Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, methinks the previous speakers on the Conservative Benches do protest too much. First, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it was the Conservative Government, I believe, who introduced the supplementary vote in the first place. So that puts that argument to one side. Secondly, his argument was that first past the post gives us good, clear results. Well, it may do, but on very much of a minority of the electorate. We share this wonderful system with just one country in the world: Belarus. Maybe that is not the sort of companion we would really prefer. I certainly would rather have a system that reflects people’s voting preferences than something that is, as the noble Lord said, easy to count.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, pointed out, the timing of this statutory instrument is interesting, and very helpful to the Government. There is a by-election on Thursday, which may result in a vacancy for the Mayor of Greater Manchester. So here we are with an SI. The voting system for the combined authority mayors was, as I said just now, initially by the supplementary vote. That was abandoned by the Conservative Government, in 2022, I think, in favour of the first past the post model.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said that Governments do this cynically: they choose a voting system saying, “This will be better and reflect the needs of the electorate more”, while looking over their shoulders at how the voters are actually going to choose who they vote for. I suggest to him that maybe that is what happened in 2022. The outcome was not what the Conservative Government hoped for, because in the mayoral elections that followed that change last year, the average turnout was 30%. Two of those mayors who were elected got less than 30% of that 30%—in other words, with less than 10% of the electorate supporting them. I do maths; I am right.

That illustrates the degree of voter apathy about whichever system is used. At least with the supplementary vote there is a bit of a better reflection of voter preferences. But the system is by no means perfect in matching what voters want. It is at best a halfway house towards true electoral fairness, because voters are restricted, as we have heard, to two preferences—column A and column B.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who said that voters get confused by different voting systems. I am going to ask him to go to Scotland to enjoy its voting system. Local government is elected by single transferable vote. Votes for the Scottish Parliament are by two systems, one for regional and one first past the post—the regional is to make it more proportional. The third, of course, is first past the post for the Westminster election. The people of Scotland have no trouble with that, and the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland have no trouble with STV, so I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, thinks people in England will be confused.

The argument against SV is that you limit voters’ preferences to just two. If you do not like what is on offer, and if your second choice is not of one of the top two candidates, you have no say because your vote is just discarded. In that sense, those voters are left out completely.

I have a question for the Minister. I had assumed that the supplementary vote would be counted and if there was no majority on the first count the top two would be taken forward to second preferences and all other candidates would be eliminated. However, I could not find that in the SI. It refers to

“the candidates remaining in the contest”

without identifying that that will be, as I assume, the top two. Perhaps the Minister can help me understand what is meant and why it is worded rather vaguely.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, does not like the alternative vote. Actually, neither do I, because although it is more proportional than either first past the post or supplementary vote, it is not the best system to reflect what people want, but it would be a bit better than using either first past the post or SV.

We support the order reluctantly because it moves us a bit further forward and gets rid of first past the post for at least one election. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who suggested that we are now in a multi-party situation. In elections, there are going to be candidates from at least five parties. In the recent local elections where I live, in several wards there were seven candidates. In those instances, people could be elected on 20% or less of the vote. That makes it more of a lottery than it ought to be. It does not reflect what voters really want and is not good for democracy—the Government Whip is giving me the eye just because I have gone 13 seconds over the time.

Democracy depends on the electorate trusting and having faith in the system. If we do not have trust and faith in the system, that is when democracy is in peril. A big change to the electoral system would be good, but I will go with this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, this instrument does not cover London, and there is no price to put on democracy. We should always be aiming for democracy first. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I will do my best to find out if there is any financial impact of this instrument.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked me about the sector being able to cope with the late change. SV has been used in the past extensively and recently and will be deeply familiar to returning officers and their teams. My department has been working closely with the sector as it prepares for the changes arising from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, and we will continue to support it in managing any changes once this instrument is made. As I said, we consulted with the Electoral Commission, which did not have any concerns about this, so we are confident that the change is straightforward and the sector will have no issues in implementing it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for very different reasons, I think—asked how the public will be informed of these changes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, had some concerns in that area too. Electors will receive information on the voting system used via a number of methods, including guidance on postal voting statements and in polling stations that they will read prior to voting. More importantly, where there are three or more candidates at an election, the ballot paper itself will be clear that electors have the option to select a second preference. I am confident that electors will be informed of the change and understand their options when casting their vote, especially given that this is a voting system that has been used extensively in the past and will be well understood, and indeed familiar, to many voters. Greater Manchester used SV for almost all its elections, with the exception of one in 2024, reflecting its status as an established voting system.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—again, I expect, for very different reasons —asked me why we were using SV, not a different system. The Government have no plans at present to introduce the single transferable vote to mayoral and PCC elections. The Government acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, and we take the view that SV is the right system to use for selecting single-person executive positions. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, and that ensures that they have broad support across the area and a broader mandate from the people they are representing. A key advantage of the SV system over other preferential voting systems is that, as I said, it was widely used before for mayors and PCCs, so people are familiar with it.

The other question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was about how the supplementary vote is counted. With a supplementary vote, if no candidate gets over 50% of the vote, the top two candidates continue to a run-off and all other candidates are eliminated. When casting their ballot, voters can put a second choice of who they would vote for in a run-off on the original ballot paper. If your favourite candidate gets through then your vote is counted for them in the run-off, but if they did not and your second choice did, then your vote goes to them. The run-off candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but that is not the question I asked. The order does not say “the top two”; it just says “the candidates remaining” without defining what that should mean. I assumed, as has the Minister, that that means the top two, but I could not find that in the order. Perhaps she could write to me.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that point.

In conclusion, the instrument is necessary to allow the SV system to be implemented for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections. This was a commitment made in primary legislation, and it will ensure that those elected to these positions have a broad base of support from their electorates, which we believe is of particular importance for these single-person executive offices. I hope the House will welcome these regulations, and I beg to move.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Lastly, Amendment 22 in my name probes the rationale behind setting a 35-year time limit before the right to buy arises on newly built social housing. To be clear, we recognise the manifesto commitment to increase protections for newly built social housing, but why 35 years? Landlords are already protected by a floor price, which should reflect the cost of building that home. We appreciate that the calculation of floor prices could be improved—for instance, by taking into account the value of land that has been transferred to a housing revenue account at zero cost—but why is there a need for a 35-year time period? Why not five, 10, or 15 years? I am interested to hear of the evidence base behind setting a 35-year limit, or is this just a further attempt to undermine right to buy? I hope that the Minister can provide some further details on this. I look forward to her response, and to the contributions of other noble Lords to this group. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on Clause 6, I have a contrary view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I start by reminding the Committee that I have a registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council, which directly manages council housing in the borough.

The amendment in my name is related only to Clause 6, which is about social landlords’ right of first refusal to buy back properties. My reason for this amendment is that, first, there is wide agreement that there is a national housing emergency—despite what we have heard in debates on earlier amendments—due to a chronic lack of properties at a social rent. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornhill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the principles underpinning the Bill. Although the primary purpose of the Bill relates to constraining the right to buy, there is, unfortunately, very little ambition to rapidly increase the supply. A rapid increase is desperately needed, given the numbers—over 1 million people on housing waiting lists, the increasing number of people who are homeless, and the absolute scandal of over 170,000 children living in temporary accommodation for long periods.

Clause 6 provides a route by which councils can relatively quickly increase their supply of housing at a social rent. The changes it makes to the right of first refusal are significant. By removing the previous 10-year time limit, the Bill grants local authorities an indefinite right to repurchase former council homes every time they are resold on the open market. That is a powerful mechanism to reclaim lost stock and ensure that these homes return to the social housing sector, where they are so desperately needed.

However, a right is only as effective as the resources available to exercise it. Clause 9 helpfully allows the Secretary of State to let councils retain more of their right to buy receipts by modifying pooling requirements. Although welcome, I am afraid that it is but a drop in the ocean. Retention of receipts alone is not enough. For the following reasons, a dedicated additional funding stream is needed to support Clause 6 repurchases.

The first reason is market value realities. Clause 6 allows councils to buy back homes at market value. Homes sold decades ago have appreciated significantly, meaning that the retained receipts from a limited number of current sales under Clause 9 will be insufficient to buy back a meaningful volume of older stock. In other words, there is not enough cash available.

The second reason is that significant financial savings by both councils and the Government can be achieved by investing in repurchases. Local authorities currently spend £1.7 billion on temporary accommodation every year. That figure, which is from two years ago, has increased by 62% in just five years. Providing additional central funding to buy back permanent social homes would drastically reduce this unsustainable cost to local government.

The third reason is to stop the private transfer of homes. Currently, four in 10 homes sold under right to buy end up in the hands of private landlords, which rather undermines the argument we heard earlier. When they are sold to private landlords, rents inevitably rise significantly and support for tenants is much reduced. Without additional funding beyond the provisions in Clause 9, councils will be forced to watch as these homes are sold to the highest private bidder because they lack the immediate capital to exercise their new indefinite right to first refusal—which we support.

Clause 6 is a positive change, and Clause 9 provides a helpful start for self-funding, but to truly end the housing emergency and deliver the 90,000 new social homes every year that advocates such as Shelter call for—let alone the 150,000 that the Liberal Democrats want—councils must be given access to supplementary grant funding specifically for repurchases. It would be a win-win. Having the funding to buy back former social houses would rapidly increase desperately needed supply and enable families in temporary accommodation to be housed permanently, which both saves expenditure on temporary accommodation and provides families, and especially children, with the stability of a permanent home, which is very important to young people. I hope that the Minister will provide a positive response and open those government purses so that we can achieve a greater number of former council homes being bought back to house folk who desperately need them.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 19, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Jamieson in his promotion of Amendment 25 in respect of rural areas. I have been in enough debates in this House to know how hard it is for the term “rural” to be defined. The lamented right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans entertained us all with a debate about 18 months ago on what rurality meant. There is no definition within the Government or in this country of “rural”. There are a lot of contended assertions that rurality might be this thing or that. So unclear is the term that the Bishop commissioned his own research, and we debated it. I am bound to say that we were no further forward at the end than at the beginning—although last week, in the debate on the rural economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Katz, who is in his place, will recall, I advanced the definition of rural as that place where at 11 pm you cannot get an Uber to take you home from the pub, because in the sticks we do things differently. I make this point because if we are to have the term “rural” in Clause 7, it should be much more tightly defined so that we know exactly what we are getting and it goes beyond, “Can you get an Uber or not? Are you in the town or not? Where does the town begin? Where are the suburbs?”, and so forth.

I have made that point, and I now want to dwell on my Amendment 19. I am trying to be helpful here, because later, on Amendment 52 in the next group, I will talk about the concept of locality and recycling the right-to-buy receipts. It has been said that locality is not part of this Bill, but here it is in Clause 7, where the right-to-buy carve-out exists for social homes in national parks. Those places have some of the greatest housing pressures, as well as restrictions on new build, because new homes are restricted in national parks.

My amendment aims to be helpful, because when we had the ministerial drop-in before Second Reading there was a slip of the tongue. The words “national parks” and “national landscapes” were used interchangeably. I have taken that as my cue, because Clause 7 mentions areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am entirely in accordance with those, but there are only 34 areas of outstanding natural beauty, whereas there are 46 national landscapes. Collectively they make up 15% of England, and there are other places in Wales, such as the Gower, and in Northern Ireland there are about half a dozen, including the Antrim Coast and Glens.

I am seeking to avoid confusion between what I believe is the old term—areas of outstanding natural beauty—and the new term, now preferred by government: national landscape. That is why my proposed new sub-paragraph (1)(aa) would make it clear that where there is a national landscape, which includes areas of outstanding natural beauty, covered in new sub-paragraph (1)(b), it really means national landscape. This small amendment seeks to extend the provisions of Clause 7(3) from national parks, to avoid leaving a gap between them and areas of outstanding natural beauty. This should provide the clarity and certainty to make it consistent with the Government’s new nomenclature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond directly to the amendments, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said about the issues around housing in rural areas. I might send her some of the Focus leaflets that I have seen objecting to rural developments.

I begin by focusing on Clause 6 regarding the right of first refusal for councils to buy back homes sold under right to buy. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate on the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a fairly sweeping statement about there being little ambition for increasing supply. I hope that she will have noted both the letter I sent in response to Second Reading and the annexe that was attached to that, which set out in great detail—I mentioned it at the start of Committee today—some of the action that the Government are taking to increase supply.

The first is the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts by councils. That was a big step forward—I campaigned for it for probably 15 years. There is the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation, rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest; a road map for Section 106 delivery, which has been a constant theme of discussions in this House and elsewhere; a complete renewal of the planning framework; £16 billion of National Housing Bank funding; and an ambitious package of support for London. London has been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, and the Government have put in £11.7 billion of funding to support the building of housing in London. I do not consider that a lack of ambition for housing delivery. Of course, we are constrained by the finances available.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister has provoked me now. All those are positive moves, but how much do they add up to? That is the question. The enormous sum of money that the Government have made available for affordable—I hate that word—and social housing adds up to 180,000 new homes over 10 years, whereas Shelter advocates that 90,000 new social homes to rent are essential every year. That is the scale of the problem, which is why I used the word that I did to criticise the Government for a lack of ambition. We are desperate for increased numbers of social homes. I appreciate what the Government are doing, but I am pretty sure that it does not add up to anywhere near enough.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I accept to a certain extent what the noble Baroness is saying. No one would be more ambitious than me to deliver more social housing. We are in government and we have to deal with the financial circumstances that we inherited, which included an enormous financial black hole. In that context, the amount of funding that we have allocated for social housing is significant—it is the biggest amount of funding for a generation—as are the other steps that we have taken to move the housing market along, not just in social housing but in other areas as well.

When the economy starts to grow again—we have already seen green shoots—we will be able to put more in, but, for the moment, we have indicated the ambition for increasing supply through what we have done already. We continue to be ambitious, and we will continue to support the growth of affordable and social housing alongside growth right across the housing market, which is really important. I was delighted to see the wraparound on the Metro this morning from Lloyds Bank, talking about how, for the first time since 1996, it has produced a £5,000 starter mortgage for young people. That is brilliant. All the steps that we are taking to increase housing supply across the board show a great deal of ambition, so I wanted to challenge the noble Baroness’s sweeping statement about little ambition for increasing supply.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, proposes to remove Clause 6 entirely from the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendment 16 regarding the resourcing and monitoring of the right of first refusal. Let me start by setting out that the right of first refusal offers an opportunity for social landlords to buy back homes that have been sold under right to buy, at full market value, when they are resold. The right of first refusal period is currently 10 years after the original sale. Councils have 8 weeks to decide whether to purchase the home when informed by the owner that they are planning to sell, following which the property can be sold on the open market. Under Clause 6, the period will be increased to in perpetuity, so that councils will have the opportunity to buy back the property every time it is resold. This will give councils much more opportunity to buy back future properties sold under the scheme.

The change will apply only to applications to exercise the right to buy after the measure comes into force. Homes already sold under right to buy will be subject to the terms of the covenants that were attached to them when they were sold under the scheme. Where the right of refusal is for 10 years, as it is currently, that will continue to apply. I hope that that clarifies the point. It is for local authorities to decide whether to exercise the right of first refusal, taking into account their local priorities and financial position.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give my noble friend an answer to the specific question he asks, but the storage of water when it is available is critical. It was shocking to realise that we had not built a reservoir in the country for 30 years; we are now planning new reservoirs to store water. Also, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act we talked about on-farm storage, for example; it is perfectly possible for farmers to develop storage on their own land so that they can keep water when it is plentiful for the times when it is not.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, to continue from the previous question, large underground attenuation tanks are often used in residential developments as their answer to sustainable drainage. Can the Minister tell us what consideration has been given for the water that is stored in these tanks to be used as grey water for local people to use during times of drought?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that my colleagues in Defra are giving a great deal of thought to the provision of water—both clean water and water for other purposes—and they have established the Water Delivery Taskforce to make sure that water companies deliver on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into the water sector over the next five years so that we can upgrade ageing pipes, sewage treatment works and so on, and in partnership with water companies, investors and communities we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system. The issues that the noble Baroness raises are really important. We need to be using all the water that we have access to, particularly in dry areas of the country—I live in the east of England, one of the driest areas in our country—and we need to make sure that we are making the best use of any rainfall we have. The Government are working closely with the industry to make sure we do just that.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, my Lords, that has started the debate on this important Bill in a rather polarised way. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who used some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities, when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing. I hope that we can do the reverse and think about people who need social housing rather than who they might be.

I have both a practical and a direct interest in this Bill, as a councillor serving on Kirklees council, dare I say? I concur with much of what the Minister said in her introduction to this Second Reading; I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity, stability and quality of a council home.

Liberal Democrats largely welcome this Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. That is not to give it a complete stamp of approval but rather to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing—at social rents, I emphasise—is long overdue. The provision of good-quality housing at a rent that is affordable—not affordable rents—is a basic human right that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years. There is a direct link between quality of housing, educational outcomes and long-term health needs. It is in the interests of society as well as of individual families to provide good-quality housing that is available at a cost that everyone can afford.

The Liberal Democrats’ solution is the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. That is likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping and wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.

The Government’s estimate is that, for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait to be rehoused can be as much as 18 years and that 28% of new lets are for families who are statutorily homeless. In my council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1,700. Some 2.4 million council houses have been sold under right to buy. In Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980; now, there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build using the income from sales. The result is the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families.

The Bill begins to address the lack of supply of social housing. First, it introduces a 35-year exemption for new builds, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable, as the capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period. Increasing the qualifying period for the right to buy to 10 years will further protect the much-reduced stock that remains. Those are positive changes in our view, but what the Bill fails to do is substantially increase the supply of social housing.

The Government will point to the £39 billion allocated for the construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector. However, the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, when the need is so great. Measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family. The lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town a two-bedroom back-to-back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month—I know noble Lords who live in London think that that is peanuts, but where I live it is a lot of money—whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two-bed property is under £650 a month. There is a gap of £100 a month for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics.

There is also an impact on the cost to government, which the Minister pointed to. This year, spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion. The provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing.

The other good thing in the Bill is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house, in Clause 6, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing. An additional benefit of this clause will be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent, having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords. Often, these private landlords are distant—with some living in South Africa, in my experience—and in these situations do not provide the same support and management as that provided by council housing providers and registered social landlords.

There are other important changes in the Bill—for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal to streamline housing consents. There is therefore much to support. However, the gaping hole in the Bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely affordable housing at a social rent—not affordable housing, which is very different and often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens. Against the magnitude of the need, the Bill provides important first steps but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is a greater supply of social housing.

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

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, as we embark on the Back-Bench speeches, I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes. If we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones, and we can achieve a reasonable finish time. I would be grateful for your Lordships’ co-operation.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving debate; in particular, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who shared his practical experience at some personal cost, I think. The noble Lord has helped us all to understand the context in which we debate this Bill today; I thank him.

Every Member who has spoken fully supports the proposal in the Bill to fund the memorial to the 72 lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy—or scandal, as I sometimes call it—and we on these Benches associate ourselves absolutely with those sentiments. The very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, brings home again the depth of feeling—both positive and that of distrust—that has developed within the community affected by the fire, and how we all have a huge responsibility to do what many Members have said: ensure that there is action as a consequence. The memorial is very important, and I will speak a little bit about that, but part of the memorial has to be how we put right the wrongs that the community has suffered. That will be the lasting legacy, the lasting memorial, as well as the physical one that the Bill will enable.

Remembering Grenfell is a very powerful read. It captures the emotions, memories and reflections of those who survived, and it is their contributions that must be faithfully followed. The memorial is primarily for the families and community affected by that terrible night, but it is my hope that it will also stand as a lesson to our generation, and future generations, of the dreadful consequences of disregarding people.

All the evidence from the tragedy indicates that the views of those who lived in Grenfell Tower were dismissed by those in authority simply because the people who lived there were often poorer economically and from many different cultures and backgrounds. Those differences were sufficient for neglectful as well as criminal decisions to be taken. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said—rightly, I fully support what he said—corporate failures of this scale, which end in loss of life or harm to individuals, have to be addressed. The route is through legislation, and that is what we do.

I hope that the Minister has listened carefully— I am sure she has, because she always does—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and takes that back to the department. What he talked about will not be easy, but it may be one of the ways in which we remember and act upon what happened that dreadful night.

Members across the House have reflected on what should be done. A memorial is very important, as is using the site of the tower, because it is where 72 people’s lives ended. That is what this Bill is about. But surely, as I think all Members have said, it should also be about what lessons we learned and how we can act on those lessons.

One of them has to be that listening carefully to people affected, whoever they are, is vitally important. We often talk in legislation about consultation—and I am beginning to hate that word. Consultation has to be a two-way process; it has to be about asking for views and listening to those views, and then acting together on them, otherwise there is no point at all.

Another lesson has to be that those in authority, including us, must be constantly mindful that cutting corners can cut lives. That is what happened—bodge jobs covered up cost lives. Some people call regulations red tape because they want to dismiss them; they want to say, “We can cut red tape”. We had regulations in place for the building and construction industries when the Grenfell Tower fire occurred, but those regulations were not enforced. Nobody likes all the regulations—they regard them as constraining what they can do—but regulations are there for a purpose. If the regulations had been properly followed at Grenfell, lives would not have been lost. Whenever anybody talks about cutting red tape, let us remember Grenfell.

Another lesson is that perverting regulatory requirements to improve profit margins must never be acceptable in any circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has reminded us of the deliberate acts of perverting regulatory requirements that caused Grenfell.

All institutions provided for the public benefit have hard lessons to learn, which I hope can be reflected in any exhibition element of the memorial. The individuals of the London Fire Brigade were heroic in their efforts, but the institution had not learned from previous incidents. The local authority had demonstrably failed the community it purported to serve. Have fundamental changes been made to the culture and purpose of the local authority and council? The latest reports indicate that that is yet to happen.

Criminal charges must follow what has occurred; if they do not then there is never to be justice for the 72, their families and that community, and the rest of us who are looking for justice. If we do not put that right, it will happen again. I hope that elements of the memorial will include those lessons and how we must not forget them.

Even now, nine years on, 15 buildings more than 18 metres high have not had the work done. Those are the ones most at risk. The department reckons that, of more than 4,000 buildings of 11 metres or more, only 1,500 have been fully remediated. There is work to be done and it should be done. It has been nearly nine years and the people paying the price are those who live in those properties. If they are leaseholders, they are paying sky-high insurance and inflated service charges. But the people and organisations that caused the tragedy are yet to pay, and that has to follow.

There is much to remember and to learn from the appalling and dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Above all, the memorial must form a fitting remembrance to those who perished.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

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

The most exciting ones always come at the end.

As many noble Lords will know, the Government are embarking on a much-needed funding reform for English councils to ensure that resources are aligned with need across the sector, with the first multi-year settlement in a decade delivering that reform. The business rates retention system is a major part of the overall local government finance system under which English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect, as well as a portion of any growth in that income. Resetting the system is a key element of the wider reforms, ensuring that funding is better aligned with need while preserving the incentive for authorities to continue to drive local growth.

In parallel with these reforms, the Government are also implementing substantial changes to business rates tax policy, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is also an essential task. As a result, the Government must make technical updates to the business rates retention system to ensure that, as far as is practicable, local government funding is not impacted by these changes, which are outside the control of local councils.

The instrument before the Committee today will update the business rates retention system to factor in local government finance reform and to accommodate changes to the tax. It amends two key sets of regulations on which the rates retention system is run. The levy and safety net regulations establish the safety net through which authorities are protected from large drops in business rates income; they fund that protection by applying a levy to business rates growth. The rates retention regulations set out the fundamentals of how the system operates, including how business rates income is calculated and shared between central government, billing authorities and major precepting authorities. The amendments are technical but clear in purpose; I will explain them now.

The safety net and levy determine the balance of risk and reward in the business rates retention system. To ensure that this balance is appropriate through the multi-year settlement, the Government announced changes at the settlement; this instrument puts them in place. First, the level of safety net protection is being increased to 100% of baseline funding level or need, provided through rates income for 2026-27. This is something that local government has welcomed and which noble Lords will, I am sure, agree is sensible. Secondly, the levy on business rates growth will now operate on a marginal basis, with different rates applying as growth increases up to a maximum of 45%. This balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections.

Moving on, in response to the reset and wider tax policy changes, we are making changes to ensure that grant compensation paid to councils in lieu of business rates is treated in the same way as the rates themselves, streamlining local government accounting.

Next, the instrument updates key formulae and figures that are used to run the rates retention system in order to reflect changes and updated values from the funding reforms delivered through this year’s settlement. This includes figures used to calculate different measures of local authority income for the year.

Finally, we are making a series of minor amendments that are aimed at reducing complexity across the system wherever possible, which noble Lords will, I am sure, value. These include disapplying provisions that are no longer required, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining a number of small funding mechanisms.

These amending regulations make technical changes to the business rates retention system, putting into effect what is required due to funding reform and changes to business rates tax policy. If approved, they will ensure that councils receive the business rates income the system is designed to deliver. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council.

This is a very technical measure and a bit of a mixed bag. The reset of the business rates retention system is long overdue and welcome. For too long, the distribution of resources has been based on figures from when the system was introduced in 2013, so recalculating each authority’s assessed need and business rate tax base to redistribute funding on a needs basis is welcome. Given that aim, it is surprising that the Government have not produced an impact assessment. The Explanatory Memorandum says within it that most authorities will find that the system works for them, but some will not, so an impact assessment would be very welcome to understand the winners and losers, and to what extent they are winning or losing. Can the Minister provide some basic impact assessment, not for all authorities but for those that will benefit most and least so that we can see how this will work in practice?

The safety net established in this SI is to be supported because, while any fundamental changes in the business rates system take place, it will enable local authorities to have stability in their known income. That is positive, but as far as I could see it is not explained how authorities already in a pooled system will be impacted, such as those in West Yorkshire. All the data provided is based not on a pool of authorities but on individual ones, so it would be helpful to understand how that works. The proposal for Section 31 grants is welcome, because it will also help remove the impact of volatility in the system.

The downside is, I guess, the move away from the whole purpose of the business rates retention system, when introduced 10 or 12 years ago, as an incentive for growth. The introduction of marginal tax rates—which is what they are—on growth that exceeds the limits could be viewed as a tax on success. That is somewhat at odds with the Government’s fundamental position that growth is everything. It does not seem to apply in this case. How far do they think that these marginal tax rates of 30% and 45% will encourage or discourage investment and growth in particular areas?

This is a mixed bag. The reset is necessary for fairness and a safety net is good for stability, but having worked figures would have been really helpful so that we could understand the consequences.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

If I may speak before my Front Bench, of course we welcome the introduction of multi-year settlements. Local authorities have been crying out for that for many years, and I can see that this is part of the path that we are going down.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, identified the importance of incentives—incentives for councils to do the right thing and go the extra mile. Sometimes those incentives help the council, as a promoter or joint enterprise with those people who wish to invest in an area, to make the case to local residents who may not necessarily welcome development. In my nearly 20 years as a council leader, I used the new homes bonus, as well as business rates retention, as powerful examples to otherwise semi-hostile or reluctant residents for us to make those investments.

Back in those days—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about 10 years ago and it must have been all of that—there were really powerful and compelling reasons for our authority, which was a high-growth authority, to pal up with all our neighbours, not all of which were quite so pro-growth as we were. By giving away some of our growth, the pot over the entirety of Norfolk was greater; there was that compelling case for co-operation. But I can tell the Committee that, over subsequent years, particularly more recently—I should stress that I am no longer the council leader doing these negotiations, but they are fresh in my mind—

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that has been issued for these regulations. It corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by, and agreed with, the constituent councils. When referring to the Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority, I will use the term “strategic authority” hereafter unless there is a reason to be specific.

Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England. The English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following an expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument will establish their strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best.

The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton on the instrument. The constituent councils are West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

The instrument will, if Parliament approves, be made under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which the instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 for a four-year term.

The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor when acting in place of the mayor.

The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are specifically reserved for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it confers, focused around local transport and economic development, are designed to support the work of the strategic authority before the Bill is in force and enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.

MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events and distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post. They were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and on 17 July confirmed to Parliament that the statutory tests to establish a strategic authority had been met.

Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding. This will include devolved funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.

To conclude, this instrument represents clear progress in our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make this a reality in Sussex and Brighton. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, one in a series of statutory instruments creating county combined authorities that we have discussed over several months.

I start with what the Minister said about the purpose of this statutory instrument: that the Government wish to “widen and deepen devolution”. We Liberal Democrats support devolution and have long advocated for it. However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted in its report on this SI that of the more than 6,000 responses received from the public,

“71% disagreed that it would support … local communities”.

The SLSC asked, given that local opposition—the overwhelming majority of those 6,000 responses not in favour—how the Government will ensure that the mayor has a “firm democratic mandate” and that local residents are able to “engage” with the system. That seems to be fundamental for any devolution proposal—that it takes people with them. Clearly, from the response to the consultation, that is not the case. I hope that the Minister has some responses to that committee’s report.

The Government have given a formal response to the committee’s report, which included a commitment to future strengthening of scrutiny. As the Minister will know, every time we discuss this, I criticise the scrutiny arrangements in mayoral authorities as being totally inadequate for the range and depth of functions that the mayor will have. One of the easy ways to improve scrutiny would be by ensuring that pre-decision scrutiny is the norm. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any hope that this will be the case.

I have a couple of other points to make. The financing of the mayoral model—if I have read it right—is to be from the constituent councils until the mayoral elections. If that is the case, can the Minister quantify the financial call on the constituent local councils until that time?

The main concern I have is that the Government are proceeding with mayoral devolution alongside very significant local government reorganisation. Two major reorganisations in local government are taking place in that area, which will inevitably cause increased expenditure in the first instance. Establishing the different and new authorities will inevitably be a call on the constituent authorities’ finances. It will not all be funded by grants—it never is—and that will inevitably mean a call on financing of basic public services. Does the Minister agree with that?

Finally, the Government and the previous Government are very keen on the mayoral model, but at no point have we had an assessment or a review of its achievements and its failures. Looking across the metro mayors that have been established, there have been some notable successes. The bus transport system in Greater Manchester has been a success, but there are other parts of the country—looking towards the north-east of the country—where it has not been such an overwhelming success and great question marks have been raised about the way that the mayor and the authority have fulfilled their statutory requirements. It is important that the Government do a review and an assessment of the various mayoral models that have been instituted across the country.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

I commend the Government on getting on with doing something on this agenda. I am a massive fan of mayoral authorities. If that is the price to pay to take power away from Whitehall and Westminster, it is a price worth paying. It could have been a bit cheaper, but nothing is cheap when you get it off the Government if the Treasury is involved with it.

I will ask a couple of questions. It will not start until 2028. That is unfortunate because 2027 is closer, so it would have been better if the department got its act together quicker, got the necessary work done and concentrated on those areas where it was doable. Sussex and Brighton are in a DPP area and are expecting an announcement on Wednesday this week about which of the six are likely to go ahead. There is money being laid now that it might be that five or fewer get announced. Do we know whether this is one area that will be announced? If it is going to be announced, do we know whether the constituent members are going to go from three to five? Does that mean that the council holding the ring on the pension pot will still be in existence after that process? If the constituent council is broken into more than one piece, where will the pension pot then sit?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Banner, unsurprisingly, makes an eloquent case for his Amendment 222C. I very much hope that the Minister will hold to what she said when this issue was addressed previously and reassert the Government’s commitment to a wider review of the existing protections to bring coherence to the legal framework, making protections more transparent and accessible so that communities can protect their most valued spaces, to paraphrase what she said.

At the heart of the amendment lies the travails of the All England Lawn Tennis Club. I declare an interest as a resident of Eastbourne and, therefore, as someone who holds a very low opinion of that organisation, which seems to be entirely concerned with itself and its money and very unconcerned with the communities that it interacts with. That is a widely shared opinion, as noble Lords will know—although they may not agree with it.

The troubles that the ALTC is facing have roots in the predecessors of assets of community value. We have long considered that communities have rights when it comes to the places and spaces that they enjoy. These have grown complicated and difficult to understand and enforce, which is why the Minister’s review is needed. But these places and spaces are needed and should be respected.

In this particular case, the ALTC has behaved abysmally, and it should not be advantaged by shortcutting what should be a careful review. I would like to see it soon and done with speed, but it should be an open public review, involving national bodies and others that are interested in the protection of public trusts and recreation rights to arrive at a coherent, well-agreed solution to this problem. To do it by way of an amendment in a Bill is far too limited; there are far too few opportunities to really get into the competing rights and interests that are involved here. I urge the Minister to stick to her previous resolution.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has returned to this issue, which was the subject of debate during the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Then, the amendment in his name concerned only the Wimbledon Park Community Trust. That amendment did not reach the statute book, so here we are again with round two.

In this case, the amendment encompasses all statutory trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, is very persuasive, but there is an alternative argument. The argument proposed by the noble Lord is to clarify the legal technicalities, whereas the opposing argument, which I hope to be able to put, is one of principle: the principle of protecting green spaces that are kept in public trust.

In summary, Amendment 222C is a four-page amendment that proposes to grant the Secretary of State unprecedented power to permanently discharge statutory trusts from land once held for the public’s enjoyment. It is being framed as a measure to resolve legal technicalities—we have heard that argument from the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner. In truth, it seems to me that the amendment would be an assault on some of our nation’s parks, sports grounds and green open spaces, which were created for the benefit of the local community.

Under the proposal in this amendment, land held in trust for the public under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 could be stripped of its protected status by a simple order from the Secretary of State. This would essentially erase the general right of public enjoyment on that land for ever. The question is: in what circumstances is that justified? Who will benefit from the protection of land held in trust where the protections are removed? Will the community that has enjoyed the rights conferred by the trust have a significant right over any attempt to change the status of the land held in trust? Those critical questions are yet to be answered by either of those who have spoken in favour of the amendment. I hope that, when we get to the end of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, will be able to answer them.

What is most troubling is the basis on which these trusts would be destroyed. The amendment targets cases where a council failed to follow the “previous advertisement procedure” when it originally moved or sold the land. Essentially, we are being asked to reward past administrative incompetence. If a council ignored the law decades ago by failing to notify the public of a land disposal, this amendment would allow that very failure to serve as the qualifying condition for stripping the public of their rights today.

In addition, in my view the amendment would create a dangerous presumption of non-compliance. If an application is made, the Secretary of State must notify the relevant council, which then has a mere 28 days to respond. If that council, which may be struggling with records from 50 years ago, say—and which may have been reorganised by this or a previous Government—cannot confirm that the advertisement took place, the Secretary of State “must presume”, as the amendment says, that the law was broken, thereby clearing the path to discharge the trust.

This is a remarkably low bar for the permanent alienation of public assets. In my view it is outrageous—28 days is a completely inadequate period for doing paper archive searches. Then, the power of presumed guilt is totally contrary to the basis on which our legal system stands. The balance is being deliberately stacked in favour of those who wish to dissolve trusts that hold land for the common good.

That leads me on to the idea of public interest, as defined in the amendment, in the condition proposed in new paragraph (f). It is broad enough to include any “development proposals” or “economic … benefits” that the order might facilitate. If we allow development proposals to be weighed against the sanctity of a public trust, we know which will win in the era of intense commercial pressure and economic benefit or, indeed, financial benefit. The amendment proposes a 56-day window for representations. By the way, the amendment refers to publicity in a “local newspaper”. That is novel. I do not know how many local newspapers still exist. Whether that is a satisfactory way in which to advertise for local representation is one of the questions that needs to be asked and answered.

We are ultimately placing the fate of local green spaces in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than the local communities who use them. There is the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, proposed, whereby the public will have a view and can be consulted. I have many experiences of public consultation, certainly in the reorganisation of local councils currently, where the vast majority oppose but, nevertheless, the changes are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I now have to remember where I left off.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I think it was near the end.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I was making a point about public consultation. Since the land is held by a trust for public benefit and for the public good, it seems to me that some consideration should be given to giving the people who benefit from that trust—the community; I am sure it could be defined—some sort of veto over any change in the status of the land held in public trust. Obviously, it could not be just half a dozen folk thinking that it should not happen, but if there were a huge swell of public opinion in favour of keeping the land in a public trust, as was done many years before, maybe that ought to be an option for local people.

There are various places across different parts of the country where the council’s own land in public trust would be affected if this amendment were accepted by the Government. The ones I have been able to find—apart from Wimbledon, of course—include Winchester, Swansea, Finchley, Hornsey and many others. Once a statutory trust discharge order takes effect, the land would be freed from the trust “generally”. Its status would be altered for all time, regardless of who holds the title. We should not enable a statutory loophole in this amendment that would allow the procedural errors of the past to become the justification for stealing the green lungs of our communities in the future. As noble Lords might have realised, the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this amendment and stand on the side of communities that strive to protect the integrity of our public open spaces held in trust.

I finish with a common little rhyme that emerged from the 18th century when the enclosures were taking place at great pace—when common land was taken by landowners. It goes:

“The fault is great in man or woman,


Who steals a goose from off a common;

But who can plead that man’s excuse,

Who steals the common from the goose?”

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

Before the Division Bells, the noble Baroness was very dismissive of the consultation process, which is spelled out in the amendment. She referred to what sounded like her own unpleasant experience of such processes in the past. I wonder whether, on reflection—we have had a bit of time to reflect during the break—she thinks that a fair criticism of the amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.

With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.

In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?

We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.

The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.

What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.

One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.

My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.

The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.

The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.