English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, if cream were added to the strawberries, I suspect it may be more attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I support Amendment 248 and I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

In a nutshell, Amendment 248 has two purposes. First, it is intended to reverse the 2023 Supreme Court decision in the case of Dr Day v Shropshire Council. Secondly, it is designed to provide full protection for members of the public who are rightly concerned both to have a fair opportunity to be informed of a proposed sale of recreational land to which they have access and, if so advised, to challenge that sale. As to the first point, the decision in Day produces a very unsatisfactory result as a matter of law and, indeed, as a matter of common sense. We always hope that the law and common sense function in tandem. We have a tandem here but, unfortunately, it is facing in the wrong direction.

In the Supreme Court, Lady Rose said—I think this point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—in paragraph 116 of her judgment:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.


The mess referred to by the learned justice is that, although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and although the Local Government Act 1972 expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers in the two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place. As a result, the land cannot be developed. It is permanently blighted because the original failure to advertise, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, pointed out, simply can never be put right.

At a time when the Government are rightly concerned to increase the housing stock, it will be immediately apparent that the Day decision operates as a significant inhibition on that important social policy. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, recognises this point but, with great respect, I cannot agree with the conclusion that he arrives at.

As has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, the form of this amendment is rather different from its predecessor, which we put forward during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill some months ago. Pausing there, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed the view that the one we are presented with in the House this evening is a late amendment. With great respect, I do not agree. This amendment was on the table in Committee in the course of this Bill; that is not a late amendment at all. During the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, some noble Lords expressed concerns to the effect that reversing the Day decision was all well and good, but it would leave members of the public who are rightly concerned to protect their recreational space with no ability to challenge a proposed sale or have their voices heard—a perfectly reasonable complaint, if I may say so.

That brings me to my second point. The amendment takes full account of those concerns. It would provide for a robust public consultation process. It would mean that an application would have to be made for what is called a statutory trust discharge order, with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met, the qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, most importantly what are called the new publicity requirements must be complied with, and the Secretary of State must be satisfied that

“it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”,

which is qualifying condition F.

Noble Lords will have noticed that the public interest is defined in the widest possible terms—again, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has made the point. I appreciate that there are more wide-ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, which have been expressed by, for example, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other interest groups. For those groups, we are told our amendment does not go far enough. As to that, I respectfully make two points. First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of parks, trusts and protections and it should not be caught up in or delayed by that distinct political debate. The second point is that, for practical purposes, this amendment would produce real improvements in the law. The advertising requirements in the 1972 Act are minimal compared with what is proposed in this amendment. If the local authority had complied with the simple requirement to advertise locally for just two weeks, Dr Day’s claim would have failed. Indeed, his claim would have been dismissed as unarguable.

Your Lordships will of course appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put forward something like 50 amendments to our Amendment 248. To be fair to him, a very large number of them have been withdrawn, for which we are grateful. I have studied his suggested amendments with some care, but I am not persuaded that any of them would in any way improve or clarify our Amendment 248.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the powerful speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and my noble friend Lord Grabiner. I just want to emphasise two points on Amendment 248, to which I have added my name. The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, then the purchaser takes free from the trust—that is Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law. The only question to which this amendment is directed is what should happen if there has been a failure by the local authority properly to advertise the trust.

The second point I want to emphasise is that, if the local authority fails properly to advertise the sale, any interested person is perfectly entitled to bring a judicial review to challenge the sale within a short time period—normally three months but reduced to six weeks in the planning context. The vice of the present law, as stated by the Supreme Court, is that the purchaser in good faith remains bound by the trust, even though it is not responsible for the failure of the local authority to advertise and even though no legal challenge has been brought within the applicable time limits. The whole purpose of time limits in public law is to ensure that, after the expiry of the time limits, people can go about their business and can develop land in their interests and of course in the public interest. That is the context.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, if I heard him correctly, said that in the interests of politeness he would not comment on the amendments to his Amendment 248. I am less polite than my friend the noble Lord, Lord Banner—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

We know that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for confirming that she knows that already. I will comment, I hope politely, on Amendment 248D in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson spoke. They wish to insert a precondition to the application of these new provisions for statutory trust discharge orders. The precondition is that the Secretary of State must first undertake a review of the availability of open spaces in this country, publish a report, lay the report before both Houses of Parliament—no doubt there would then be a debate—and then have regard to the outcome of the review.

This will cause very substantial delay in the application of the new statutory trust discharge orders, and it will cause substantial delay—years of delay—despite us all agreeing, I think, that these new orders are needed urgently. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressly accepted that these new provisions are urgently needed. If he accepts that they are urgently needed, it makes no sense at all to delay their application for many years.

In any event, I suggest to noble Lords that to await such a review would be especially inappropriate because the review would be general. Amendment 248D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a review of the availability of open spaces in the United Kingdom. By contrast, proposed new Section 128D(10), from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, specifies that the qualifying condition F is whether,

“it is in the public interest for the relevant land”—

I emphasise “relevant land”—

“to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order”.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that it makes no sense for a general review to hold up decisions on specific land which raise entirely distinct issues.

Indeed, that amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is also unnecessary. If there are concerns about the availability of open spaces in the locality of the relevant land, the Secretary of State would be perfectly entitled to take that into account in deciding, under proposed new Section 218D(10) and (11), whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts.

Like my noble friend Lord Grabiner, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has withdrawn, by my counting—it is perhaps an approximation—39 of the amendments he proposed to Amendment 248. The noble Lord suggests that this is all being rushed, and the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, addressed that point. I add that we have been over this ground since last September; there is nothing new about this. Many of us spoke on amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill earlier this Session, in support of or in opposition to an earlier amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which had a similar objective. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said on 15 September last year—and again today—referring to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner:

“The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1985.]


We have all known that since last September. The Minister said that,

“this issue needs to be given wider consideration to identify a balanced solution that takes into account legal safeguards and addresses the practical challenges faced by developers”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; cols. 1985-86.]

That has taken place. Here we are today and it is high time that we resolve this issue.

Amendment 248 sets out a fair, transparent and practical means of addressing the problem; it requires an application by the landowner, detailed advertising and consideration by the Secretary of State, who has broad discretion in whether it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trust. That is the appropriate way forward and that is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally—

Chinese Embassy

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not going to give the noble Lord that assurance from the Dispatch Box. The matter is, as I said, being considered properly on planning grounds. We do not recognise the statement that he made as coming from Chinese officials. The first duty of government is to ensure our safety and security, of course, but all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case. The decision being taken by MHCLG is in line with all statutory provisions that apply to planning decisions. The inspector’s report was received by the department on 10 June. That will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it, as will any other documents and representations that were made during the course of the consideration of the planning application.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister mentions that all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account. Is it a relevant planning consideration that this country needs a new embassy in Beijing?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am going to have to keep repeating the same thing, I am afraid. The material that is relevant, the material considerations that come forward under the planning decision, will be released at the time of the planning decision. It is very important that we keep openness and transparency at the heart of any planning decision we take. Those documents will be released alongside the decision of the Minister by 10 December.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

This House needs to ask the House of Commons to think again and, perhaps more importantly, to help those so desperately seeking property to rent rather than having it artificially held unavailable. I therefore urge noble Lords to engage with the reasoning behind six months to support the availability of property to rent and to support this amendment—in other words, to insist on Amendment 18, as in Motion C1. I will be seeking the support of the House in this matter.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I repeat my interest, in that my wife owns properties in London which she rents out, from which I occasionally benefit. I thank the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and me to discuss the matter. Her engagement with us was much appreciated.

I want to emphasise what the Minister in the House of Commons said when the Lords amendment was defeated. He said:

“We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; col. 637.]


So the Government expressly acknowledge that there will be landlords who are unable to sell, having intended to do so, and who are acting in perfect good faith. The issue is whether it is really appropriate in this Bill to penalise such good faith landlords by preventing them renting out their property for 12 months because of abuse—and there is abuse—by other landlords.

I suggest to the House that this is a plain and obvious case of a disproportionate sanction. It is a sanction against those who have done no wrong and who have acted in perfect good faith. This Government are often eager to emphasise the importance of human rights law. It is important to acknowledge that human rights law does not just protect prisoners and illegal entrants; it also protects law-abiding citizens who own property and who wish to rent it out.

It is a basic principle of the common law, adopted by the Human Rights Act, that any interference with the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of the property owner and the interests of the community. I suggest to the House that to penalise a landlord who has acted in good faith by preventing them renting out their own property for 12 months when they have done no wrong defies the need for a fair balance. It is manifestly disproportionate. The modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to reduce the period to six months is fair and balanced, and if he divides the House, as he has indicated he will, he will certainly have my support.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and have added my name to his amendment.

Every so often, we get a court decision which produces an unsatisfactory outcome. If, as is the position in relation to this amendment, it is a decision of the Supreme Court, there is no further appeal process. In that event, it is possible to have recourse to Parliament for the resulting problem to be put right. This is such a case.

Quite often, because of the demands made on parliamentary time, it is not practical to get a speedy solution. Fortunately, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in progress and is, I believe, tailor-made for the resolution of this problem. The mischief addressed by the amendment was, as you would expect, identified by Lady Rose, delivering the unanimous judgment of the five-judge Supreme Court in the case of R (Day) v Shropshire Council that we are concerned with. In paragraph 116, at the end of her judgment, Lady Rose said:

“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.


This is one of those situations where Parliament can and should step in to perform some corrective surgery.

I will not weary your Lordships with a detailed analysis of some arcane trust law or a lengthy exegesis of Section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875, Sections 123 and 128 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the provisions of the Open Spaces Act 1906—the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has already done that. I do not mean he has bored your Lordships; I mean he has accurately, if I may respectfully say so, summarised the import of that mixture of ancient legislation.

Where a local authority is proposing to dispose of land, it is technically obliged to advertise that fact for two successive weeks in the relevant local press—that is by virtue of Section 123 of the 1972 Act. This enables residents to register their objections in advance of the disposition. It is a consultation process. I describe the advertising requirement as technical because the 1972 Act specifically provides that any failure to advertise—for example, by mistake or oversight—will not impede or undermine the transaction. The buyer is fully protected and gets title to the land purchased—that is Section 128, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, made reference to.

That provision says that the sale is not invalid for want of advertising and that the purchaser

“shall not be concerned to see or enquire”

whether the advertising requirement has been satisfied. Careful and complex historical investigation conducted by a potential purchaser may reveal that the land is subject to a public or statutory trust under the 1875 Act, entitling the public to go on to the land for recreational purposes. The effect of the Day case is far-reaching. It is accepted that the purchaser gets a good title, but the failure to advertise means that the public right to use the land remains in place. Moreover, that will continue to be the case for ever, because only the local authority has the power or duty to advertise under the 1972 Act, so it has a most profound and permanent effect.

Your Lordships will immediately appreciate the devastating impact of the Day decision. The land is blighted. The potential purchaser—for example, a developer—will walk away either because he does not know if the parcel of land, for historical reasons, is caught by the 1875 Act, or because he discovers it is caught, he can do nothing about it and his development plans would be frustrated. At a time when it is in the public interest to encourage housebuilding, it is important that unjustifiable impediments should not be allowed to undermine the furtherance of that crucial objective.

One can see that an objection to the amendment might be made along the lines that the public right to enjoy the land would be taken away. That is true, but there are two important countervailing arguments: first, there is an important public interest in doing whatever we can about the chronic housing shortage; secondly, it is obvious that, in the 1972 Act, Parliament was giving local authorities the power to sell the land and thereby to ensure that the public recreation rights would fall away for ever. The decision in Day makes it plain that if the advertising requirement had been satisfied, the public right would indeed have disappeared. When we take account of the fact that the purchaser gets a good title in any event, the intention of Parliament in 1972 is clear. That Act was designed to facilitate or ease the transfer of land.

The Day decision has produced an uncontemplated hurdle that can, and I respectfully suggest should, be set aside. I hope your Lordships, and indeed the Government in particular, agree with this analysis and will agree to the amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, has just mentioned, the Supreme Court concluded its judgment by recognising that it would leave a “rather messy situation”. This amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to clear up that mess. The mischief that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained is impeding many developments up and down the country, not least the plans of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to expand its facilities at Wimbledon—a much-needed development that will enable the club to better perform its functions of national and, indeed, international importance. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Banner and Lord Grabiner, in relation to this development; they are a formidable doubles team. I will just add a few points.

The first point I want to emphasise is that the law already provides that, if the local authority complies with the statutory requirements and properly advertises the sale, the purchaser takes the land free from the trust. See Section 123 of the Local Government Act and paragraph 102 of the Supreme Court judgment. There is no question of the trust being sacrosanct in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before the Minister replies, I just intervene, not having spoken previously, to say there are always two sides to any argument. There were clearly two sides to the argument before the Supreme Court, the other side being Dr Day’s argument that those people who had the benefit of access to open space should have been consulted about the loss of that.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that, clearly, the intention of the 1972 legislation was that local authorities could dispose of that land and that they would be able to do so notwithstanding the previous Open Spaces Act 1906. The point that was asserted on Dr Day’s behalf before the Supreme Court was that those people who benefit from access to open spaces should have been consulted. The opportunity should be taken just to establish that not only do we need to change the law, we need to examine how and under what circumstances local authorities that wish to dispose of land to which the public have access should consult those people who would be affected.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

In answer to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it was not my noble friend Lord Grabiner and I who described the situation as a mess. Those were the words of Lady Rose herself in the Supreme Court. I would not presume to suggest that the Supreme Court judgment was a mess.

While I am on my feet, I am grateful for the opportunity to mention that my noble friend Lord O’Donnell is here but was not here at the beginning of the debate. He tells me that he very much supports this amendment and would wish to be included in any meeting, if the Minister will grant one. He is a main committee member at the Wimbledon club. He strongly supports the amendment but cannot speak because he was not here at the beginning of the debate.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for their amendments related to land purchasing, and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, who have contributed to the debate.

Amendment 227C seeks to ensure that, when approaching landowners to buy or lease their land in connection with a proposed development, developers declare their interest in purchasing adjacent land and confirm whether purchasing that land is being done in connection with a nationally significant infrastructure project for development consent via the Planning Act 2008. While I appreciate the intent behind this amendment—to increase transparency and discourage speculative land banking, which none of us wants to see—I respectfully argue that it is neither appropriate nor necessary within the framework of the Bill.

Purchasing land in relation to developments, particularly those that relate to nationally significant infrastructure projects, can often be sensitive in nature and thus require confidential discussions between parties to ensure that the most appropriate and proportionate outcome is achieved for all. Requiring developers to disclose whether they are in talks with other landowners could inadvertently breach confidentiality agreements, potentially jeopardising progress on the development of projects.

Furthermore, within the Planning Act 2008 guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land, there is government guidance on where purchasing land is required in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects. This encourages developers to enter into early discissions with people who could be affected by land acquisition as a result of an NSIP. The Government stand by this guidance and seek to build on those principles without complicating negotiations with additional burdens on developers.

Lastly, where land is being purchased in connection with an NSIP, applicants are required to produce and keep up to date a book of reference, which is submitted with the application for development consent. This is a crucial document that is available for the public to view once an application has been submitted and accepted by the Secretary of State and outlines all land and interests in the land associated with the application. This includes land and interests in land that may be affected by the development, including through compulsory acquisition, temporary possession or interests being suspended or extinguished. This document, therefore, provides a clear and transparent account of all land and interests in land proposed to be affected by an NSIP.

With that, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful proposal. However, in the light of the sensitivities noted, the guidance published, and the existing requirements of the Planning Act 2008, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary.

I turn to Amendment 227E. I hesitate to take on the combined ranks of the eminent noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for raising this important matter related to the disposal of land by local authorities and extinguishing the trust under which the land is held for public enjoyment, whereby it is preserved for recreational use and cannot be repurposed without following statutory procedures. The Government agree with the intent behind this amendment.

Open and green spaces and public parks are an essential part of local social infrastructure. They are one of the main reasons why people feel proud of their local area. They provide places for social connection, support health and well-being, increase community engagement and volunteering and help people to connect with nature, and can be a strong foundation for social capital.

We acknowledge that not all open spaces continue to serve their original recreational purpose. In fact, when they become neglected, they can cease to be an asset and become a burden for local authorities and communities. That is why there is a long-established procedure under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to allow for the disposal of open land held in trust.

If the procedure is followed, the land can be disposed of free from the trust provisions. Local authorities must advertise the intention to dispose of the land for two weeks in a local newspaper and consider any objections to the proposed disposal. Purchasers of land from local authorities can already protect themselves from acquiring land that they cannot develop because of a statutory trust by considering with their legal advisers whether the correct procedures have been followed, or raising appropriate pre-contract inquiries with the local authority prior to acquisition.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:

“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.


I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, brought forward Amendment 53A, because it is enabling us to have this very interesting debate. We are talking about the cost of pets, but actually you could transpose the words “children” or “elderly incontinent”, because those two groups equally have very difficult problems. They can damage carpets—if anyone has had children in a house, they will know that they can inflict an awful lot more damage than pets. Unfortunately, the elderly and the disabled can often be equally as damaging.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that pets have fleas, which is very true. However, if you let your property to people who travel a lot, there is the risk that they might bring bedbugs back, which are much harder and more costly to get rid of than fleas.

Although I understand the reason for the noble Lord’s amendment, we do not support it. We think the Government have struck the right balance with their Amendment 49, which we will support.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to deal with one point when he replies. There appears to be no requirement in the amendment that the landlord must be acting reasonably in demanding a deposit. It is easy to understand and entirely reasonable that the landlord may require a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep dogs, but it would not be reasonable to demand a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep a goldfish. It is easy to understand the idea that there is no harm done because the deposit will be returned at the end of the tenancy, but the requirement of the deposit may well inhibit the tenant from being able to have the goldfish and the companionship that it gives.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord.

I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home.

Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them.

There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks.

This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept.

Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with.

Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

58: Clause 14, page 23, line 22, at end insert “, or
(iii) the dwelling house has been demonstrably available for purchase on the open market at a fair price for not less than six months and the landlord has not had any suitable offers to purchase the dwelling house.(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii), the previous tenant or local authority retain the right for the courts to require evidence and to decide whether genuine attempts have been made to market and sell the property at a reasonable price and no offers at or above that price have been refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 6, rather than a 12, month prohibition on renting out an unsold property to make it impossible for a landlord to benefit financially by falsely claiming to be selling a property in order to require a tenant to vacate. The amendment includes evidential safeguards to ensure sale attempts are genuine and to support greater availability of property for rent.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cromwell has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf, as he is unable to be here today. Amendment 58, tabled in his name, was debated last Tuesday.

I remind the House that the Bill says that, if a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months. Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants. With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my direct interest in the private rented sector, with cottage lettings in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, together with farming and agricultural lettings. I am also a member of the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which have a direct interest in Amendment 63, on which I shall speak and for which I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who sadly is not able to be here today.

Before I turn to Amendment 63, I am also very pleased to be able to support Amendment 60 in the names of my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I certainly will not repeat everything that has been said, but I shall make just one further point: it is relevant to note that Paragon, a bank that specialises in the private rented sector, commissioned a survey of landlords on the proposals in the Bill and the result was that 71% of landlords put the extended time, from two months to three months, as their top concern.

On Amendment 63, the Bill does not contain provisions to allow the repossession of a residential property if there is to be a change of usage. For example, if a landlord wanted to use the land for office space or commercial or retail usage, the amendment would allow them to seek possession of a dwelling house where it was intended that the use of that property, or the land on which it was situated, would be changed to non-residential and there was permission from the relevant authorities to do so. There are a number of Bills, reviews and reports in motion which cover farm diversification, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns. Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to more profitable usage. Obviously, this can involve the farmstead house and buildings rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the Rural England Prosperity Fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify.

In addition, we have the land use framework and a farming road map to look forward to, and it has also been announced that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, will chair a report on profitability in farming and this will include diversification. This amendment assists in enabling this diversification, if the necessary planning permission has been granted. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, although it is possible that the proposed diversification will affect only agricultural buildings, there may be a more comprehensive development involving a farmhouse or other residential building, particularly if they are closely located to the diversification site. I therefore hope that the Minister will include this amendment as a sensible ground for possession, one which would assist in the development of the rural economy.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cromwell’s Amendment 142. I declare an interest in that my wife owns rental properties. I agree with what the noble Lord says about the mischief of Clause 15. It is very easy to imagine circumstances in which the owner of a property decides, in good faith, to sell it and the tenant therefore has to leave. The landlord then places the property for sale on the market but finds that, for whatever reason, after four or six months they cannot sell it. Clause 15 would prevent the landlord for 12 months from again leasing out the property. It would do so however well-intentioned the conduct of the owner of the property and however reasonable the new tenancy agreement, and even if the new lease is to the same tenant as the old one, on the same terms, including as to rent.

I entirely understand the Government’s wish to prevent landlords from abusing their rights, but the breadth of this restriction is, to my mind, plainly disproportionate to the feared mischief. This is not only unfair on the landlord; it will inevitably have an adverse effect on the housing stock available for rental purposes.

I appreciate that Ministers have stated that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but it seems to me very doubtful indeed that this clause complies with Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention, on the right to property. The European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts have explained that the right to property requires a fair balance between the interests of property owners and those of the community in general. I cannot see how a blanket provision which penalises a landlord by preventing them from renting out their property, for a period of 12 months, however bona fide their conduct or however fair the terms of the lease, could possibly be said to respect a fair balance.

The mischief which the Government seek to prevent requires a more tailored response. I hope the Minister will be able to say, in response to the concerns that have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromwell and myself, that she will be prepared to meet with us to discuss ways of making this clause more proportionate by recognising an exception for landlords who have acted in good faith and responsibly.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 in my name is in regard to the family. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support for this amendment. The Bill allows a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. This is a small extension to the number of reasons for which a landlord could take possession of a property. That reason is that a property is to be used by a carer for a family member who requires full-time care.

The amendment clearly sets out that the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s family home and be used by the carer. The reason for the close proximity is so that the carer can attend not only on a daily basis but, more importantly, be available to attend in emergencies, quickly and efficiently. These can be on a regular occurrence in some cases. The types of properties that I have in mind are: annexes on homes; a flat in a block of flats where the landlord’s primary residence is located; properties in less urban areas, such as rural villages, hamlets and remote farms; and small property clusters where properties are in short supply.

I appreciate that tenants would be forced to leave a property, but this amendment does not seem to shorten the four months’ notice period. The Bill allows some landlords the opportunity to gain possession for an employee or a worker for agricultural purposes under ground 5A in Schedule 1. I have assumed that the reason why this exemption has been included is that agricultural workers need a property close to their place of work due to the nature of the work, and at all times of day. The need of a carer is similar to that of the agricultural worker: they need to be close to the patient and could be on call and work unsociable hours.

Most landlords’ and tenants’ relations are generally good, and most likely, the landlord would make the tenant aware that the tenancy could be terminated if a property needs to be for a carer. To leave a property is an unsettling upheaval for a tenant and their family, but they would be given four months’ notice. If there is good communication between parties, everybody lives in the knowledge that this could be a possible outcome and plan accordingly.

Financially, if you own an appropriate property, this is the most practical way a landlord or their family can provide the most cost-effective accommodation for a long-term carer, and when the family is facing a high demand on its finances. Only a limited number of landlords will use this possession right, but if needed, it would be welcomed by the family, as it would give flexibility in times of sadness and when time requires the need for it.

I thank the Minister for her engagement on the Bill and for our short discussion on the amendment. I note the Minister’s suggestions that alternatives could be found to house a carer, but my response is that to find a property in the correct location and which is suitable for a carer would be extremely difficult in this current high-demand rental marketplace.

The second suggestion was that the tenant has the right to a secure home. The other side of that debate would be: would it not be a reasonable case that the landlord has a right to gain possession of their own assets for the benefit of their well-being or a family member’s own caring needs?

Properties are owned for many purposes: in some cases, for financial reasons, like investments, and to provide regular income or pension funds. It may be available to rent during a job relocation or as a future residence in a desired location. All these landlords who own such properties could gain possession under the Bill when needed. However, if the property owner who may wish to use a property for a legitimate family reason, to care for a family member, cannot gain access to the property at the time of need, then this amendment seeks to rectify this.

In summing up the group beginning Amendment 10 in Tuesday’s Committee, the Minister said that those amendments did not meet

“the bar to overrule the general principle that private renters should have secure homes”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 615.]

I believe that a long-term carer of somebody crosses that bar to enable possession for a family.

Voter Authority Certificates

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think it is an abandonment of the whole policy. We expect the Electoral Commission, as an independent regulator, to provide some analysis and some early, interim reports on the May elections some time this summer. We will learn from that and, if any changes need to be made, we will consider those changes.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Government ensure that adequate, accurate records are kept of the number of potential voters who are turned away because of inadequate documents?

Anti-Semitic Attacks

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are aware of this tension. The Community Security Trust has reported a massive spike in anti-Semitic incidents, but equally, Tell MAMA has seen a similar increase in anti-Muslim incidents of 420% in the past week. We are funding the Union of Jewish Students to do precisely that: to tackle these issues. We want to see the full implementation, not just the adoption, of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Jewish community will be very grateful to the Minister for what he said today. He knows that anti-Semitism is not confined to appalling attacks on a rabbi in Chigwell and threats to Jewish women in north London. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, to which the Minister referred a few moments ago, gives as an example applying double standards by requiring the State of Israel to behave in a way not expected of any other democratic nation. Does the Minister accept that there have been many examples of those double standards in the past week, particularly by broadcasters, and that this more subtle form of anti-Semitism contributes to an atmosphere in which the cruder forms breed?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend in the other House talked about how sometimes anti-Zionism is a subtler form of anti-Semitism. We need to root out even those most subtle of forms absolutely and ensure that we take these forms of anti-Semitism away from both the internet and the streets of our big cities.