English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

187: Leave out Clause 57

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pack (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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