English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

Creating a new duty for community cultivation schemes would require similar land assessments to be registered and a nomination process to local authorities to comply with their duties under the Allotments Acts of 1908 and 1925. Through the new community right to buy, this Bill also provides a clear and practical route for communities to secure space for cultivation without creating a new statutory duty. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her very high-quality, thoughtful and complete reply, which I have become used to. I am sure that I and my noble friends will spend much time reading it again in order to further trouble her on Report.

On my Amendment 222A, I understand what the noble Baroness said. I will merely comment that this is, looking back at our record in government, a misconceived policy: centrally designating deserving communities does not work. The centre does not know and understand enough. Where we produced levelling-up schemes, either with a very short timescale, or where the use of the funds was entirely undefined, my observation was that an awful lot of those funds went astray or were employed in projects that should not have been funded.

Funding for assets of community value stood out against that as a really successful scheme because, in order to qualify, the project had to have been thought through. It had to have the support of the community and got through those hurdles that would demonstrate that, at the end of the day, what would be produced would be used by and be of value to the community, and be what the community wanted.

It was not a huge scheme but it was a very successful one, and we found it much more powerful and effective as a way to distribute money. I am sorry that the Government have abandoned that, and I hope that at some stage they will take the chance to look at the record of what has been achieved by these various schemes and at what the most effective way is of dispensing money.

I am grateful to the Minister for her replies to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I understand what she says, but obviously it will be up to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to decide whether she takes that forward. I am obliged also to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and others. I think that they got good answers but maybe not quite good enough.

As for my noble friend Lady Coffey and this business of a five-year time limit on assets of cumulative value, there is nothing obvious in this scheme that says whether you can or cannot immediately relist. I understand what the Minister says about things changing and the community maybe not using an asset anymore—but it is not clear from here that an asset can be immediately redesignated at the expiry of the five years. By not making that clear, it risks people arguing with it and the decision going the wrong way. If the Government’s intention is that it is a review rather than an all-time cross-off, which is my understanding, I think we might find a way of expressing that better. But I am very grateful for the Minister’s replies and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 222A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, your Lordships will pleased to know that I have accepted the advice of others that it would not be acceptable for me to start again. I had actually reached the last paragraph before we were—I will not say rudely, but I simply say—interrupted by the Division Bells. I was just about to make my two closing points. These were in response to the suggestion from various interested groups outside whose contention is that Amendment 222C does not go far enough. I shall make two points in response to that suggestion.

First, the amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of parks’ trusts and protections. In my view, it should not be caught up in, or delayed by, that distinct political debate—it is a separate issue. The second point is that, for practical purposes, the amendment would actually produce significant improvements in the law. The advertising requirements in the 1972 Act are minimal compared with the amendment. If the local authority had complied with the simple requirement to advertise locally for two weeks, Dr Day’s claim would have failed. Indeed, he would never have started the action.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Jamieson, about the wider review. I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the specific answers he referred to but we spoke about this during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Once we have scoped what the wider review around trusts and open spaces will be, I will write to noble Lords who have taken part in these debates and inform them of how and when we are going to carry out that review and the likely timescales. I have been a bit busy with other legislation, I am afraid, so I have not got round to that yet. That said, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for bringing forward this amendment and raising this important topic.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I had not realised that the noble Baroness was so much in favour of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, made reference to consultation. The provision for consultation in the amendment is exceptionally thin and ill-defined. There is nothing here that I would recognise as getting in among the community and finding out what they care about and want. There is no provision for that kind of depth of research, particularly in the context of the issue we are talking about in Wimbledon, where the interests of those who actually live there, as opposed to the neighbouring borough, seem to be ignored entirely. There is nothing in the wording of this amendment to suggest that that will not continue to be the case. If this is an amendment which is to be proceeded with on Report, we will have a large number of amendments to it and a long debate.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I am thankful for the comments and to all the contributors to this debate. I emphatically endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, that the issue this amendment presents is separate to the wider protections of parks and open spaces that are to be the subject of the review mentioned. The substantive content of the trusts in question, the protections they place on development spaces when the trusts are in force, are unaffected. The law in relation to registered parks and gardens, national parks et cetera are unaffected. Planning policy in relation to open spaces is unaffected. All those matters may be the subject of the future review.

This amendment concerns one issue alone, which is that the Local Government Act 1972 already allows for the relevant trusts to come to an end upon the sale of the land if there is advertisement of two weeks, which is half the level of advertisement that this amendment proposes for the context that we are dealing with. All that we are dealing with here is what happens either when the original sale was not advertised or the evidence is unclear as to whether it was. How do you rectify the situation? The answer is that you double the advertisement later. What possible complaint can there be that there is insufficient consultation of advertisement, when you get twice what the law already provides for to discharge the trust at the time?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am sure my noble friend’s imagination is broader than that.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

Can I also clarify that this amendment is not just about Wimbledon, nor was the previous one? They were both fully ranging in relation to all such trusts in question. In light of that, while welcoming the Minister’s support in principle for the amendment, given that there is a degree of contention, I withdraw it now but will bring it back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome Clause 73; it is an excellent development. I want to take advantage of the opportunity to debate its inclusion in the Bill to press the Government further on Amendment 241E from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, which urges that, along with the general power of competence, national parks be granted a stronger place in spatial development strategies.

National parks are big beasts. Between them and national landscapes, they cover about 25% of our landscape. They play key roles in areas such as climate and 30 by 30, as well as looking after communities and economic development. Relegating them to second-class status and just making them consultees is a recipe for tension rather than collaboration.

In her reply to Amendment 241E, the Minister briefly referred to the provision of guidance to support early and effective engagement with national park authorities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide further clarification. Is this a commitment to provide guidance, or just an intention? If the guidance is provided, will it ensure that engagement goes further than mere consultation? What further details might be available regarding the timelines for this guidance, given the speed at which mayoral devolution is moving? All six of the selected areas currently on the fast track contain either a national park or a protected landscape. I would prefer to have a detailed letter before Report rather than a brisk verbal response now, but that is obviously up to the Minister.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on these matters. Our national parks are now in their 75th anniversary year. Some 10% of our land and most of our SSSIs are part of our protected habitats in national parks. National parks are key for protecting our ecosystems and adapting to climate change, and they provide untold social, health and cultural benefits to the nation. They are an extremely important part of national cultures and psyche. I support the noble Lord; we need further clarity on these matters. I absolutely support his call for the Minister to provide greater clarity and guidance on these matters between now and Report, so that we can properly examine them between now and then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When it comes to drawing up a strategic development strategy, it will be for the planning inspector—as they would, in the normal way, if there were a dispute between two of the parties engaged in that process—to work through that and determine whose view holds sway in the strategy.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness give me a little more comfort on the timescale for the emergence of this guidance? Without asking her to commit to it, roughly when does she expect it to appear?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will have heard me respond with frustration from the Dispatch Box many times when I cannot give specific dates. Once the Bill has reached Royal Assent, we will aim to make sure that the pieces of guidance that I have referred to throughout the passage of the Bill are dealt with as quickly as possible but, inevitably, there will be consultations to take place. I cannot give him a specific timescale for that. As soon as we have any idea about when that will be, I will let him know.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that answer, as far as it went.

Clause 73 agreed.