English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Therefore, let us just let go of the power in Whitehall. Let locally elected members, through their communities, decide on their governance model. If they say that they want a strong leader model, that is fine by me, but at least let them have a say. If they want a committee system, let them have it. Ultimately, the local voters will judge them, and if they get the committee system wrong and they cannot deliver for local residents, elections—as we have just around the corner—may result in different politicians. I hope the Minister considers the experience of Sheffield and the lessons learned, because I do not want to see such plaques outside many other town halls.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, which goes to the heart of what we mean by devolution and local choice.

On this side of the House, we believe in democracy and devolution. Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raises the fundamental question: do we truly trust local authorities to determine the governance arrangements that best serve their communities? This is not a radical approach. Rather, it is rooted in the simple, democratic principle that decisions about how councils are run should, wherever possible, be made locally and not prescribed from the centre.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other noble Lords extolled the virtues of the committee system, and we can debate whether that is the best system. I was the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, and we very successfully ran a leader and cabinet model. The fundamental principle underlying all this is that this should be a local decision involving local residents. That is why the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook seek to reinforce an equally important principle: respect for local residents. Where a community has chosen through referendum to adopt or retain a particular governance model, it cannot be right for that decision to be set aside without further direct consent.

Amendments 198 and 200 in particular are designed to ensure that where a referendum has taken place, its outcome cannot be overridden. If we are to ask the public to engage in these decisions, we must be prepared to honour the result.

Similarly, the amendments adjusting the relevant time periods from one year to three years are not about obstruction; they are about stability. Constant churn in governance structures serves neither councils nor the communities they represent. A longer period allows new arrangements to bed in, to be properly assessed and to deliver for residents.

Taken together, these amendments and Amendment 197 form a coherent and principled case, one that champions democracy, devolution and stability in governance. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, presses his amendment, we are minded to support it. If the Bill is to live up to its title of community empowerment, it must do more than devolve powers in name only; it must embody a genuine trust for local towns, cities, rural areas and the people they serve.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I would like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey, Lord Faulks, Lord Lucas, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their constructive engagement during the Committee debate on the requirement for local authorities to publish notice of any proposed change to their governance arrangements. I think these issues have been debated for the whole of the 30 years that I have been in local government, and I am sure they will continue to be so.

Following that debate, the Government have reflected carefully and brought forward government Amendments 210 and 211. Together, these amendments will maintain the current requirement and align the policy with the Government’s recent commitments set out in the Local Media Action Plan, published last month. As part of that plan, a wider review of all statutory notices will be carried out by the Government to explore whether action is needed to better ensure that communities have access to journalistic scrutiny of local decision-making. To ensure that government policy on statutory notices is developed coherently and consistently, we will maintain the current requirement in this specific area, and in order to allow the review to determine the best long-term approach. This will ensure alignment with the Government’s wider work on the role of statutory notices and local media, rather than pre-empting any decisions that are properly a matter for that broader review.

Turning to Amendments 197 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the issues the noble Lord has raised were explored in some detail in Grand Committee, and the Government’s position remains unchanged. Clause 59 and Schedule 27 are intended to promote greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. At present, arrangements vary significantly, which can make it harder for residents to understand who is responsible for decisions and how accountability operates. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government continue to favour executive models of governance. In our view, the leader and cabinet model, now used by more than 80% of councils, offers clearer leadership, stronger accountability and more streamlined decision-making. Certainly, when my own authority moved to that model, it did all those things.

On scrutiny, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of course, councils can use their overview and scrutiny committees for pre-scrutiny of decision-making if they wish. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, all decisions of cabinet in the leader and cabinet model are subject to review by scrutiny. We also know that good practice suggests that overview and scrutiny should not be chaired by the ruling party. I know that many authorities do not operate that system, but that is recommended as good practice.

The experience of individual councils helps to illustrate why this matters. When Cheshire East moved to a committee system in 2021, a Local Government Association corporate peer challenge found that the resulting structure was extensive and meeting- heavy, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving almost the entire membership of the council. That same review also highlighted ongoing difficulties with co-ordination, pointing to a siloed organisational culture and weak joint working across departments, which in turn affected service delivery and internal communication.

There are also examples of councils that have trialled committee arrangements and subsequently concluded that they were not delivering the intended benefits. Brighton and Hove’s decision to return to a leader and cabinet model in 2024 is a recent case in point. Repeated structural change of this kind is costly, disruptive and not in the interests of effective local leadership. Finally, where decision-making is dispersed across multiple committees, it can become less clear where responsibility ultimately sits. In my work as a peer reviewer, as I was for the LGA for many years, that was certainly my experience. It was less clear where the responsibility ultimately sat in most councils with complicated systems.

I turn now to Amendments 198 to 209, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government cannot accept these amendments as they run contrary to our aim of promoting greater clarity and consistency in local authority governance across England. However, where the Government do agree with the noble Baroness is on the case for treating differently councils that have adopted the committee system more recently. As your Lordships will know, where a local authority has adopted the committee system following a council resolution or a public referendum, there is generally a moratorium on making a further governance change for a period of five and 10 years respectively, under the Local Government Act 2000.

Where local electors or councillors have voted proactively to adopt the committee system, following a public referendum or council resolution respectively, it is reasonable that they should expect those arrangements to remain in place for the duration of those so-called moratorium periods. The Government have therefore provided in this Bill for protections from the requirement to move to the leader and cabinet governance model for those councils that are currently operating a committee system and are still within their statutory moratorium period. This includes Sheffield City Council, Bristol City Council and the Isle of Wight Council. These councils will be protected from the requirement to change governance models for the duration of their current moratorium period. At the end of this period, they will be required to undertake and publish a review, setting out whether they intend to move to a leader and cabinet executive and, if not, why they consider the committee system to be an appropriate form of governance for their local authority, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in their area.

The Government believe that a one-year decision period provides sufficient time for a council to carry out the necessary work to support that assessment and to pass any resolution needed to continue operating the committee system. This is comparable with the time allowed in existing legislation when moving to or from a non-mayoral model, which provides by default for the change to take place at the next annual meeting of the council. Protected committee councils will also have the remainder of their protected moratorium periods to prepare for this review.

Separately, all new councils established as part of the local government reorganisation will be required to adopt the leader and cabinet model. For all other councils not subject to these committee system protections, the Bill requires a move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant provision in Schedule 27 coming into force. Here again, the Government believe that a one-year period provides sufficient time to allow for a smooth and orderly transition, in line with equivalent statutory processes, enabling councils to undertake all necessary preparatory work.

For all these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I commend government Amendments 210 and 211 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I will speak in favour of Amendment 217 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pack, who has set out clearly why it is so important to have the right voting system in place for mayors, given the growing powers that they have and will have in the future. Democratic accountability is really important.

As one of a handful of Members of this House who have run for Mayor of London, I want to highlight the impact of the supplementary vote system on the London mayoral elections. I thank the Electoral Reform Society for its figures. In the London mayoral elections in 2000, 2004 and 2021, the winning candidate received 36% to 40% of first preferences. Between 11 and 20 candidates were standing and, as we have seen, the number keeps going up. We have calculated that if we remove people who used their second preference for the same candidate, which happens, or those who chose a candidate already in the top two so their vote would not transfer, around half of valid second-preference votes were non-transferable, so basically wasted, in each of these London mayoral elections. Their second preferences were non-transferable as they had been cast for candidates who did not make the top two. In each of these elections, hundreds of thousands of votes were wasted—between 49% and 53%—and a mayor was elected without the majority support that we all desire.

That is why I fully support Amendment 217 bringing in the alternative vote for mayoral elections, which would mean that every vote and transfer will genuinely count. We would be able to engage communities far more in these elections. It is a better system to ensure genuine democracy in action.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I note the dedication of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to this issue, but he will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support him on this group of amendments. The issue of electoral reform has been debated time and again. I do not believe it would be appropriate to insert these significant provisions in this Bill now. Our position on these Benches has been consistent in favour of first past the post as the preferred voting system.

As my noble friend Lord Trenchard highlighted, in 2011 a UK-wide referendum was held and 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal to introduce alternative vote. That result cannot be ignored. I recognise that this referendum was with regard to the voting system for Members of Parliament in the other place, but there is no basis to simply assume that there would be a majority in favour of AV if it had focused solely on local elections, or indeed a majority in favour of a supplementary voting system for councillors. Voters clearly stated their preference for first past the post, and it would be inappropriate to ignore them through amendments to this Bill now. I appreciate our differences on this issue, but I urge noble Lords to think carefully before supporting these amendments, regardless of their personal preferences for electoral reform.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this group of amendments. The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. I welcome the noble Lord’s interest in this topic and I respect his great knowledge and expertise.

We acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, especially for single executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is precisely for this reason that we are planning to reintroduce the supplementary vote system for these polls. This system has a proven history of successfully meeting the needs of the electorate and is well understood. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned the referendum that was held in 2011 with regard to parliamentary elections. I am sure we will go on debating electoral reform for some time to come—I do not think it is going to go away—but it is true to say that that 67.9% of voters rejected the proposal back in 2011.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about our devolved Administrations, the voting system used for elections to devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of those devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. For historical reasons the single transferable vote has been used for local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is appropriate for different voting systems to be used for different polls, but we believe that the supplementary vote is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors.

I noted the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the elections for police and crime commissioners. He rightly says that those positions will go. I have not had a definitive answer, but I assume that we are putting in the provision for PCC elections in case a by-election needs to be held between now and when the positions would normally come up for election, at which time those posts will go. We therefore do not support plans to introduce an alternative vote system for these particular elections, as we believe the supplementary vote is much more appropriate. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. I recognise my noble friend Lady O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and many others from those Covid conversations, including the Minister.

Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Who could not remember Jackie from Cheshire, who had no authority, but she still managed to press the “off” button for the chap who was needling her? Some councillors—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—fell asleep in Covid. I saw some clips on YouTube where others had gone to the toilet or left to shower or where children bumbled in, but for all those mishaps, by and large, it worked pretty well. So, yes, it can work.

In Committee, I found it difficult to support all the various remote working amendments. They were widely drawn and somewhat nebulous, but I am very taken with my noble friend’s Amendment 244 because it constrains it to certain circumstances that encourage participation and engagement, that limit it to those cases with disability, bad weather and other emergencies, which could happen—foot and mouth, war. I am also persuaded by the amendment because we need to recognise that in local government there are different types of meeting, each with different consequences and purposes. Yes, there is the full council meeting where everyone gets together, and it is important that everyone has their vote. There are executive meetings, like cabinet meetings, and there are scrutiny meetings which are not executive but sit on the other side of the scrutiny/executive divide. Then there are policy formation committees which are not for decision-making, are part of scrutiny but do not often vote. So we have the distinction between what is decision or non-decision-making. And then there is quasi-judicial planning and licensing. In-person attendance is really important for those; the decisions taken in those meetings carry the weight of law. This amendment allows for all that texture to be captured and limited so we have the best of both worlds. As I say, I favour it.

Also, we need to recognise that local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly the need to travel more, particularly in the large authorities such as North Yorkshire, home to my noble friend. There are more combined authority meetings. Upon the passage of this Bill, there will be an even greater need for people on a much wider canvas to come together more frequently over long distances. One has to account for, and allow for, remote meetings in some of those circumstances. In my own authority, we have trading companies where councils, which may not necessarily be neighbours, club together at arm’s length. They are not the council, but they are owned by the council. We have to take that into consideration too.

On that last point, we cannot just leave this to the councils alone. In the case of a trading company, with these regulations, what would happen if one council in the partnership permitted remote meetings and the others did not? How on earth would that work? Having the sort of regulations contemplated by my noble friend is therefore really important.

This is a big improvement on the proposals that came forward for Committee. They are now capable of going forward. I support them, especially with the affirmative safeguards proposed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing forward this amendment, and to all noble Lords—well, my noble friend Lord Fuller—who have contributed to the debate.

We recognise the intention behind this proposal. As my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, I look at many faces in 3D here, having seen them in 2D on a screen during Covid. Flexibility is important in exceptional circumstances, and when those exceptional circumstances arose, we had the powers for remote meetings. But we are not persuaded that it is the right approach in more normal circumstances. Local authority meetings are the cornerstone of local democracy. They are not simply an administrative exercise; they are forums for debate, scrutiny and accountability, conducted in public and rooted in the communities they serve. There is real value in councillors being physically present, in engaging directly with one another, officers and members of the public.

We are also mindful that existing arrangements already allow for a degree of flexibility in truly exceptional circumstances. Moving more routinely to remote or hybrid meetings risks diminishing the quality of debate, weakening transparency and weakening accountability and public engagement. For those reasons, while we understand the motivation behind the amendment, we cannot support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

The Government believe it should be local authorities themselves which determine whether to meet in person, online or in a hybrid format, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies when doing so. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pickering, and as the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Fuller, mentioned, I, too, have taken part in those 2D meetings; everyone looks so much better in 3D, so I am very pleased to not be doing that today. The sector is diverse and varied, and there is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every meeting at every tier of local government.

Our approach is therefore to enable, rather than constrain, locally responsive policy-making. That was the position we set out clearly in our consultation response last year, and it remains our position today. This will require legislation that specifically meets the needs of authorities of all types and tiers to ensure this flexibility. The Government are considering this matter separately and in slower time to ensure that, when parliamentary time allows for remote attendance to be legislated for, such provisions are robust, inclusive, and achieve an operationally effective outcome at a local level. The various examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, show exactly why we must work on this further with the sector, to ensure we have taken account of all the many issues and examples he raised. We do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment achieves that.

We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. I am afraid it is well above my pay grade to say what is in the King’s Speech and what is not, but that is why we are committed to legislating, when parliamentary time allows, to deliver that flexibility in a way that is robust, effective and appropriately scrutinised. With that explanation in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

248D: In subsection (2), after inserted section 128A(2)(b), insert—
“(c) the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom, published a report on the findings of the review, and laid that report before both Houses of Parliament, and has had regard to the outcomes of the review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent regulations in respect of statutory trust orders from being made until the Government’s review on open spaces has taken place, and require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 248D is an amendment to my noble friend Lord Banner’s Amendment 248. My amendment would prevent my noble friend’s amendment coming into effect until the Government’s promised review of open spaces had been completed.

If the Government choose to proceed on the issue of statutory trusts for recreation, it is essential that due process is followed. We know that many people across the country feel strongly about high-profile cases involving statutory trusts, and many of them are concerned about the loss of important green spaces in their local area. There is a reason for the existence of statutory trusts for recreation, and we will stand up for open spaces. We have long campaigned for a brownfield-first approach to housing delivery, and it is greater housing density, not urban sprawl, that is needed. However, we are not blockers. This is about building the right homes in the right places. The Conservative Party is the party of housebuilding. In 2019, we committed to delivering 1 million new homes by the end of that Parliament, and I am proud to say we kept that promise.

My noble friend has already outlined the issues of the Day case so I will not repeat them, but I will refer to paragraph 116 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, in which Lady Rose said:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation in which CSE”—


the new owner of the land—

“no doubt bought the land in the expectation of being able to develop it”.

In the wake of this judgment, a rather messy situation needs resolving. I think noble Lords on all sides of this debate recognise that a solution is urgently needed, not least because the situation we face today is holding back much-needed housing delivery. We recognise the problem, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Banner for his hard work in bringing forward a solution today. He is a very accomplished lawyer in this field and we rely on his expertise in this House so often.

I know that the Minister recognises the problem raised by my noble friend, and we welcome the Government’s engagement with the underlying issues created by the Day case. However, as a responsible Opposition, we need to ensure due process has been undertaken. Ministers have committed to a wide review of open spaces and the sufficiency of those spaces. Surely it is right that they should not proceed with a change in the law on this contentious issue without waiting for that review. That is why I and my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook have tabled Amendment 248D, which would prevent regulation in respect of statutory trust orders being made until the Government’s review of open spaces has taken place and would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the outcomes of the review. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I had a large number of amendments to my noble friend’s amendment, but I have reduced them in the interests of simplicity and time.

As my noble friend Lord Jamieson has pointed out, at an earlier stage we were promised a government review of this area. To me, that seems entirely appropriate. This is a complicated area and one of huge importance to communities and to the country as a whole. My noble friend Lord Banner has, of course, devised an extremely attractive and competent amendment, but amendments introduced late in a Bill’s progress in the Lords have a long history of having unexamined and unexpected consequences. They really do not give time, particularly in a difficult area, for government and civil society as a whole to get into the interstices of what needs to be done. Yes, we need to do something, but we should do things in the proper order. The amendments I have left in illustrate some of the areas in which I think my noble friend’s amendment needs examination.

I am unconvinced by the arrangements, or lack of arrangements, for compensation for loss, which leave in the ability for a developer to harass a community by putting in a new application immediately after a previous one has failed. The arrangements for bringing an application to the attention of civil society are very weak in the context of how information flows today. The process can be initiated by a tenant without the freeholder’s involvement. That seems extremely odd. It does not deal with situations where land is being transferred between local authorities, as will happen a good deal in the context of local government reorganisation. There is no real assessment of the need for open space locally. The consideration of environmental loss is very weak. For all those reasons, I think we should go back to the promise made by the Government and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s amendment suggests, not put the Banner amendment into effect until we have done the review.

As my noble friend Lord Banner has pointed out, Wimbledon has won its case so there is no longer urgency with that big beast—the All England Lawn Tennis Club—lobbying hard for this amendment. We can afford to take time to get this right. Noble Lords know that I dislike the actions of the tennis club very much. Well, there we are; I shall survive the fact that it won and my friends lost. I think only highly of my noble friend Lord Banner who has, by bringing his amendment forward, made it impossible for him to accept even a cup of strawberries from Wimbledon for the next few years. He also finds himself putting forward arguments which he will attempt to demolish when he opposes the development of the new Chinese embassy. I think very highly of him and there are a lot of things in his amendment that I like, but I would really like us to take time to consider it properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 248 and his engagement on this matter. It has absolutely not been a last-minute issue. The noble Lord raised this issue first in the debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There has been much engagement between me and the noble Lord—and between him and officials—over many months. Officials and I have also dealt with a large volume of correspondence on the issue.

As the noble Lord set out, and as was discussed during debates on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently there is no way of release statutory trusts where the original statutory advertisement procedure has not been complied with. The consequence is stark: land can remain bound by a statutory trust in perpetuity, even if that outcome serves today’s communities or the wider public interest. I point out—the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has already made this point—that, if the local authority follows the procedure and provides the advertisement, it can release the trust in the first place. This is only a backstop in case that procedure has failed.

The current position risks holding up important developments that may be in the public interest: for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The Government do not believe that historic procedural failures should indefinitely frustrate sensible, beneficial outcomes. In practice, this legal lacuna—I did not know that word until I started working on this, but I do now—can prevent the delivery of much needed homes, community facilities, transport infrastructure or environmental improvements, which may command strong local and national public interest support but are currently blocked by an inflexible legal position.

Since taking office, our Government have been clear that we are builders not blockers, but we are equally clear that development must be responsible, transparent and rooted in the public interest. The amendment would strike that balance very carefully. It would create a clear, lawful mechanism to address historic errors, while ensuring that statutory trusts are discharged only where it is right to do so.

Crucially, the amendment would introduce a rigorous, evidence-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions, robust publicity requirements and a broad public interest test at its heart. Communities would have clear opportunities to make representations. Environmental and heritage considerations must be weighed, and decisions would be taken transparently and published openly.

The Government are firmly of the view that green and open spaces play a vital role in well-being, recreation, nature recovery and local identity. The amendment fully recognises that value and acknowledges that some parcels of land, due to changes over time, no longer serve their original recreational purpose and may deliver greater public benefit if repurposed in a careful and considered way. By providing a structured route to resolve these cases, rather than leaving them in permanent legal uncertainty, the amendment would restore fairness, unlock stalled opportunities and ensure that decisions about public land were made deliberately, transparently and in the public interest.

While the amendment would provide a fail-safe for very specific instances where statutory procedures had not been followed, the failure to adhere to it is symptomatic of a wider issue regarding the protections for public spaces which requires examination. Existing protections for urban green spaces and recreational land are fragmented, complex and very difficult to navigate. There is no clear comprehensive picture of what land is protected, which can leave communities—and local authorities—struggling to safeguard valued spaces. It makes it harder for those local authorities to operate confidently within the planning system.

To address this, my department is undertaking an internal review of the legislative framework governing public recreational green spaces. The review will clarify current statutory protections, assess how effective and usable they are in practice and consider where the system can be simplified. Over the coming months, we will engage with stakeholders across local authorities, the parks and green spaces sector, as well as the development sector to inform this work, which is expected to map existing legislative protections and establish how each piece of legislation operates and interacts in practice, drawing on evidence gathered from stakeholder engagement. For those reasons, the Government strongly support the amendment, while taking forward work to review the wider framework for protecting recreational green spaces.

Amendment 248D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would make the exercise of the statutory trust discharge order power conditional on the completion and publication of a UK-wide review of open space availability. While I recognise the importance of protecting public recreational land, the Government cannot support this approach.

The power created by Amendment 248 is a targeted, balanced and proportionate response to a specific legal problem: historic procedural failures under the Local Government Act 1972. These failures have left some land subject to statutory trust in legal uncertainty. The amendment before us would risk delaying or even preventing entirely the use of that narrowly defined power, regardless of the circumstances of the land in question.

The difficulty of the amendment lies in the breadth and uncertainty of what is proposed. “Open space” is defined very widely in existing legislation and policy, covering a broad range of land types and engaging interests across multiple government departments. The amendment does not define the scope, methodology or frequency of the proposed review, leaving it unclear whether such a review would need to be undertaken once or repeatedly before the power could be exercised.

The UK-wide requirement of the amendment would provide a further difficulty. Land, planning and open space policy are largely devolved matters, and a review covering the whole of the United Kingdom would require the agreement and active co-operation of the devolved Administrations, over which the Secretary of State has no direct control. It would therefore be open to factors wholly outside the scope of the Bill to delay or frustrate the use of the power, even where all relevant conditions in England had been met. In practice, the provisions of the amendment would be highly complex, time-consuming and likely to stall the statutory trust discharge regime altogether. For those reasons, while the Government remain committed to the protection of public recreational green space, we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the effectiveness and legal certainty of this targeted mechanism.

Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require the Secretary of State to obtain an express written consent of the relevant local authority before making a statutory trust discharge order following a separate local consultation and reporting process. While I recognise the importance of local engagement and protecting land held for public enjoyment, the Government cannot support this amendment. Amendment 248 is designed to address a very narrow but significant legal problem: historic cases where land remains subject to a statutory trust because correct procedures were not followed when it was sold or appropriated to a different purpose by a local authority. The purpose of Amendment 248 is to close a gap in existing law and allow such trusts to be released where specific conditions are met, including that it is in the public interest to do so. It provides a pragmatic route to resolve those difficulties where existing mechanisms have proved insufficient.

By making local authority consent a legal precondition, Amendment 249 could prevent the new power from being used in precisely the cases it is intended to address. It would turn a backstop statutory remedy into a process that could simply be blocked, even where it would be in the public interest for it to be exercised. Amendment 249 would give local authorities an effective veto over statutory trust discharge orders, even in cases where they no longer own or control the land. The land may have been lawfully sold or transferred decades ago, yet under this amendment a former owner could block discharge regardless of its lack of property interest or liability. Amendment 248 already provides that the Secretary of State must take into account any representations, including those from local authorities, about whether or not the order should be made. Amendment 249 would also duplicate advertisement requirements that are already built into Amendment 248, adding delay and complexity without improving outcomes.

I now turn to the amendments to Amendment 248 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, excluding Amendment 251A, which I will address separately. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the attention he has given to Amendment 248 and for his meeting at very short notice with officials in the department, which I hope he found helpful. Taken together, his amendments would significantly undermine the purpose of Amendment 248 and make the new statutory trust discharge order process extremely difficult to operate in practice. Amendment 248 is intended to provide a pragmatic and proportionate solution to the specific legal problem. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would recast that targeted remedy into a much more onerous regime, introducing new substantive tests and requirements that would go significantly beyond addressing the historic defects. In particular, the amendments would require applicants and the Secretary of State to satisfy additional conditions that are not part of the existing statutory trust framework, and which are not necessary to fix the lacuna that Amendment 248 is designed to close. The additional conditions proposed by the noble Lord would extend significantly beyond the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

The amendments would also place significant practical barriers in the way of using the new power, introducing mandatory compensatory benefit requirements and expanded and prescriptive publicity obligations. These amendments would bar cases already before the courts, introduce a five year ban on repeat applications and expand the public interest test to require assessment of local open space need and the benefits of refusing an order. This would mean that many legitimate cases could never be resolved through the new route. Rather than reducing legal uncertainty, this would entrench it and encourage further litigation.

Finally, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord would make statutory trust discharge orders rigid and high risk for decision makers, including by preventing orders from ever being amended or revoked once made. Taken together with highly prescriptive procedural requirements, this would deter use of the power altogether. The result would be that Amendment 248 would exist in legislation but would be too rigid and difficult to use, leaving the underlying legal problem unresolved.

Amendment 251A seeks to preserve statutory trust protections where land subject to these protections is transferred between public bodies which intend that the statutory trust will continue. While I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue, the Government do not support this amendment. This particular issue is complex, and the Government need more time to consider it and work through the consequences of changing the law, including the implications for local authorities, national park authorities and wider government priorities. I will ask officials to investigate this issue, and I would welcome any evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that demonstrates when this has been a problem in practice. That will help us work out what the best solution is. If appropriate, we will consider this issue in our review of legislative protections for public recreational green spaces. For all the reasons I have given, while I fully acknowledge the noble Lord’s intentions, I ask him, and the other noble Lords who have submitted amendments, not to press their amendments, except for Amendment 248.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We share the Government’s ambition for more homes. On the specific proposal in response to the Day case, we recognise the need to resolve the situation. I am pleased that many noble Lords across the House seem to concur with that view. I appreciate the many protections that my noble friend Lord Banner has put into his amendment. However, I go back to a fundamental issue. The Government have committed to a review. It can only be right that the review takes place and is taken into account by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and as chair of Action on Gambling. I thank the Minister for her very kind words just now. As she said, giving local councils greater power to control the number of gambling premises on their high streets is something I have pursued for many years. For instance, 22 years ago in the other place—I was looking back at the record earlier today—when opposing what became the Gambling Act 2005, I said that there was a need to provide

“strong and absolute powers to local councils to specifically reject individual casino applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/04; col. 62.]

The need to provide greater powers to councils to control all forms of gambling premises remains. Large numbers of gambling premises on the high street, often in deprived areas, are closely linked with increased crime and gambling harm, causing great harm to individuals, their families and the communities in which they live.

Only a couple of weeks ago, the Observer reported on the closure of the very last bank in a historic coastal town. That bank is now being taken over by an adult gaming centre, providing gambling machines and all sorts of other opportunities to gamble. It is going to operate for 24 hours a day. Many members of the local community were violently opposed to this and, not surprisingly, the council itself was opposed to it, and the planning application and the licensing application for the conversion of the former bank into an adult gaming centre were rejected.

Nevertheless, Admiral, which was making the proposal, took its application on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As a result, the rejection by the council—despite all the opposition—was overturned. Indeed, the Observer article pointed out that between 2021 and 2025 there have been 85 examples of similar planning applications refused by the local council, and yet 59 of them were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and have gone ahead. There is still an urgent need to do something about it.

One of the reasons why the Planning Inspectorate overturned those rejections by local councils was because of a section in the Gambling Act 2005 that says councils must have an “aim to permit” gambling premises to open. Therefore, the best way of dealing with the problem will be to delete the “aim to permit” section from the Gambling Act, but sadly neither the previous Government nor the present Government were willing to do that. So I proposed an alternative: to use the cumulative impact assessment procedure, which had been successfully introduced many years ago to help councils stop the proliferation of premises selling alcohol. Clearly that is not a problem today as many pubs are closing, but at the time it was very effective, used in the way the Minister has described. I was absolutely delighted that the Government said that they would use the approach of the cumulative impact assessment procedure.

The Minister knows that I have a slight concern about the wording of the amendment, and we have had a discussion about it. But she assured me—and I quote from her letter to me—that she is confident that

“the amendment as drafted will clarify and strengthen licensing authorities’ powers during the licensing process, particularly in areas vulnerable to gambling related harm”.

I hope she is right. I am increasingly confident that she is. On the basis of that, I hope all noble Lords will support her amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Government have come forward with this amendment. We believe it is right that the cumulative impact of gambling licences in an area should be taken into account. We are pleased that the Government have sought to respond to the amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. That said, we note that this amendment is somewhat longer and more complex than the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord. We fear that, as a result, it may lack some clarity—in particular what it means for an applicant to show consistency with licensing objectives and how the evidence would be assessed. The regulatory framework should be communicated in a way that is understandable and reliable for business and local authorities alike to prevent inconsistencies and confusion, which could then result in costly appeals or legal challenges. I ask the Minister to respond to that, but I thank her for bringing forward this proposal. We will also be supporting it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. To respond briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Jamieson, at the moment there is an aim to permit, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, in Section 153 of the Gambling Act. In effect, this amendment will flip the burden of proof in areas covered by gambling impact assessments, with a presumption in favour of granting a licence resulting from “aim to permit” then becoming a presumption in favour of rejecting the application. However, it is important to note that licensing decisions will continue to be grounded in the existing regulatory framework, requiring consistency with licensing objectives. That is the key point.

Gambling impact assessments will be an important first step in strengthening the powers that local authorities have to shape their high streets. They are part of the wide range of tools that local authorities have to regulate gambling in their areas. We will of course consider whether any further measures are needed in this area during the development of the high street strategy, which will be published later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for tabling this amendment.

We are fully supportive of the importance of addressing climate change and protecting the environment. The targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 are rightly ambitious and play a vital role in shaping national policy. However, we are not persuaded that placing an additional statutory duty of this kind on local authorities is the right approach. Local government is already subject to a wide and growing range of obligations. There is a risk that introducing a broad, undefined duty to take all reasonable steps could create uncertainty, duplication and legal complexity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, raised the issue of that survey of councils which wanted a statutory duty and the funding. This amendment would do nothing to address the funding and would potentially place quite significant financial burdens on local authorities without any funding to deliver on the duty. It would potentially compromise other statutory services. We believe that progress in this area is best achieved through clear national frameworks, through targeted support and partnership with local authorities, rather than through the creation of additional statutory duties of this nature—particularly if they have no funding. For those reasons, while we recognise the intent behind the amendment, we are unable to support it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for Amendment 311 and for the useful engagement that I have had with her and with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this issue. I apologise that the response that the noble Baroness was waiting for was held up over the Easter period. I have chased it up and hope that she will get it shortly.

I have consistently made the point that many local and strategic authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring. On net zero, the Government offer support for local government, including through the Local Power Plan, published by Great British Energy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which sets out the UK’s largest-ever public investment in community energy. Backed by up to £1 billion, the plan supports more than 1,000 local and community energy projects. Great British Energy’s support also includes the £10 million mayoral renewables fund. We are investing a landmark £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan up to 2030, including the £2.5 billion allocated to the warm homes local grant and warm homes social housing fund. We fund five local net zero hubs, which support local authorities to develop net-zero projects and attract commercial investment.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to biodiversity targets, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On climate adaptation, the Government work closely with local authorities, including strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts.

Given such existing support, it remains my opinion that adding a broad new statutory duty is not the right approach. Local authorities already operate within a wide range of environmental and climate-related duties. Introducing an additional, overarching obligation could increase administrative burdens and cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, and reduce local flexibility. Instead, we are focused on enabling councils to use their existing powers effectively. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.