Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the case for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. Unavoidably, it sounded like something out of the 1970s, rather than something fit for the 21st century.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, although my perspective is very different from his. One of my regrets about his amendment is that it is only a regret amendment, for there is clear evidence that there is strong local opposition to the creation of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—and there is very good reason for that. It might be said to be the last thing the city, its residents and its environment need or want. You would think it is also the last thing the Government should need or want, given that we have a new Prime Minister acknowledging that far too much focus has been put on, and resources sunk into, the development of a small area of the country, while the north, the Midlands, the south-west of England, many parts of Wales, and far too many coastal communities and market towns have been ignored and stripped of resources by austerity.

I return to Cambridge. The corporation model is designed to accelerate growth far beyond what local infrastructure, water supplies and fragile ecosystems can sustain, while stripping democratic control from Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents. Developers, not communities, stand to benefit: the corporation risks becoming a vehicle for speculative development, with profits privatised and costs—from water shortages to traffic congestion—pushed on to residents.

The structure of the corporation is profoundly undemocratic, taking away from local councils control over planning decisions, thereby undermining the power of representatives whom local people voted for. The consultation showed majority resident opposition. The local Green group has told me that it is apparent from the debates that have taken place in the newly elected Cambridge City Council—no party now has overall control, but there is a ruling Labour group, the Greens are the second-largest party and the Lib Dems are close behind—that none of the parties supports the corporation.

More, the corporation plan is severely underfunded. What it is due to receive will do nothing to address the existing shortfall in infrastructure. It focuses on all the wrong outcomes, including growing the bioscience and IT sectors. Before any more commercial development happens, what needs to be addressed in particular are the chronic water shortages, the transport bottlenecks, the acute social housing shortfall—which new, high-priced housing estates will not resolve—the insufficient electricity supply, the limited sewage capacity, the lack of sufficient hospital places and the overstretched schools.

The inadequacy of the infrastructure there has been demonstrated by the conditions in Addenbrooke’s Hospital during the recent heatwave. Media reports indicated that four staff members went home ill and two more collapsed at work—and that is the staff. There is a clear need for significant investment there, as well as in the more than 60 schools that either closed early or indicated that pupils could leave because they were too hot. We need to fix the existing infrastructure before we think about going further.

Water stress is, of course, the biggest issue. No one has provided a substantive answer as to where the water will come from for future significant development proposed under the corporation—Lincolnshire or Wales, maybe. Both of those places in this heavily water-stressed land might well have something to say about that. The Environment Agency, as is well known, has opposed local planning applications already, such as the west Cambridge site, due to the lack of water supplies. The trees in the area—this is filling the local media at the moment—are dying because there is not enough water for them. That has been absolutely dominating the local press in the last few days.

I note that recently, the Labour group on the Cambridge City Council amended—downgraded—the Green group’s motion on the rights of the River Cam. Even though it was downgraded, the Labour motion still said:

“We regard the river as an integral part of the life of our city. Threats to our rivers are a threat to us all”.


I hope that the new Government are listening to their local representatives.

This development corporation is an idea that comes from the 20th century—a failed model that has caused the climate and nature emergencies, the terrible state of public health and the rampant inequality of the UK of 2026. It is ironic that this is happening while we have a new Prime Minister who says that he wants to give a greater say to communities. This corporation takes away that say. To quote local Green councillors, this is a “power grab”, not a plan. I realise that the Minister may not be able to provide a fresh perspective today, but I hope that a fresh approach does appear in the new Government over the summer.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful that we will debate that issue tomorrow, because at one point this afternoon I thought we might not. I am very pleased that we will debate the Cambridgeshire development corporation tomorrow.

In relation to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, local government reorganisation is a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for national economic growth, which I know the noble Lord will understand from very close quarters, it is very important that we take the time required to get this right. The Secretary of State has indicated that we will aim to reach a decision on which option to implement by October at the latest. We are still committed to the existing timetable, but we wanted to take account of some of the growth issues that are still emerging as we go through the next phase of this decision-making.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the NALC. The Green Party shares many of the concerns expressed from the Front Benches, and indeed the Back Benches, all around your Lordships’ House on the question of process and the imposition from Westminster of arrangements on local areas.

My question follows on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about parish and town councils. The Minister said in responding that there would be support, because these are obviously going to be the remaining local representatives who people can go to with very local issues. The Minister said that this would be strengthened. But, of course, many areas of the country do not have parish and town councils. Very often, they are newer-developed and generally poorer areas. Are the Government seriously looking at expanding the coverage of parish and town councils, so that people will have a local representative that they can go to, rather than a far-distant unitary councillor?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First of all, I do not think that they will be far-distant unitary councillors. In my experience, councillors have a great connection with their local area and they will continue to do so. I will answer the noble Baroness’s question in two ways. There is still a process where people can apply to have a parish or town council for their area. That process remains in place. If people wish to set up a town or parish council, they can do so. The other thing that is coming through very shortly from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act is the neighbourhood governance process. The details of that will be set before the House very shortly, so we can debate that as well.

Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this excellent Bill, enabling us to have a crucial discussion about transparency. We have a huge problem with public trust in government. Just 27% of the population trust the national Government. There is very good evidence that transparency is one of the key drivers of trust. Others have already referred to Transparency International research showing that the current lobbying register covers, at most, 4% of those engaged in lobbying activity. I do not think that, if you went out on the street and surveyed 100 people, many people would know that figure, but there is a strong and rightful sense that a lot of murky things happen here in Westminster, and that damages trust.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said when introducing the Bill, a lot of lobbying is positive and we need to keep that sense when it is lobbying in the public interest: by NGOs and campaign groups, patient or consumer groups, or communities affected by proposed developments. However, most lobbying is not in the public interest but for private interests, such as that by big oil and gas, big tobacco—and boy did we see some shameless examples of big tobacco lobbying in the recent Tobacco and Vapes Bill—big supermarkets, big developers and big finance, including, of course, the City of London Corporation, whose special access I am addressing in other areas.

It is worth saying that it is up to the Government to decide who to meet, who to hear and who to listen to. Successive Governments have very much balanced access in favour of these big interests, not in favour of those lobbying for public interests. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter said, the current way the register is arranged means a lack of transparency for big lobbying and creates extra work and barriers for those lobbying in the public interest. It might seem to be a deliberate weakness in the law, and I commend the noble Baroness for seeking to fill it.

It is worth noting that we rely very heavily on journalists to dig and burrow to find out links. They make an expensive investment in finding out what is going on in companies that are trying to get windfall profits while the public good is ignored. It is worth noting, as a number of noble Lords have said, that we are effectively relying on stronger laws in other jurisdictions—we have to note the much stronger laws in Scotland and the EU—to occasionally draw back the veil. I note the publication this week on the substack Democracy for Sale of an article by Adam Bychawski and Peter Geoghegan that is an interesting case study of that. I do not know whether this Bill would solve that problem, but it is concerning. Andy Burnham’s incoming chief of staff, James Purnell, was until very recently the chief executive of Flint Global. Flint has said that its British client list is confidential and has declared just two clients in the UK in five years. But, on the EU lobbying register, it emerges that Flint works for Uber, Amazon and Diageo. You might say that they are very clearly big interests.

That is one interesting case study but we have heard some horrific case studies, and reference has been made to those. We have to think of Greensill, Westferry and the Covid-19 VIP lane. I declare, in the interests of transparency, that the rest of what I am going to say has been informed by lobbying from Spotlight on Corruption, Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK, and it is they who stress those examples of the transparency gap that the Bill could partially fill. I understand that the noble Baroness kept the Bill narrow and focused—in my upcoming Bill, I have gone very much in the other direction of having a very broad Private Member’s Bill—but it is important to raise some of the gaps, which I hope the Government will say they intend to act on, and other issues that this Bill does not cover that we need to see action on.

The VAT registration requirements represent a problematic loophole, and other similar registers of consultant lobbyists do not present these exemptions. There is a real problem with timeliness, and it has not got better. Knowing what has happened before a Government make a decision is important, but, too often, we find out only months after the fact. That is something the Government themselves should be promising to solve.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and a number of other noble Lords, said that we get descriptions of meetings from Governments that do not really tell us anything meaningful about what was discussed or what the subject of the meeting was. We have registrations of lobbyists saying they are working for a particular company, but how do all these pieces match up? That has to be solved, so that the public can see who indeed has Ministers’ ears. We should know what the purpose of the meeting was. If it was a meeting to discuss “trade issues”, what does that mean precisely? Are you meeting to discuss Australian beef imports or sanitary and phytosanitary standards? Knowing those details is crucial to understanding what is going on.

I again commend the noble Baroness. This is an interesting and important discussion. I hope that the Government—whatever “the Government” means—are listening.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of Right to Buy(1) The Right to Buy scheme is abolished.(2) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows—(a) omit Part 5 (the right to buy);(b) omit schedule 4;(c) omit schedule 5;(d) omit schedule 6;(e) omit schedule 6A;(f) omit schedule 9A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to abolish the Right to Buy scheme.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I begin with an apology for not taking part at Second Reading. My fellow Green Peer, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, took part but is unable to be here today so we are doing a little tag team effort. I am afraid that I will not be here on Wednesday, but I expect that she will be back on Report.

I also begin with a little bit of explanation, because the groupings today are technically complicated. Clause 1 would abolish the right to buy. To introduce that involves me opposing various clauses in some subsequent groups. I am opposing Clauses 1 to 9. This is all for technical reasons. I have not pulled this out as a separate group. That is how it was arranged. That is why we have this slightly odd-looking arrangement—it is for technical reasons.

Clause 1 provides for the abolition of right to buy. This is heading in the direction that the Government propose for the Bill but going further. Others who are opposing other elements in the Bill are seeking to reverse the Government’s direction, but to be clear: I am aiming for us to go further. The case for abolishing right to buy is not some theoretical proposal. Scotland and Wales have already done it successfully. We have a central question here: should social housing be treated as a long-term public asset or continue to be sold off during a housing crisis?

In Scotland, right to buy ended on 1 August 2016. It has been estimated that since then, 15,500 social homes in Scotland have been saved for the public. That is a lot of housing—a lot of households living in their community and children being able to continue to go to the same school. The sort of stability that social housing has provided has continued in Scotland, but here in England we continue to see families torn out of their communities and a continual turnover. In Scotland, Dr Mary Taylor, the CEO of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, said:

“SFHA is delighted that all forms of the right to buy policy in Scotland have now come to an end and this hasn’t come a moment too soon. Right to buy has had its day and has no place in modern Scotland”.


Wales came somewhat after Scotland with the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018. The Labour Welsh Government said that these sales were increasing waiting times for social housing and reducing the access to affordable housing, which is a statement of the obvious. Ministers also argued—I acknowledge that the Government are doing something about this—that councils and housing associations had the confidence to build without fear that they would immediately lose that housing.

The Labour Welsh Housing Minister at the time, Rebecca Evans, said:

“By protecting the stock of social housing in Wales, we are ensuring it is available for the long term to provide safe, secure and affordable homes for the people of Wales”.


This is no longer an experiment. It is established policy across much of the UK.

We discussed the negative impacts of the right-to-buy policy extensively at Second Reading. I do not intend to go over all the same ground but will highlight a couple of points. I draw first on the public wealth aspect of this. A report from the Common Wealth think tank, Wrong to Sell: How Right to Buy Gave Away Billions in Public Wealth, described right to buy as one of the largest giveaways in UK history. It has led to a situation where one in six private tenants in England rents a former local authority home, with much greater cost and often worse maintenance, without the democratic oversight that you get with council housing.

Considering the overall value of that, the report estimated that homes sold by English local authorities through right to buy are now worth £430 billion in 2024 prices. This is only part of the great privatisation, but this estimate says that this a bit more than the £400 billion that we have lost by selling off public land into private hands. This has also meant a structural shift towards higher-cost private renting. We know how much the cost of private renting is affecting so many households—so many communities—particularly the young. There is also increased long-term housing benefit expenditure. I hear from my right a lot of concern about the welfare Bill—this is one of the very significant drivers of it. There is also the exposure to market volatility.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, before I address the amendment, perhaps I may declare an interest, and in doing so apologise that I neglected to declare it at Second Reading. One of my daughters works for a housing association. I should have said that at Second Reading; it is in the register of interests. I also add my congratulations to those offered to my noble friend Lady Curran, who is appearing on the Front Bench for the first time today. I have already had a chance to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to her new role, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She is not in her place today, but we have worked together for all the time I have been in the House on some very long and complicated Bills, and I am very grateful to her. I would like to put that on the record too.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Before I respond on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, let me say that I am pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Social Housing Bill. As I set out at Second Reading, this is critical legislation that goes right to the heart of our current housing crisis. More than 1.3 million families in need of a home languish on local authority housing waiting lists and the number of children growing up in temporary accommodation continues to climb, so we must act now to turn around decades of losing more social homes than we are building.

This legislation brings forward measures to protect much-needed social housing and incentivise new building, as well as groundbreaking reforms to create a safer and fairer system for those experiencing domestic abuse. At Second Reading, I was clear that this Social Housing Bill sits within a much wider programme of social housing action which clearly demonstrates our Government’s ambition and commitment to deliver the hope for the future that decent affordable social housing represents. Together with the Government’s wider package of reforms and the £39 billion of investment, this Bill will ensure that we can provide decent, safe, secure and affordable housing for generations to come. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill’s provisions over the course of Committee, and to engaging with noble Lords on these important measures.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, intends to abolish right to buy. The noble Baroness has also given notice of her intention to oppose all the right to buy clauses, with the exception of Clause 6, standing part of the Bill, making it clear that this amendment accompanies that intention. The Government have no plans to abolish the right to buy. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership, to own their own homes, boosting social mobility and opportunity, and supporting aspiration for families across the country.

Following the commitment in our manifesto, we are reforming right to buy through this Bill. This will deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme, where long-standing tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for many years can buy their own homes—but, crucially, where councils can replace them and contribute to the urgent and rising need for social and affordable homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the long called-for ability for councils to retain 100% of receipts, and this Government have facilitated that. By reforming the right-to-buy scheme, we will protect much-needed housing stock and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, more homes will be available to house those on waiting lists and those who are homeless.

We have committed to the biggest funding boost for social and affordable housing for a generation. I remind the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Jamieson, that many of the homes sold have never been replaced. Between April 2012 and March 2025, there were around 133,000 council right-to-buy sales, with only around 51,000 homes replaced over the same period. Not only has this depleted much-needed homes for households in need but it has reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and it has restricted broader investment in council housing. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that through the Renters’ Rights Act this Government have significantly strengthened renters’ rights, including with regard to rent increases.

We think we have the balance right here, making sure that we address some of the issues around right to buy but also continuing to give that opportunity and aspiration for those who want to purchase their own homes. We therefore oppose this amendment, and I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and everyone who contributed to this short but passionate Committee debate. I join others in welcoming the noble Baronesses, Lady Curran and Lady O’Neill, to the Front Benches.

I think the Minister agreed with me that right to buy and the way it has been implemented up to now have done enormous damage. We are in agreement about the loss without replacement of so much social housing. I also acknowledge her points about the Renters’ Rights Act, which is a step in the right direction, although the Green Party would like to see this going much further, with rent caps.

In saying that, I respond a little to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for whom I have the greatest respect. He compared the percentage of social renters in the UK with other parts of Europe. Of course, the conditions and the arrangements for private renting in many parts of Europe give people far greater security of tenure and far greater security of life than our arrangements do, even with the Renters’ Rights Act.

A couple of other points from the noble Lord, Lord Young, really need to be referred to. On the idea that housing will be sold and then ploughed back, later we will come to Amendment 16 about buyback. If we see an extension of buyback, it is possible to imagine a home being sold under right to buy and, very quickly, the council buying a house so that another one is available immediately. But the more typical situation will probably be that a house is sold under right to buy and maybe 10 years later a new social housing unit appears as a result of that money. That is a very long gap, and of course there is still disruption to the community. It will not often be an immediate response.

In picking up a couple of points from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not start a whole debate about where the rise in house prices comes from, but a study from King’s College London in 2018 estimated that, without foreign investment money coming in, prices would have been 19% lower then. Of course, we saw a great financial liberalisation—part of the whole right-to-buy scenario, where we have turned what had been secure and affordable places for people to live into something regarded primarily as a financial asset.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who suggested that social housing should be only a short-term replacement until you move on with your life. We want people to have a secure and affordable place to live for life, if that is what they want. That should be the foundation of our communities. We are not stressing enough the impact on communities of right to buy; we are focused very much on the impacts on individuals. The turmoil that right to buy has brought communities should not be ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I outlined in our debate on Amendment 1 why I am opposing all these clauses, specifically Clauses 3 and 4 in this group. My opposition to Clause 2 was because I wanted to go further, not to ensure that there is no double-dipping within households or by individuals. I also make it clear that on Clause 3, I am not opposed to the extension of the period of eligibility and on Clause 4, I am not opposed to anti-fraud measures. There are people opposing these clauses for different reasons, but mine is a desire to stop right to buy altogether.

Clause 3 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

They might just decide that they are not going to install the bathrooms or the kitchen just so that none of these houses will be eligible for right to buy in the future. I am not sure I like the sound of that, and I wanted to test with the Minister how she would be certain that this sort of behaviour would not happen.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to the clause stand part notices and to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which I have attached my name. Just for clarity, for the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, his reasons and mine for signing the Clause 6 stand part notice are—I think we can safely say—directly opposed. As I have made clear all the way through, all my clause stand part notices are because I was seeking to end right to buy entirely with Amendment 1. I think that is made obvious by my signing of Amendment 16, a buy-back right to buy. This is also known as “buy the supply”, and my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place has been a particular leader in this area, not surprisingly when you look at Brighton and Hove, which has lost almost a third of its social housing since right to buy came in in 1980.

If you look at the figures across England, by the end of this Parliament we are talking about more than 1.3 million homes lost. What we want to do is get some of those homes back—those homes that were very often built with high-quality build standards, good-sized rooms—a better provision of housing, I dare say, than pretty much anything we are likely to build today. We want to get those homes designed for social housing back into social housing. I note also that my honourable friend—who was previously a London Assembly member, and a member of its housing committee—urged for us to be able to buy back those lost homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to families in temporary accommodation. Of course, this is a huge issue. It is everywhere, but particularly so in London, where we are seeing often very vulnerable families shipped out of the city very far away to produce huge profits for private landlords in far-flung parts of the country. If London could buy back the supply, that would be potentially transformatory, either for permanent homes or for being able to buy back temporary accommodation. It is also worth noting that my honourable friend—for those noble Lords who have not seen it—has a zine out urging us to buy the supply. It is a lovely, cheerful cartoon publication that noble Lords might like to look up.

I want to make one other comment about the state of where we are now. We have, of course, a struggling housing market. Broadly, the average price of homes in England did not change from March 2025 to March 2026. In fact, there has actually been a decrease in the price to May. I note one market commentator said that we were in the strongest buyer’s market we have seen in years. Surely this is a great time for local councils to be able to be the buyers, to start to reverse some of the damage that has been done. The structure of the amendment reflects the limitations in your Lordships’ House of what we can do in terms of directing the Government to spend money. I will put this on the record here to note that my honourable friend in the other place will be going further, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has given us a very good start.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, indeed I agree that my noble friend Lady Pinnock has given us a very good start, and she was quite passionate in what she was saying. I did tell her there would be a “but”, but it is only a very small one. We absolutely agree in principle that the right of first refusal should apply in perpetuity, but I have concerns about how this would work in reality, and I have raised these with the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, outlined some very serious questions and points that I think we would all appreciate being answered, just about the sheer logistics of how this would actually work for buyers as years go down the line. I am worried that there would be unintended consequences and I am looking forward to the Minister’s answer.

My fear is that in reality this will actually be less effective as a means of getting social housing than we might wish it to be. If a council does have a buy-back fund, there absolutely is no reason why it cannot buy houses on the open market, as indeed I did when I was Mayor of Watford. I just think this one sounds like something that is really going to be good and should happen—and I do believe that; I just think there may be unintended consequences, the logistics might be difficult, and it might not be the silver bullet. But because I believe in retaining social housing stock, I will hope that I am wrong about that.

I want to just pull together a few thoughts about the rural amendments, because one thing I think that we have all noticed in relation to the Bills that we have done—first with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and now with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—rural housing and rural issues do not seem to be given the importance that they absolutely deserve. I am an urbanite but I sit here, time after time, listening to those who know better than me, and colleagues on my own Benches who feel very strongly about this, and I guess my message to the Minister is that the nettle must be grasped on rural issues. I think we would all appreciate seeing a real improvement in that, which is why I found that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Lord, Lord Best—as ever—brought clarity and expertise to this group of amendments that I cannot better.

Amendment 20 is actually a modest, targeted fix to stop the right to buy quietly hollowing out our rural communities, which is happening; but I am also going to be a bit controversial, because one thing that I follow very closely with my housing brief is planning issues, and I note that there are very often major planning disputes. In fact, councils have changed control over rural communities’ campaigning: “Stop the housing development in our village. We do not need this sort of housing”. It is really worrying to me that that is often the case, and it is evidentially the case. The nimbys are absolutely going bananas. There is no doubt about that, and I think that somewhere, we need some leadership around those areas. If you do not have a housing estate that has homes for children, then the local school will undoubtedly die.

There are real issues for regenerating our rural communities, and I think that, unfortunately, they are being hollowed out. I feel very much that the need is greater. Somebody mentioned that phrase in relation to rural communities, but I would also say that the consequences of not doing so are of greater significance; for example, the young people who cannot get to the college in the nearest city or big town. The issues around rurality are huge.

Turning briefly to Amendment 17, I think “warden” is a horrible word. I absolutely agree that the Government should change it. I am not sure about “manager”, because I am not sure of the context, but I absolutely understand why they do not want wardens.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have said to my noble friend before that I do not always share his conspiracy-theory approach to life. However, the new legislation will introduce “know your donor” schemes, where recipients of donations over £11,180 will be required to consider the risk of those donations being from illegitimate sources, to prevent the risk of foreign interference. There are serious penalties where those laws are not followed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

I think we have concluded the Private Notice Question.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in 2011 the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the amount that any organisation, individual or institution can give in political donations should be limited. It is now 15 years later. A few years ago, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said from the Front Bench that, hypothetically, he agreed that there should be some kind of limit on the percentage of funding that one party should be able to get from one individual donor. Will the Government act after all this time?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.

Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.

I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.

I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.

I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?

The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create

“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]

It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.

Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.

In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.

Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.

Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.

This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.

Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.

The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.

I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.

Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Without the cast-iron commitment to parish England from top to bottom, we risk making perhaps one quarter of our population second-class citizens, including by far the majority of Redditch. From start to finish, the Bill has been mis-sold. It is not about empowerment that any reasonable person would recognise but about the wholesale disempowerment of entire communities in the most historic corners of our country. I commend Motion F1 to the House.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply say that I entirely agree with Motion F1; in the interests of time, I will not go further. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, which have particular relevance to that Motion.

I will chiefly speak to, and offer the Greens’ the strongest possible support for, Motion E1. We believe in democracy; this is about democracy. I was intimately involved in the Sheffield tree campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, set out. I will just tell noble Lords of one occasion at the end of that story, when the cabinet model was falling apart. The cabinet member responsible for overseeing the cutting down of trees stood in the council chamber and brandished a slice of a tree that had just been cut down. It was a memorial tree to two twin brothers killed in the Second World War. He celebrated how they cut down that tree. That was where groupthink and that model of governance had led us to: the council was set against the people of the city.

I will not go into any more depth on that; it is an issue I have majored on since Second Reading. Instead, I will refer to something that has happened very recently in Bristol, where we have a similar situation to Sheffield and where the people decided they wanted democracy and did the very difficult job of delivering that democracy against the current, the push, from Westminster. There was a glowing peer review for the Local Government Association just this month, specifically noting how in Green-led Bristol council the committee system had strengthened democratic engagement and transparency of the council.

If an independent, non-political overseer can see the benefits of the committee system, surely the Government can too. I am not saying that they should mandate a committee system—I believe in local democracy—but surely they should see that they cannot apply their own authoritarian ideology to local communities up and down this land. That is unacceptable at any time, but it is particularly so in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution and community empowerment. This makes no sense. I urge your Lordships’ House, in the strongest terms, to oppose and to keep opposing Clause 59.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. At this very late stage, this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill. This is like a map of Sheffield—Manor Castle, Tinsley and Hunters Bar, and I am a former leader of Sheffield City Council—and the reason why we are speaking on this issue is not just because we saw what happened in Sheffield. We understand the power of giving local people the ability to hold others to account, not just at election time but in how they are governed, the administration and the powers devolved through all 84 councillors. This not only changes behaviour but helps to make the correct decision for a particular community.

I notice that a noble Lord opposite is shaking their head but, for Sheffield, it was the right decision. People turned out at the ballot box and decided that this was what they wanted, and—surprise, surprise—it has not created chaos. People in our city know who to go to about their bins or roads; they know who the chair of the committee is. They know that when they go to their local councillor, they have some power to influence the committee system, unlike the cabinet model where it is down to 10 people. My noble friend Lord Shipley has moved this Motion because if another Sheffield happens, once this Bill has gone through, there is no way the system can be changed. The community is left with an administrative system that they are completely locked out of other than at the ballot box in four years. Under the strong leader model, when I was leader of Sheffield I could have decided to hold all except reserve powers. I could have decided to have a cabinet of three people deciding what happened strategically.

The reason for this amendment—and why the Government must go away and rethink—is that we need to ask the Minister to answer this question. If another Sheffield arose in a year’s time after this Bill was passed, how would the local community change that system to make sure that local councillors had powers to ensure they were not held to ransom by three people within the strong leader model? If that question cannot be answered, it is really important to understand that communities are going to be left with systems that do not necessarily meet their requirements. It is really important. The reason why three people from Sheffield have spoken is because we understand what happens when it goes wrong, and we have faith in local people to use their knowledge and their votes to put that system right.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

As I set out at the beginning, the purpose of this Motion is to affirm the importance of our elections going ahead and to call on the Government to ensure that they do so without further delay, disruption or difficulty. Confusion erodes trust in our democratic processes, and this is a problem of the Government’s own making. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this and to ensure that it does not happen again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, very briefly, and perhaps with a little surprise, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on the Conservative Front Bench: we have to regret what happened about these elections. We can also celebrate that eventually democracy won out. I am looking forward to the affected elections on 7 May, not just because the polls suggest that they, across these islands, are going to work out rather well for the Green Party.

Regret is the right term, but we might also say that what has happened—the mess of the Government’s creation in terms of these on again, off again, on again elections—has helped to highlight the weakness of our constitutional arrangements, which really cannot be described as a democracy. We have a situation in which Westminster is dictating far too much what happens on these islands, not just in terms of elections but in so many other ways. We have local councils that have enough money and power to carry out only their statutory responsibilities; that is, those dictated from Westminster.

We really need to think about so many other issues on these islands, not just because of the outcome of the Brexit referendum in 2016, but because of the slogan that people very clearly expressed then. They wanted to take back control. People do want to take back control in their local communities and to have the power and resources there; and, crucially, they should know when the elections are going to be. That should be a regular schedule that cannot be interfered with for political convenience. I commend the noble Baroness for persisting with this, because it is an issue we need to keep highlighting. We need to keep stressing that this is just one example of the way in which our current uncodified constitution, accreted over centuries of historical accident, is not meeting our needs in the 21st century.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.

There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

97: Schedule 5, page 140, line 33, after “vehicle” insert “, including those used for delivery services”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this Schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 97, I will speak also to the many others in my name in this group. I apologise for that, although they fall into four distinct subject areas, so that partly explains the number of them. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to related amendments in Committee. My noble friend was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.

I will start with Amendments 97 and 98, about non-passenger micromobility vehicles. We have others in this group, but I will focus on the ones in my name. As my noble friend said in Committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here. The intention of these amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micromobility vehicles.

Right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol. From this month, there are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol’s Gloucester Road. Anyone who knows Bristol’s Gloucester Road—as I do quite well, having campaigned there often—will know it is a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. One of these little autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road while one of the Green councillors was walking their dog, which I believe is a very small dog. These micromobility vehicles will have to deal with everything, from very small and very large dogs to children of different ages, and all kinds of different obstacles.

The interesting thing is that in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these Just Eat small-wheeled micromobility robots, and it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots. As I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. There is also the issue of these small delivery robots and people with mobility issues. Even if they do not actually cause a problem for them, it is about how frightening they are going to be.

My noble friend Lady Jones and other Peers expressed concerns in Committee that if the opportunity is not taken in the Bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens. The example given was of just how long it has taken to deal with the pedicab issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but he did not give us any way forward or an immediate course of action.

This amendment would allow for secondary legislation. We are well aware of the issues around Henry VIII clauses. It is not my intention to push the amendment, or any in this group, to a vote, but I hope the Government are thinking very hard and are prepared to take action with this Bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions. This relates to an amendment to Clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would tweak existing powers to allow such a vehicle to be seized if it is causing a problem in the local area. That is the first group of amendments.

Amendments 107 to 113 are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of the local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of its effective transport plans. Again, the response in Committee did not engage with the reality of the effects of the Bill in making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority-level data in addition to what is already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. I note that on 12 February, MHCLG published guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included there. There seems to be a real lack of joined-up thinking between the frameworks and the spirit of the Bill.

Amendments 114 to 116 are about local travel plans. Since we last discussed this, the issue of fuel usage has, of course, become much more pressing and of much more concern. I note the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased by 8% since 2020. We talk and hear a lot about modal shift, but we are just not seeing it happen. The Bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.

I move to the parking levies element of this—Amendments 117 and 118. We need a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities. That would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purposes of parking that a levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority, and therefore responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that the plan, forming the policies of any constituent authority, must be the purpose of this part.

Finally, to put that in an overall context, the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report to Parliament called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that is in the target by 2035. We have so many pressing needs here, and the incredible Parkulator tool shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking—space that could potentially be used for much better purposes including, in many cases, the housing we so often talk about. In a rather complex set of amendments, I beg to move Amendment 97.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.

I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that the successors of those people have changed their minds, so it is about time that he did, too. We have had the experience of three mayors, over 25 years, and there is no evidence that they have been incapable of taking these decisions. In 1999, there had not been a mayor, but the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful.

We discussed Amendments 104 and 105 in Committee and I said that the powers in the Bill were based on the principle of devolution: that is, it should be for places to consider what is right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act to provide concise guidance on the designation of key route networks, as well as on the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport—especially buses—and links to key employment or development sites. That balance will help places in their consideration of important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution and the fact that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly.

There are strong reasons why roads that are not classified numbered roads could be key routes under certain circumstances. They might well be roads with high levels of bus and public transport use, or linked to locally important employment or development sites. In both cases, the number of people carried, as well as numbers of vehicles, might be important in the designation. I hope that the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction will reassure the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his helpful intervention on that and for our recent discussions.

Amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to align duties with others in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans. Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in this schedule to give mayors of combined and combined county authorities powers to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non-key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them. As was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in Committee, this proposal is duplicative. Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area and, as the highway authority with the relevant powers, are best placed to influence traffic levels on those roads.

Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning. Close working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 supports this close working by requiring the constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s policies set out in the local transport plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement rather than have regard to proposals in a local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.

Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for non-mayoral strategic authorities. For existing non-mayoral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the Government’s commitment in the English devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions for non-mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils. Under existing legislation, it is up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amend them to reflect local transport circumstances. The Government will produce updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice about when authorities should review and update their plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed.

Amendment 117 would remove the word “workplace” from the framework. Extending the levy-introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension, and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is greatest at peak commuting times. Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment would also add strategic authorities to the list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy.

I touched on this in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. As I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities and their mayors. The Nottingham scheme has been a success, and it is understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans.

Finally, this amendment would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, which a workplace parking levy must support, under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 Act already defines local transport policies with reference to the local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.

Amendment 118 would have no effect, I am afraid. Local authorities outside London already have powers under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of Section 62 of the Highways Act 1980.

I turn to the environmental improvement element of the amendment. Adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the Act. Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within a highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. The definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments, and I beg to move the amendments in my name.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating this group. I also join other noble Lords in celebrating government Amendments 245 and 265. I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years and I have heard much talk of doing something about pavement parking. At the weekend I happened to be in Chorley, where people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. I know from Sheffield that there was quite a phase of social media having daily “awful piece of pavement parking” posts, so I think this is really encouraging.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 310, which seeks to insert a duty to consider the needs of rural communities into the Bill. The duty would require

“strategic authorities and their mayors, when considering whether or how to exercise any of their functions, to have regard to the needs of rural communities”.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I lament the fact that the rural-proofing unit was taken away, and I hope it will be restored one day.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting with me and for her letter of 17 March, which went to all noble Lords. The letter informed us that amendments would be tabled to increase the number of commissioners to up to 10 and would thus support the appointment of commissioners dedicated to cross-cutting issues such as rural matters.

Government Amendments 42, 51 and 60 will be debated in group 9 and naturally, I support them. However, there is still no mention of “rural” in the Bill, which runs the risk of not presenting a devolution-for-all approach. The distinct lack of reference to rural communities, along with many provisions drawing from the Greater London Authority Act, means that the Bill currently reads as urban-centric in its approach to devolution.

Rural areas have distinct needs, as has been so well pointed out this afternoon, and they present a unique opportunity as important economic drivers for this country, through farming, food production, local businesses and tourism. With the creation of new strategic authorities and the devolution of powers to strategic authority mayors, we need to consider carefully the application of “strategic” within a rural context.

Historically, strategic investment has typically focused on urban areas, ignoring the potential and opportunity for rural areas to contribute to the local and national economy, inspire forward investment from the private sector, and meet essential needs for food production, health and well-being, climate resilience and nature recovery. We have an opportunity here, as we move forward with this programme of devolution, with rural parts of the country now being covered at strategic level, to ensure that our rural areas are not forgotten and that our rural communities have fair representation and the strategic investment to support and drive rural growth.

Rural areas have very different characteristics across the country and benefit from tailored approaches to economic growth and development. This legislation provides the opportunity to empower areas to provide the bespoke solutions needed for their rural communities. That, in itself, is fundamental to the devolution agenda.

My amendment, which addresses the points raised by the Royal Town Planning Institute and a recent report commissioned by the Rural Housing Network, entitled English Devolution and Rural Affordable Housing, would embed rural representation in the Bill and offer safeguarding provisions. That would lead to better consideration of rural communities and their context, specific needs and opportunities through the devolution process and the implementation of the new strategic layer of local power.

With 85% of the country’s land being classified as rural and 17% of the population living in rural areas, let us reaffirm our recognition of the value of our rural communities and ensure that they have every opportunity to thrive in this new era of regional empowerment, growth and identity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to include this duty and, at the very least, to ensure that there is specific reference to the needs of rural areas in the Bill. It must be clear that the Bill relates to rural as well as urban areas, so that the needs of rural areas are properly considered at every stage.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this very important group, having attached my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and Amendment 310, which was just very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

All these amendments constitute a group; I chose these two because we are introducing rural affairs as an area of competence for strategic authorities, giving them a duty to “have regard”, which makes quite a nice package. Interestingly, in the last group the Government conceded the power of the argument for including culture as a key element of the Bill. I really cannot see why they have not done the same thing with rural affairs, having heard the very powerful arguments made in Committee. I live in hope that, having now heard the arguments on Report, the Government will see the sense of including rural affairs in the Bill.

We spoke extensively about this issue in Committee, and we have already heard three powerful arguments today for taking this direction, so I will just add a couple of points. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, put it very well when she talked about young people gathering at the bus stop in the early evening because they know that a bus will not come along and disturb them for 15 or 16 hours—or possibly six days, the way these things work. That really is a measure of deprivation. At the other end of the population age scale, of course, we have a fast-ageing population, many of whom live in rural areas. They may once have had enough money to have access to a car, but that does not mean they are going to be able to use one indefinitely. That is a crucial issue in relation to bus services in rural areas. If you have a metro mayor, it is going to be very hard to get attention paid to that kind of issue.

I want to major, as I did in Committee, on the issue of food growing. Many other things happen in rural areas—people live in rural areas for all sorts of reasons—but our rural areas should be regarded far more centrally as part of the way in which we feed our population. Speaking at the NFU conference in Birmingham recently, Professor Tim Lang, a well-known food expert, reflected that the UK is only 54% self-sufficient in food. Lest someone say, “It’s a crowded island”, the Netherlands is 80% self-sufficient in food. We need to treat our land, our local areas, as places that produce a lot of their own food. Professor Lang said that our model of agri-food capitalism has just relied on the idea that others can feed us, but we all know the state of the world, the state of geopolitics and the state of climate. That is not something we can continue to rely on.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Minister’s response is not helpful to my proposal, it is my intention to test the opinion of the House, because this has become such a fundamental issue. So I move this amendment with a request to the Government: they need to empower communities. We are about to have much bigger local councils and are about to remove power from people in local areas, as there is upwards mission creep to mayors. The Government must take action to enable the mayors and existing local authorities to devolve powers to towns and parish councils. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, having attached my name to this crucial amendment. I declare my position as vice president of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils.

What we are trying to do here is to save the Government from themselves, because without this amendment, this Bill risks being entirely referrable to the Advertising Standards Authority for false advertising. This is supposed to be the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but instead it concentrates power and does nothing about empowering communities, so this is the essential amendment.

We know how much parish and town councils are embedded in and are part of their communities. We are taking away that district council layer and putting all the power in the hands of one person. It is no secret that we in the Green Party do not believe in elected mayors, but even if you do believe in them, just think about that concentration of power. Should we not also refer power outwards?

There are two crucial parts of the amendment. Proposed new subsection (3) states:

“Each local authority within the area of a strategic authority must … consider whether any of its powers may be exercised at a more local level … and … where it considers that to be the case … enable such devolution”.


Proposed new subsection (5) states that local authorities must have a community empowerment plan to work out how to empower their communities. These are absolutely basic provisions.

I guess I apologise to noble Lords for bringing up the Brexit referendum, but last week I was with a group of young university students. Ten years ago, they were, of course, quite small children, and it was really refreshing and telling that they were asking me what had actually happened: “How did Britain get itself into this mess? Why are we in this situation?” One answer I gave them was that “Take back control” was a very powerful slogan which lots of people felt really spoke to them. We now know that, now we have left the European Union, people do not feel any more in control. If we do not make this Bill provide some sense of taking back control in England, that enormous problem of lack of trust in politics will only increase.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, democracy starts with local engagement. As the saying goes, all politics is local, and people start by worrying about their own local community.

We talk about pride of place in government policy, but place is not usually the whole of Yorkshire, for example, or even the whole of North Yorkshire; place is your local community. What this Bill assumes is that a local area in governance terms is roughly half a million people, and a combined strategic authority should perhaps be somewhere between 1.5 million and 4 million people. There are nearly 50 independent states, members of the United Nations, with populations smaller than half a million. There are two European states, Malta and Iceland, with populations below that, and Luxembourg is not that much larger. When we get to the equivalent of combined authorities, we are talking about Denmark, Estonia and Latvia: states that seem not only quite capable but have extensive local government structures underneath them—and they work.

I looked with interest at the closing ceremony of the winter Olympics the other week, at which the mayors of the various localities and the local region were all present. They have several layers of local government, which is the norm across the rest of Europe, and what this legislation is intended to reduce as far as possible. Local politics is essential to maintaining popular engagement with democracy, party politics and public life. People care about bins, allotments, public toilets, playgrounds: things that, ideally, are not left with strategic authorities and mayors, who would be roughly equivalent to the President of Finland—to whom I was listening the other day—in terms of the number of people they are responsible for. Let us be realistic about that and recognise that, unless we have active town and community councils at a lower level, with elected representatives who know those who voted for them and who are known by those who voted for them, we will lose an essential part of a liberal democracy to which my party—and, I hope, everyone else here—is committed.