreed to? As many of that opinion say, content the conscious, not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. Amendment 267 Lord Henley, move formally. The question is that amendment 267 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 268 Lord Borwick.
21:29
Lord Borwick Portrait Lord Borwick (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I first should disclose my interests as the owner of a wheelchair accessible London taxi and the past CEO of the manufacturer of London taxis. I want to thank first my co-signers of my two amendments, the noble Baroness Brinton and the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson. They both encouraged me, as has my noble friend, the noble Lord Shinkwin. My Lord's people have asked me why I'm so persistent in this matter, and the history goes back to 1987, when I was lucky enough to be appointed CEO of a public company called Manganese Bronze Holdings PLC.

I was only aged 31. I was approached around that time by a senior civil servant in DFT, Miss Anne Fry, on the introduction of Sir Peter Baldwin, then permanent secretary of DFT. The question was whether my taxi could be adapted to carry a wheelchair, and I was lucky enough to have a bright young designer working for me. As to Japan, for whose father used a wheelchair. So he adapted a prototype taxi and tried it out in in Norwich, I think it was.

I received an extraordinary, powerful letter from a 16 year old girl who had used a wheelchair all her life. She was looked after by a dedicated maiden aunt who she loved dearly, who did everything for her. But for the first time in her young life, our taxi enabled this girl to be somewhere she wasn't supposed to be. Now it is in the nature of teenagers to be naughty, but a disabled person has precious few chances of being naughty.

They can vote green, perhaps, but that is limited. My Lords, it occurred to me that what we had done was to enable the girl to be free. A very valuable freedom. A freedom to travel. And I decided to see if we could make that happen for all taxes. Some people I respected said that it would be OK to make just a very few taxis accessible, but I argued that the only way to do this properly was to make it standard. My Lords, in 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act was brought into law and a clause said that the Secretary of State may issue regulations that would enable all taxes to carry wheelchairs, enabling the disabled person to travel in their wheelchair in dignity and reasonable comfort.

Those are the magic words that we're looking for. Unfortunately, though, everyone applauded this new power. The department never used it. The Disability Discrimination Act was repealed by the Equality Act 2010, but exactly the same words were put into that action that the Secretary of State may issue regulations exactly the same result. Nothing at all. Post-legislative scrutiny of the Equality Act recommended that this clause be actioned, and the government agreed with the recommendation and then did nothing.

My Lords, this is not a party political matter. There is ample obloquy to spare. Labour Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have all had a share of power in the last 31 years. All have boasted that accessibility has been improved in their term. All have actually failed to take the actions spelled out in the Equality Act 2010, and this has come even more recently. The press release issued by DFT. When these government taxi clauses, which I thoroughly support, were proposed and reports stage in another place and they mentioned accessibility for turn times.

The trouble is that the clauses in the bill before your Lordships do no such thing. Isn't that a bit embarrassing for the noble Lord? The Minister, who has done so much in his earlier career to improve accessibility in buses and trains? I think that the department has two choices. If it doesn't like legislation, that is to obey it or propose to repeal it, the extra choice taken by the DFT is to leave it in place and help the hope that everybody has forgotten it.

My Lords, in his email to me of last Saturday refusing a second meeting, the noble Lord Hendy said that his proposals will enable licensing authorities to start from where they are and adapt to the very different provisions in different areas to best suit the needs of their users and potential users. Some time ago, this noble House approved the building regulations that building regulations should be changed throughout the country to make all new houses wheelchair accessible. We didn't approve different standards in different areas to best suit the local market.

Why can we do this for housing and not for taxes? Does the noble Lord look forward to a Britain where all dwellings are accessible, but a disabled person can't get a taxi to their home, to their own front door? The noble Lord, the Minister has argued to me that the taxi industry is vulnerable and it has suffered too long from extra burdens. Burdens like air quality rules that in London require a taxi to have about 80 miles range, with zero emission.

As the majority of taxi drivers live outside London. In practice, this zero emission feature is used to improve air quality and Essex, not London. But this burden of carrying wheelchairs, if burden it be, is dated back 31 years and has been promised to disabled people for at least 31 years. Certainly the taxi and private hire industry use grossly out-of-date legislation, and I know that the DFT is studying this subject closely, but I don't think that I agree that nothing can be done till the study is finished.

My Lords, are the points made by the department are that wheelchair accessible vehicles are expensive, and that is true because the market is so small. But to say that they cost £35,000 to £65,000 is frankly rubbish. My taxi parked in the front is only worth about £1,000,
21:36
None Portrait Amendment:268 Lord Borwick (Conservative)
-

and if the department is making me an offer of £35,000 for it, that an offer of £35,000 for it, that I'm perfectly happy to accept. Mr. Steve McNamara, the general Steve McNamara, the general secretary of the London Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, has written to me to say that the introduction of wheelchair introduction of wheelchair accessible taxis in London has been incredibly successful for the incredibly successful for the London taxi business. My Lords, the theme that disabled People can wait has been a theme of transport regulations for at least 31 years, and that is why I look forward to testing the opinion of this House.

I am disappointed that I have not had agreement from the DFT, because one thing that I believe is standard in the Labour Party is that they're all trying to do the right thing. We may disagree politically on the means, but we all agree on the ends. This is so clearly the right thing has been agreed by all parties in Parliament in several different acts, given Royal Assent. This. The study should continue, of course, and I look forward to hearing its outcomes, particularly if they properly consider the stresses that are inevitable from the advent of autonomous vehicles.

But as my schedule meetings with Lilian Greenwood MP was cancelled at the very last minute and has not been reinstated, I'm not sure what I should hope for. My Lords. The number of people who use wheelchairs is a figure that is hard to pin down. The trouble in this statistics is that a large number of disabilities have a variable progress, and so the number of people who use wheelchairs varies from day to day. It is thought to be about 11% of disabled people and appears to be growing as our population ages.

What is clear is that the largest number of people who can't walk are babies who can't in baby buggies. And as the turning circle of baby buggies is similar to that of wheelchairs, it's clear that the total number of people who use taxis in on wheels is quite high, about 5%. Why should that 5% and a similar number of carers be intentionally ignored by the Department for transport? My. My amendments are not creating new law. The law was passed in 1995 and passed again in 2010.

All we ado doing is making sure that the law is actually enforced. My Lords, if noble Lords vote against my amendment, I believe that they are voting for further delay. A longer delay than 31 years and 31 years is long enough. As I am leaving this House. Under the terms of the hereditary peers legislation, I want to believe that I want to leave this House believing that I have tried to do the right thing for disabled people. My Lords, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 65, page 66, line three. At end, insert
21:39
21:40
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
the Disability Discrimination Act back in the 90s. The promises that were made on accessible transport were made on accessible transport felt like they were a very, very long way away. To be honest, in my long way away. To be honest, in my 20s, I didn't think I was going to probably live that long. But the challenges that we face in accessible transport and the small gains that we made have been slow and quite hard fought. And when I and quite hard fought.

And when I look at the provision of taxis, there's very much a difference between what's available in a city and what is available outside and where. I live in the north east of England, it is almost impossible to get an accessible taxi. A friend of mine whose electric wheelchair user came to visit last year, and it took many hours over several days to even try and find a provision for her to be able to use. The challenge that we face are wider than just accessibility.

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

And what I think my Lord says, we have to think about how we can make travelling much easier for disabled people than it currently is, and how we join this up with other modes of transport. If I look at things like rail replacements, services, most of the buses are not accessible and disabled people have been stranded at railway stations because it's not been possible to get an accessible taxi. And as yet, we don't know the impact that changes in mobility are going to have on quite a significant number of disabled people.

And just for clarity, I am a recipient of Pip, but I don't have a Motability car. But I imagine there's changes that are coming and quite a significant decrease in the mileage allowance is actually going to make accessible transport and accessible taxis even more important for quite a large number of disabled people. My Lords, I think the the answer is, is not just in taxis. It's actually we have to take a really long, hard look at transport for disabled people.

So far, there is still a significant amount of discrimination. And in adding my name to these amendments, the number of scooter users did get in touch with me to raise issues that they have in terms of using accessible taxis, where they are available, quite often around school hours. They're used for accessible taxi trips to and from school. So even when they are available, there's quite large chunks of the day where disabled people are not able to access them. But I do look forward to the noble order.

The minister's response, because accessible taxis are a really important part of equal access for disabled people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So my speech in support of my friends amendments to six eight and 287, and in doing so, I should say 287, and in doing so, I should say that although I welcomed them, the fact that we are considering them fact that we are considering them this evening makes me sad because this evening makes me sad because they shouldn't be necessary. The fact that they are exposes how little progress is. One Baroness Thompson said has been made in the 31 years since she and I served on the National Disability Council, advising the then government on the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act.

The case of continued taxi in accessibility, which these amendments modestly seek to remedy, provides just one example of the lack of enforcement of the law and subsequent laws that
21:44
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
promised equality and, crucially, promised equality and, crucially, sustained attitudinal change. So it sustained attitudinal change. So it should surprise no one that the failure to enforce these laws is having the opposite effect to what having the opposite effect to what was intended by the Discipline Discrimination Act. Authors, instead of positive attitudinal change and greater inclusion, a lack of enforcement of the law, together with a license to vent vile prejudice that is sadly the hallmark of social media, have together spawned a culture of renewed discrimination and impunity.

Attitudinally, as we heard in the debate around the government amendments before to the Crime and Policing Act, which, incidentally, I supported. We are going backwards as far as disabled people are concerned. So I say to the Minister, and with gratitude to my friends that these amendments are actually symbolically far more significant than might first appear. My recent join the dots and see these modest amendments in the broader context of the need for all of us as policy makers to make a renewed commitment to equality of opportunity for disabled people, whether it's to access goods and services or to get to work, in this case, by taxi.

Indeed, I can't help thinking as a disabled person that only non disabled people would maintain so many barriers to disabled people entering and staying in the workforce, and then scratch their heads and wonder why the disability employment gap is still so large, accessible transport modes including accessible taxis, have to be part of that jigsaw. So I hope very much that the Minister will accept my hon. Friends amendments, but it doesn't. Could I ask him to say what message he thinks the government are sending millions of disabled people and their families less than a month before polling day? My other friend put it so well when he said that the theme of transport regulation, for at least the last 31 years has been, and I quote, disabled people can wait.

That is the message to voters, isn't it? In other words, they can well wait calmly because after all, they're disabled, so who cares? My Lords, I thanked my liberal friends for showing that he does passionately, and I thanked him for his loyal service to your Lordships House and to disabled people. No one to arrest him. No one compels him. He chose to use his position to do good, and a huge amount of good.

He has done. So in conclusion, my voice to any member who asks why these amendments deserve their support, I simply pose this question why should I, as a disabled member of your Lordships House, have to wait any longer for taxes to be made accessible just because I am disabled? My Lords, I am done with waiting. I look forward to joining my liberal friends and colleagues from across the house in the division lobby in support of his amendments.

Yeah yeah yeah.
21:49
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Barak's amendment. He has done as much to empower disabled people when it comes to transport as anybody, not just in Parliament, but anybody in this country. And continuing the theme of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, this is about waiting and the unacceptability of waiting, not waiting for legislation to pass, waiting on the curbside for accessible taxi which may never come. Waiting on the phone to be told there's no accessible cabs in your local area.

Imagine that being told to any other group in society, and that being accepted and acceptable, accepted and acceptable for 31 years. It's not even a matter of passing legislation. It's on the face of a bill. Now, after 31 years, I imagine the text is already rising off that vellum as we speak. How many more years disabled people have to wait on that curbside in their home, on the end of a telephone, to not get an accessible taxi? The government talk about growth as their overriding principle for government were quite right.

But if that is your overriding objective, policy across all departments has to be focused to that. If the government want more disabled people in work, well accessible taxis, if the government want greater health equality and greater health outcomes for disabled people, accessible taxis, and if they want disabled people, bright, diverse, talented disabled people to be able to be fully empowered to bring those talents to bear in their local communities, accessible taxis, there's nothing overreaching about these amendments from my noble friend.

They're modest and merely bringing about something which should have happened not years, but decades ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has the great good fortune to have the power of a Minister of the Crown. May I suggest that he uses that power to empower disabled people and accept these amendments? Because if not you, then who? If not now, for all those disabled people for 31 years, when. people for 31 years, when.
21:52
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to make a very, very brief contribution to this short debate and I pay tribute to my noble friend, Lord Barak for his tireless advocacy for improved mobility for those with a disability. And it's sad that we will no longer have that advocacy available at the end of this session. I want to just pick up three points that the Minister made when we debated this in committee, arising from his response, he first of all said that there wouldn't be enough time.

This is what he said. We will need to consult on them. That's the new standards. And there's a risk that setting a deadline could negatively impact our ability to undertake a meaningful consultation. My Lords, the deadline in the amendment is three years. The cabinet's guidance for a consultation period is actually 12 weeks there. Honestly, that is not a good excuse for resisting the amendment to plead the lack of time. Secondly, the amendment was criticised because it applied only to taxes and therefore it potentially excluded disabled people in those parts of the country where there was reliance on private vehicles.

And it seems to me that that's an argument for actually extending the provisions to private vehicles, rather than using it as an excuse to resist the amendment. And then we had an argument, which I simply didn't understand, the noble Lords amendment, I'm quoting from Hansard, would require every tax in England to comply with a single set of standards, taking no account of the variety of access needs that disabled people have. But the position in London is that we do have a standard for the whole of London.

We've had that for 30 years. I believe that it is the case that within London we have the same range of disability as exists elsewhere in the country. So I didn't follow that argument. And then the Minister said this approach will not only be exclusionary, but would risk infringing the government's legal, public sector sector equality duty to consider the impact on people with all protected characteristics. I don't believe that any case has been raised in London that the existing single standard for taxes is in breach of the Disability Act, so I didn't follow that at all.

And then finally, I appreciate the Minister wants to do the right thing, but his response was simply to rely on existing government best practice recommends that each licensing authority develops an inclusive plan. He went on to say, our encouraged. I encouraged them to act to ensure that there is sufficient accessible vehicles. And then he said, we will look again at other accessibility standards. But there was nothing in his speech that gave any certainty, any guarantee at all, that the position would change by a specific date.

So unless the Minister can move a little bit from what he said in committee, I again will be with my noble friend in the division lobby. If a division is called.
21:55
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I swore some months ago I'd never support another Tory amendment, but here I am. I'm supporting the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Borwick and I. He's got the green vote this evening, such as it is, and this is mainly to justify my still being here two hours past my bedtime. But I do regret that he's leaving, and I hope the Minister perhaps will see it as a gift to an hereditary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who will be much missed. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, we completely understand the thinking behind these amendments and the issues that Lord Borwick raises around minimum taxi requirements and the Equality Act, and sense his frustration. Those of other members frustration. Those of other members in this House at how long these changes are taking. But let us be changes are taking. But let us be very clear that taxes in this amendment refer to Hackney carriages more commonly. Certainly those of us in London, black cabs and these are less than 1 in 5 of the whole taxi and private hire network.

Now, in cities like London, I don't know, Birmingham, Manchester, they're already at 100% accessible. But as we've heard, the picture elsewhere is less uniform. And in many parts of the country, the network is completely provided by private hire vehicles. So this amendment, as we've heard, does not address the wider network which serves most of the country and areas outside of big cities, which is a real issue. Now, it is important that every region has the right balance of vehicles available to meet local needs and demands.

And of course, that will change over time. Now, we welcome plans to ensure each licensing area will bring forward an inclusive service plan for their area and also the new national standards, which we think are important. And hopefully, as we talked about earlier, new legislation covering taxis and private hire in the not too distant future too. And once we start
21:57
21:58
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Borwick for noble friend, Lord Borwick for moving for tabling his amendment in the. This amendment is taken up in preparation for this bill. Quite a lot of time and quite a lot of meetings with representatives of different bodies, including taxi drivers and and private hire vehicles. And the one that most struck me that I'm going to stay with was that stays with me. And the only one I'm going to refer to is one with with not young gentleman who clearly had a taxi background and, and had risen to have some responsibility in an organization.

And he was, he'd been in the business all his life. And I thought, he's going to be very dismissive of this. He won't be interested in seeing this sort of thing go through any disrupt the the trade and his what he said to me was, well, of course, we've got to do something about this. These people deserve a service. That's it. That's the case. They deserve a service. There's no need to make any further case. And in my view, there's no answer to that case.

They deserve a service. Now, it might be that the Labour Party wishes to say, no, they don't. It might be that they want to go into the division lobbies and say that disabled people don't deserve a service. And I notice I don't mean to make an overly personal point, but I noticed I was sitting on the front bench opposite and thinking, how many members of the Labour benches actually use wheelchairs, and I can't think of any. Maybe that has some effect on the way that the Labour Party thinks about it.

But if the Labour Party wants to go in and vote in the lobbies against giving a service to these people who deserve it, then I think that's a very sad case. Now we will support the noble Lords amendment. As a matter of principle. I'm fully aware that there might be improvements made to the drafting of it. There might even be changes made to the timelines in it. If government were to come back at an appropriate stage with some changes, then we'd be open to discussing them.

We're not tying ourselves to the detail of my noble friend's amendment, but I think we're absolutely there. We will say that disabled people deserve a service,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him. My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to noble Lords who paying tribute to noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, for his commitment and contribution to accessibility and contribution to accessibility for disabled people in taxis over many years. Without him, the iconic London taxi would not be accessible vehicle it is today and the lives of many would be significantly
22:01
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
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 it's time that they were. I can't account for previous governments behaviours. He is inclined in. In his speech to blame the Department. But in fact the Department is, of course, the government of the day. But we are here. And the question, of course, which has to be asked, is, why then can iron the government not support his amendments now? And my answer to that is because the circumstances have changed.

30 odd years ago, the the the industries which are now two industries very closely aligned, the taxi and private hire industries were in an entirely different place. Private hire vehicles were not licensed and illegal in many places. And 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 82% of the combined fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles across England. Over 300,000 vehicles are the latter, and in the modern age of apps and mobile phones and technology for many people and in many places, the two services are very nearly completely interchangeable.

Secondly, and a point raised by the noble Lord young, we do now know that disability is not only about people in wheelchairs, but people with many other characteristics too. And one size fits all for the for the accommodation of people with disabilities is not. Now, what this large market is is all about. Indeed, a wheelchair accessible vehicle for some is one that is not suitable for others. Across England, circumstances differ enormously and as 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, they confirmed that in many places in England, especially in rural areas, the taxi fleet is generally smaller, sometimes virtually absent, except especially in places that don't have a large town centre or transport hubs such as railway station, where a taxi rank would be generally placed and most journeys are by private hire vehicles.

This long term growth in the number of private hire vehicles is a trend we can't ignore. And in rural areas where the amendment would mandate an all wheelchair accessible taxi fleet, private hire vehicles hugely outnumber taxis and crucially, the Labour Lords amendment would not apply to those vehicles. Disabled passengers, including wheelchair users in those areas, would therefore not not benefit. As I said at the committee debate, the department's Independent Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee's view is that mixed fleets of wheelchair accessible vehicles are not 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've also previously said, the cost of mandating every taxi in England to be a wheelchair accessible vehicle would be extremely high. And the noble Lord is is right, of course, that new vehicle prices are not the same as second hand vehicle prices, though if his vehicle's only worth £1,000, it wouldn't be used much longer in the service of in the service of of of taxis in virtually any town or city in England, there would be a significant cost of some significant magnitude for thousands of self-employed drivers that 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 couldn't afford, or even leave the industry completely. And indeed, the trade has raised exactly those concerns in response, in response to the mandating of an all wheelchair accessible taxi fleet. To summarise, if accepted and implemented, this amendment will 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 this firstly, that we should use the powers to set national standards, which we referred to earlier this evening 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 would ensure that every driver and staff member has the knowledge, skills and confidence to support disabled passengers appropriately and whilst national standards will be subject to public consultation, we intend to use the regulations to drive greater accessibility for all.

I agree with the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson that the integration of taxis into wider public transport is very important. The government's Integrated Transport Strategy will be published shortly, and her particular example of the unavailability of of accessible taxis in urban areas or in any areas outside London at all, or particularly in school hours, is germane to what the real solution to this is, because my Department already recommends, in its best practice, guidance, that licensing authorities should assess the the demand for wheelchair accessible vehicles in their areas, and 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've been clear that the measures being taken through this bill are just the beginning of a more broader package of reforms for taxi and private hire vehicle regulation, which are which I think that noble Lords would generally agree with is thoroughly out of date. So my Department is carrying out engagement with stakeholders to look at the broader issues, including a consultation just closed on changing the licensing authorities to be the significantly lower number of local transport authorities and on accessibility for disabled passengers, and looking to build consensus about what the best mechanisms are to tackle them.

In conclusion, the noble Lords campaign to see the execution of what has been promised for a very long time through previous legislation is not in In Vain, and I understand perfectly well the symbolism of these amendments, as mentioned by the noble Lord Shinkwin and noble Lord Holmes. But what we need to do is to translate it into the reality of today's position across England, where over 4/5 of vehicles used in this way are not taxis, and the demands of everyone, including both ambulant, disabled and disabled people in wheelchairs, need to be met.

The government intends to do just that through the application of mandatory national standards on local transport authorities, as I've described, and thus I hope he will be able to consider his objective at last will be achieved and withdraw his amendments.
22:09
22:10
22:13
22:21
22:21
22:21
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 280 a B agreed to. As many as are of that
22:22
None Portrait English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill – report stage:Division:Amdt 280A
-

opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. >> Not content. >> I think the not contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the not contents have it. Content, content. The question will be decided by a division and I will inform the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a division and I will inform the House when voting is open. They were a bit noisy at that debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lords. The question is amendment 280 a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 280 a B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne and the not content to the left by the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is amendment The question is amendment 280 The question is amendment 280 a My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have voted. Contents 30, not contents 130. So the not contents. The question is that amendment 280 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

The amendment. The amendments 281 281 to 286, moved formally. The question is amendments 281 to 286 be agreed to unblock? As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 287 Lord Borwick not moved. Amendment 287. A Lord Moylan not moved in clause 70 amendments 288 to 304 moved formally. The question is amendments 288 to 304 B agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. After clause 73, amendment 306. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. Not moved. Sorry I've missed. I've missed a page out. I've missed page at right. I did 304 didn't I? Moved formally, yes. After clause 72, amendment 305. Baroness Taylor of
22:33
None Portrait Amendment:g305 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord foster, for raising the very important issue of raising the very important issue of tackling gambling harms on our high streets. We have reflected 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 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 risks 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 predominantly apply 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 licence in a specific area if the licensing authority believes there is evidence to show this would not likely 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 it will not grant any new premises licence 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 create healthy and vibrant high streets that reflect local need.

I want to repeat my thanks to the noble Lord foster for speaking at such in such great detail and with such great knowledge on this. And to all my colleagues in local authorities who I know will be very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pleased to hear that this is being done, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
22:36
22:36
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Minister, for her very kind words just now, as she said, the issue of giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high street is one that I have pursued for very many years. For instance, 22 years ago I was looking back at the record earlier today, 22 years ago, in the other place, when opposing what became the 2005 Gambling Act, I said the need, and I quote, there was a need to provide strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications and the need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises still remains.

Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime, increased gambling harm causing great harm to the individuals, to their families and the communities in which they live. Only a couple of weeks ago, my Lords in the observer newspaper, they reported about the closure of the very last bank in that 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's going to operate for 24 hours a day. Now, my Lords, many members of the local community were violently opposed to this. And not surprisingly, the council themselves were opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of that former bank into an adult gaming centre was rejected. Nevertheless, Admiral who were making the proposal took their application to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and as a result of that, the rejection by the council, despite all of the opposition, was overturned.

Indeed, in that newspaper article by the observer, it pointed out that since in the years 2021 to 2025, there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by their local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. So, my Lords, there is still an urgent need to do something about it. Now. One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a clause in the Gambling Act 2005, that says councils must have an aim to permit gambling premises to open, an aim to permit.

Now, my Lords, the best way, therefore, of dealing with the problem would be to delete the aim to permit clause from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous government nor the present government were willing to do that. So I propose an alternative which was 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. Now, clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was a very effective way used in the way the noble Lady the Minister has described.

So I was absolutely delighted that the government said that they would use that approach. The cumulative impact assessment procedure, to do it. Now, the Minister knows that I have some slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have we've had a discussion about it, but she assured me that she is confident that. And I quote from her letter to me, the amendments, as drafted, will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm.

Now, my Lords, I hope she's right. I'm increasingly confident that she is. And on the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.
22:41
22:42
22:43
22:43
22:45
22:45
22:56
22:56
None Portrait Amendment:311 Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-

biodiversity loss and the related actions required and costs of addressing these. So put simply, the amendment would require the new strategic authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute towards the UK's legally binding targets that sit under the Climate Change and Environment Acts when exercising their functions. Now, this isn't just something we've been talking about in the House of Lords or the other place. There's lots of people outside of this place who want to see this as well. Over 500 local councillors, including 20 council leaders and a quarter of the climate Cabinet members, support a letter that went to the government about this.

And while some authorities do have high levels of ambition, they all say that delivery, stymied by the lack of a duty. Their words, not mine. On the flip side, not authorities, have not all authorities have high ambitions to deliver. And we can't create a postcode lottery. Climate change doesn't care what individuals in certain councils personal views are, even if they want us to believe so, the government must ensure contribution to delivery is across the board and as we raised with the noble Lady, the Minister, in a meeting with her before Easter recess, some authorities have expressed that they do not intend to undertake work towards the targets.

It will not happen without a duty. It's also worth noting that the LGA have been working on this and undertook a consultation about the implementation of a duty like this, and found that responses have revealed a clear consensus support which the LGA has adopted as its headline position, that local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding and robust support to lead on climate action. So it's really very disappointing and frankly disheartening that despite a wide base of support for this idea from local authorities, the government has essentially dismissed this entirely and neither responded to my letter of last month or address the points raised in the meeting I had with colleagues across from parties we had with the noble Lady, the Minister before Easter.

There aren't good reasons not to do this. When it comes down to it, London in essence already has a duty, and I've not heard any complaints that this is an issue in London. Indeed, this is likely why the capital is in leaps, is leaps and bounds ahead of other parts of the country when it comes to tackling these twin threats. And we ought to be really clear. My Lords, we're talking about duties which are legally binding on the government to deliver.

So I believe it's perfectly right. And so to my colleagues and acceptable that we give that duty to other tiers of government in this country. So I urge the noble Lady of the Minister and the government more widely to get on board with this, and I hope the Minister can respond on why they're opposed to this statutory duty. How do they think they're going to reach these binding targets without one? And if they're waiting for a final report from the LGA, why are they not using this piece of legislation to allow an enabling clause so that this can be
23:00
23:01
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
which potentially would compromise other of their statutory services. other of their statutory services. We believe that progress in this area is best achieved through clear national frameworks, through 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 recognize the intent behind the amendment, we are not able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it. My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown for amendment 311 and for the use of engagement I've had with with Baroness Willis, with Baroness Baroness Willis, with Baroness Bakewell, Baroness Bennett and Lord deben on this issue to date. And I deben on this issue to date. And I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for got held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and I hope she'll get it shortly.

My Lords, I've consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty will bring on net zero. The government offers support for local government through, 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 up by £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1000 local and community energy projects.

Great British energy support also includes the £10 million Renewables Fund, and we are investing a landmark 13.2 billion in the Warm Homes plan up to 2030, including 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. My Lords 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 works closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. And in October, the government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. My Lord, 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, and introducing an additional overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord said, and reduce local flexibility.

Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. And with those reassurances, I hope the noble amendments.
23:04
23:05
23:05
None Portrait Amendment:g312 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-

312. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. >> My Lords, in this group I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in this group I will address several government amendments to parts four, five and six of the bill, starting with Government Amendment 312, which 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. I know to the local audit system. I know 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 the 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 again, 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 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 3912324 are essential amendments to expand the scope of schedule seven A and seven B in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, to ensure that tenancy renewal arrangements entered into on or after the 17th of 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 bans effect and encourage gaming of the system, which we want to prevent. Government 325A is an essential technical amendment to ensure those 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, and this would bring them into alignment with the position described in the bills Delegated Powers Memorandum and Government Amendment 327 will allow for regulation or order making powers within the bill.

Provisions concerning Local Scrutiny Committee 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. This amendment achieves this by preventing these powers from commencing upon Royal Assent. My Lords, I beg to move government amendments 3123193, 2321, three, 22, three, 23, 24, three, 25 A and 327. I move my amendments.
23:09
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment Proposed schedule 33, page 350, line 21 and insert the page 350, line 21 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment A318C in my name on the Order Paper, but as possibly my final contribution to 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, and I do not say that lightly. I have had so many helpful tips and hints from members across all sides of the House who have helped me stumble through the protocols, and I include my thanks to the doorkeepers and other officers of this place in my remarks.

I'm disappointed it should end with expulsion, not choice, but I have form. Well, my family does. I follow the tradition in that the first furlough in this place in the late 18th century was also expelled, and he sat on the woolsack at the time I got off lightly. I must turn my attention to the bill, and I thank the Minister for my meeting with the team last week and explain my conflicts in as much as I'm a former chartered surveyor and I still currently have some practice in commercial property markets, my concern.

Relate. My comments relate to part five of the bill and this has been touched on already by the noble Baroness, the Minister banning upwards only rent reviews. This is a revision of the landlord and Tenant Acts. It has no place in this unrelated bill really. It shows all the signs of an afterthought slipped in late in the day. There was a lack of consultation. The. The library briefing in the other place was not described it as a surprise, not trialled and not a manifesto item.

Now before us, with still no proper consultation, we are. It is being inserted into the bill. There was an impact study, but it was deeply flawed. I read it, it was very one sided, not a single reference to the loss of capital value to landlords in this bill, in this clause, but it is one of two valuation is one of rental value, is one of two principal elements of the valuation process for commercial property. Did the government forget to consider it? Did the government not understand how these values are arrived at? They should have consulted.

The clause is designed to help SMEs, small and medium sized businesses, enterprises and I agree 100% with that sentiment. And with that sentiment applied to banning upwards only rent reviews. But the bill treats SMEs in small properties as though they are the equivalent to office blocks and Canary Wharf or the City of London data centres worth hundreds of millions 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 clauses should focus exclusively on them, not big business. There are good reasons for excluding large commercial properties. Large office blocks these days retail at over £1 billion each in these in these centres and the buyers are sovereign wealth funds and big international investors, removing upward only rent reviews rocks the stability of our landlord and tenant system reduces the attraction of the UK versus competing centres abroad. And that, of course, impacts growth.

The IPF at the end of 22 estimated the total value of the inventory of commercial property here is £900 billion. The stock market is 138 billion by the LSE in 24. I mentioned this to underscore the importance of the sector to the wider economy. If government really wants growth, this clause is a clear act of self-harm, destabilizing the valuation base of the UK commercial property market is going to reduce inward investment. This clause adds risk.

A brief reference, if I may, to commercial property valuation. Adding risk by removing these upwards only reviews will impact valuations. Commercial property income will become more volatile. Higher returns will be expected by investors. Values will fall. And what about development? Development is funded by debt. Much large scale development is speculative. Banks provide the finance and rely on valuations. Those valuations will fall absent upwards. Only rent reviews loan to value margins will have a shortfall in the building cost to be financed through more expensive means the continuing development of best in class commercial properties will slow.

This is a brake on growth. Sadly, the loss of value resulting from this clause may lead to insolvencies and repossessions in the development sector. In commercial property. Has HMG thought of this? It's a terrible own goal. I have not mentioned pension funds to invest up to 10% of their funds in the commercial property sector. In future, valuers will have no choice but to reflect the new risks and uncertainties in their valuations. The loss will flow through to all shareholders in the quoted real estate sector as well as the adjustment is embedded.

Absent consultation. I wonder how the government will explain this value destruction to pensioners and shareholders, small retail businesses. The stated target for this clause are unlikely to be helped at all. Upwards only rent reviews usually occur at five year intervals in a 15, 20 or 25 year lease. Small shops frequently only have a 3 or 5 year lease. This is. This clause becomes irrelevant in those circumstances. For those small businesses who were trying to protect and help, any consultation would have revealed this fact.

So to conclude, my Lords, all I ask is that this clause applies exclusively to SMEs, the sector we are so keen to support. I beg leave to move.
23:16
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Good morning my Lords, and indeed it is good morning. I speak in support of amendment 318C that has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I should start by declaring that I do have a son who works for a commercial property company. The noble Lord Thurlow made a series of powerful points about the effects of this amendment, and I agree with him that a one size fits all approach to rent review clauses is not appropriate, given the very wide range of properties rented by businesses from perhaps a single office or lock up garage rented by an SME to thousands of square feet of custom designed and built warehousing rented by a global corporate.

The government's intention to assist SMEs by preventing upwards only rent reviews is consistent with protecting tenants from exploitative landlords, and I have, and I'm sure most landlords, most noble Lords have the same view that we have no difficulty at all with that. However, my Lords, negotiations between large corporates and commercial property companies are conducted between well advised and experienced professionals. Such tenants are large, powerful and of high value, and commercial property companies make great efforts to attract them and agree terms across a variety of issues, of which rent reviews are but one.

These often complex negotiations between large organisations are conducted by staff with. I suggest a good deal more detailed training, knowledge and experience of their subject than with the greatest of respect. Most parliamentarians. Neither party needs any help or interference from Parliament. As to the specifics of rent review terms they negotiate to include or exclude as part of their discussions. My Lords, this all seems very far away from government business, much less any manifesto commitment and more like a hastily considered afterthought to the act for the residential sector.

That was before this House some months ago. As Lord Thurlow has set out for large businesses, it will introduce instability, destroy value, damage the confidence of lenders, shareholders and investment and investors alike and harm the much mentioned growth agenda. Which brings me back, my Lords, to where I started dealing with the difference between SMEs and a large business, and how we determine the cut off point between them. I therefore suggest and ask the noble Lady, the Minister, whether she will consider revising this aspect of the Bill so that a prospective tenant who is a publicly listed company, a PLC, my Lords, will have the ability to opt out and retain it as a negotiating point, rather than have this aspect of the negotiations predetermined by government.

These are not SMEs browbeaten by a grasping landlord, but large and powerful entities quite capable of navigating the give and take in negotiating leases that meet their needs. I look forward to the noble Lady, the minister's response to this suggestion as a practical way to improve this amendment and mitigate the concerns raised by the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords earlier. I will be brief, but I do speak in support of the amendment. In the in support of the amendment. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in his valedictory amendment, and also associate amendment, and also associate myself with the comments from Lord Cromwell in what may be one of his Cromwell in what may be one of his valedictory comments in this House. It's going to be a shame to lose It's going to be a shame to lose all their surveying expertise and include I.

Including that coupled with the name of the Earl of Lytton,
23:20
23:20
23:20
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
social infrastructure. Now clause 85 and the related schedule 34 provides for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it's Landlord and Tenant Act, but it's going to have so many unintended consequences consequences that will kill new investment in all manner kill new investment in all manner of privately funded capital projects. I note the provision wasn't 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.

And I support 318C and its intention to protect small and medium enterprises. But there's 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. About the City of London, 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.

In other jurisdictions, and the large scale tenants, small and medium enterprises set to one side for the moment, the large scale tenants of these buildings are grown up, grown up adults, so to speak. I'm not sure that Amazon needs additional protections from the law when contracting for a distribution warehouse. It's for the market and the law of contract to determine that precise equilibrium between those who take the risk putting up the building and those who take the risk of occupying it.

It's certainly not for government in a market economy to insist on a one size fits all approach. But this isn't just going to chill future building, but the existing carrying of the carrying value of those property assets, which are owned by pension funds whose rents support our senior citizens in retirement. So once again, it's the poorest in society who will be adversely affected by this misguided and misdirected sixth form debating society approach to our economy. I'm grateful to the former Ernst and Young Item Club chief economist Martin Beck, who tells me that a blanket ban, a 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 to provide work for ground workers, brickies, roofers, painters, decorators and our pensioners. Schedule 34 represents yet another act of self-inflicted harm to our economy, our way of life, reducing our international investor confidence in the stability of the UK plc and our rule of contract and well established property rights. Chasing away inward investment by a government that says it's keen on growth but acts in every respect to damage it.
23:24
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical and consequential in nature, relating to part four, five and six of the Bill, and we don't intend to challenge them in any way. I'm very pleased that I've had this opportunity to say thank you to Lord Cromwell. I mean, Lord furlough and possibly Lord Cromwell as well, although he hasn't actually said that. But Lord Thurlow has. I, when I was Minister on the other side, they were both supportive of at times, but very challenging at other times.

And I think we had quite a lot of fun doing bills like the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. Now the act, but I, I, I sincerely thank them both. I'm going to talk to both of you honestly, both for for the knowledge of the industry that you brought to the House. It's, it's been it's been excellent and it's helped me a great deal to understand it much better. And were you going to be really missed? So thank you both very, very much for everything you've done to help me.

Well in government, but also in in opposition as well. You've helped a bit there. Thank you. Lord Thurlow. Amendment supported by Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller, I think raises important questions of the scope of provisions relating to upward only rent reviews and their application, particularly to SMEs. And all I can say at this time of night is I'm really looking forward to the minister's response on this one, because I think it has some questions to be answered.
23:26
23:28
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, can I also add my thanks to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the noble Lord Thurlow and the noble Lord Cromwell for their service to this House. In my relatively short time House. In my relatively short time as a Minister, their expertise on all three of the bills that I brought before the House and when I brought before the House and when I was a shadow Minister on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, have been absolutely invaluable, and their engagement has always been constructive and thoughtful, if sometimes a bit more challenging than a Minister would hope for.

But that's a good thing. I'm not criticising that, and I have truly valued the expertise which you bring to this House, particularly the knowledge of commercial property markets. I think it's been incredibly helpful to all of us and we will miss you. It's true that tenants from larger businesses, which do not meet the definition of a small or medium enterprise or SME, 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 does suggest that economic costs will be outweighed by the wider benefits, including to business competitiveness and market dynamism, and there's clear evidence around having a more level playing field with international investments.

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

And let's not forget upwards only clauses have been long standing concern for many businesses across various sectors. In the other place, the British Independent Retailers Association, UK hospitality and others made clear how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for government to take action ahead of introducing the legislation. We also engage with a wide range of landlord and tenant representatives to ensure the ban is implemented in the most appropriate and considered way. We've always recognised the importance of striking a balance between the objectives of the ban and the legitimate benefits of de-risking mechanisms, particularly for longer term developments such as data centres that require some level of surety for investors.

That's why a variety of other options to de-risk investments in commercial property will remain available following the ban, including stepped rents and inflation indexed rents. We have also committed to consult on how we can use secondary legislation to best set parameters for the use of rent caps and collars. I hope this reassures the noble Lord. We have given proper consideration to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy and his concerns, and I would ask that he withdraws his amendment. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 312 be agreed to. As many of that will say, content. The country is will say, content. The country is not content. The contents have it. Amendment 313 move formally. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that amendment 313 be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content. The country's not say, content. The country's not content. The contents have it amendments 314315316. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage moved formally en bloc.

The question is that three one 4 to 3 one six be agreed to en bloc. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 317. Baroness Berridge my.
23:32
None Portrait Amendment:317 Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-

Lords, I rise to speak briefly >> Lords, I rise to speak briefly and to move amendment 317, which seeks to amend the 1990.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeks to amend the 1990. Leave. My colleague. Should be asked if he wishes to withdraw his asked if he wishes to withdraw his amendment. My mistake. Forgive me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seeks to amend the 1997 Lieutenancy Act to ensure the continuation of Rutland as a ceremonial county with its own Lord Lieutenant, I'm grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister for her email today relating to this matter email today relating to this matter and for acknowledging I, and I quote, the unique circumstances. quote, the unique circumstances. Given that Rutland's ceremonial status derives from its re-establishment in 1997 as both a district and a county for its area, the local government reorganisation criteria automatically require Rutland to lose its county council status.

It's perhaps not surprising, as it has at the last census, a population of around 41,000. So yet again Rutland will disappear as a local government entity and due to these unique circumstances, the Lord lieutenancy will also disappear. The dissolution of Rutland County Council also ends the Lord Lieutenancy of Rutland. This is the second time, my Lords, in my lifetime that I've been involved in a campaign regarding Rutland status. Back in the 1990s, it meant merely obtaining a Rutland passport.

Yes, my Lords, there was even talk of Rutland becoming like the Vatican and Rutland. Rutland were delighted in sending a photograph from far flung places to the local newspaper showing off their Rutland passports, for example, outside the Sydney Opera House, as well as, of course, getting stamps from local shops, which was actually its real purpose. I say this, my Lords, as this exhibits the level of local feeling that still exists and led my Lords to the largest wet signature petition in the 21st century of 7100 signatures being presented to Mr.

Speaker in the other place by Alicia Kearns, the MP for Rutland and Stamford. Now I am grateful for the reassurance from the noble Lady, the Minister, that there are existing legislative legislative powers which I believe she means to be section 15 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which would be utilised to ensure the continuation of the ceremonial status. However, reading the powers of the Secretary of State under section seven and section ten, which would be used to issue a dissolution order for Rutland County Council under this bill, can the noble Lady, the Minister, guarantee to the people of Rutland that there will be no gap between such a dissolution of Rutland as a local government entity and the recreation of Rutland as a Lord lieutenancy under section 15.

From my reading of this bill and that statute. Within this Bill, it is eminently possible that we will end up with two sets of Statutory Instruments, one dealing with dissolution orders and then a later one under section 15, dealing with the incidental, incidental provisions like recreating Rutland. There could then be a gap between these two sets, where there will be no Lord-Lieutenant for Rutland. My Lords, if there is such a gap, and therefore, for that time no, Lord Lieutenant, because of Rutland and the government submitted unique circumstances, who would perform the functions of the Lord Lieutenant? What if in the gap there was a potential royal visit to Rutland, or.

The gap covers a time where this consultation for honours like OBEs or the gap is when they might be. Recommendations for Royal party garden ticket, Royal garden party tickets or the personal delivery function of 100th birthday cards from the King. Surely it is much better for His Majesty's Government to play it safe and accept this amendment, which guarantees there would be no gap. The amendment merely adds Rutland to the list of Lord lieutenants in the 1997 act. And so whatever happens to Rutland County Council will have no effect on the Lord lieutenancy, because it will be secured by this amendment.

The amendment is simpler, cheaper, quicker solution. My Lords, Rutland's motto is much. In little. There is much concern for the county ceremonial status, and sadly, if there is a gap in the Lord lieutenancy, as I have outlined, rather than the guarantee in amendment 317, I do fear, my Lords, that many, possibly thousands of. Rutland, who, as I say, would go to the lengths of issuing passports. They might take it upon themselves to write to the King to check that they are not missing out on those Lord lieutenancy functions.

So I do hope, my Lords, even at this late hour and late in this bill, His Majesty's Government might bring a Third Reading and acceptance of this amendment, and give the people of Rutland the guarantee of their Lord lieutenancy.
23:38
23:39
23:41
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her amendment. And 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 in Rutland, and I acknowledge Rutland's unique circumstances, given that its ceremonial status does derive from its 1997 utilisation, rather than direct reference. In the Lieutenancies act of 1997. There is, however, no need for this clause, 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 with regard to preserving ceremonial status through the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation programme. This clause is also not the solution and I'm 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.

My Lords, I can reassure you that these provisions have previously been used successfully where there is 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 than their ceremonial position would be secured through secondary legislation? And can I just reassure, further, reassure the noble Lady that government intends the continuity of ceremonial arrangements and will ensure Rutland will retain 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.
23:43
23:43
23:44
None Portrait Amendment:318B Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-

Minister, Baroness Smith of Maldon, reminded the House that she was a member of the government that accepted the recommendation for such scrutiny to be the norm, and reiterated the government's commitment to it. She noted her role in promoting the case for such scrutiny to parliaments elsewhere. Not only is there a government commitment to post negative scrutiny, but some departments have gone above and beyond by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of the bill. During passage of the Football Governance Bill, the Minister, Baroness Twycross, took the initiative in bringing forward a detailed amendment to provide for review of the act within five years of its enactment on the tobacco and vape bill.

The Minister, Baroness Merron, introduced an amendment providing for review within 3 to 7 years. The Minister said that she had listened carefully to the concerns of noble Lords and her amendment. She said, and I quote, will ensure that this government and I emphasise this any any future administrations are held to account for conducting an evidence based review of the act. Our intent is to make the report within five years, in line with our existing obligations. Both departments, DCMs and health are to be commended for their commitment and for their willingness to engage on the issue.

They recognise the value of Post-legislative review. In committee on this bill. The Minister took the view that because clause 19 provides for annual reports, this renders a review unnecessary. This is to confuse description with analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield said earlier on report in discussing an amendment moved by my noble friend, Baroness Scott of Bybrook, the report constitute updates. The clause makes no provision for independent analysis of the events being recorded.

I've previously argued the case for putting a requirement for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of the Bill, where it is large, complex, make significant changes to the law, is contested and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This bill is a prime candidate for putting such a review on its face. As I argued in committee, it is the government's own interest to accept. It sends reassurance to all those bodies affected by the Bill that it will be reviewed, and that they will have an opportunity to comment on its effect.

Given that the amendment I tabled now extends to include expressly all those bodies listed in part one. My Lords Post-legislative review is core to ensuring that law is good law and that any deficiencies can be identified and addressed. I trust that even at this late stage and indeed late hour, the Minister, having had the opportunity to reflect, will recognise the merit not only of reiterating the government's commitment to Post-legislative scrutiny through words, but also by deed, by putting provision for such scrutiny on the face of the Bill, the government have nothing to lose by doing so, but have a great deal to gain.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 85 insert the following new clause
23:48
None Portrait
-

85 insert the following new clause with the words as printed on the master list. >> One of the advantages. >> Of having volunteered to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of having volunteered to. Stay beyond the whip issued to these benches tonight, and it's 10 these benches tonight, and it's 10 to 1 in the morning, is. It gives me the opportunity briefly to comment on the amendment. Moved comment on the amendment. Moved 318B by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I think there is great merit in the idea that Post-legislative review should be conducted. It's not a principle that applies solely to the Bill under consideration tonight, but I think more generally, and if I can draw this brief comparison, I have no intention of speaking for more than 60s from now.

But we encourage the committees of this House to look at issues that they have previously dealt with, with a view to following up to see what has happened. I myself have been a member of a committee that looked at a particular issue that it had considered five years previously, and, incidentally, came to the conclusion that things were no better. But I do think that in principle, the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, has some merit. And I don't know what my noble friend the Minister will say in response, but I take the opportunity.

Having spent the entire day here up till now, in great part listening to the debates on this bill, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to invite my noble friend, the Minister, to say that whether or not the government accepts the amendment, that I hope the principles behind it will be taken very seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this is an important contribution, actually, I so I want contribution, actually, I so I want to thank the noble Lord Norton of Louth for proposing it. I. And I'm Louth for proposing it. I. And I'm in support of it, but I think the government will want to do things more quickly than perhaps five more quickly than perhaps five years. In other words, what I think is being proposed is a review of is being proposed is a review of the impact of the whole bill over a five year period, which means
23:50
23:50
23:52
23:53
23:54
Lord Thurlow Portrait Lord Thurlow (Crossbench)
-
-
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by Louis withdrawn. Amendment 318C Lord Thurlow. >> I'd like to thank noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank noble Lords for their contributions to 318C and particularly for the kind and particularly for the kind and generous comments from across the House to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell and myself. That was very kind. I regret to say that the surveying and and property expertise is becoming depleted by the forthcoming cull, and would certainly like to remind the noble Baroness, the Minister, that it's not too late to do something about it. Turning to 318, I do seriously urge the Minister to reflect on leaving clause five unchanged.

I think it will cause a great deal of self-harm and frighten off inward investment and be bad for growth. There would be wisdom in seeking recommendations from the property profession as to how better to to exercise this objective of upwards only rent reviews. But meanwhile I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave of the House to withdraw my amendment. Does it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 319 moved formally Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that of Stevenage. The question is that amendment 319 be agreed to. As many of the opinion will say, content of the opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. 322 325A Baroness Taylor, Stevenage moved formally en bloc. The question is that amendment 3202325A be agreed to en bloc.

As many of that opinion say content, so the content is not content. The contents have it. Amendment 326. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering not moved amendment 327. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage moved formally. The question is that amendment 327 be agreed to. As many of our people say, content, the country is not content. The contents have it. Amendment 328 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage move formally. The question is that amendment 328 be agreed to as many of that opinion content. The country is not content.

The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
00:02
None Portrait Tributes: The Clerk Of The Parliaments
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page