English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Boycott and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, what an exciting group this is. I support Amendments 223A, 224A, 226 and 228, which address a significant and surprising gap in the way that community assets are defined in law. I very much hope we can correct this before the next stage. Before I begin properly, I thank Tom Chance, chief executive of the National Community Land Trust Network, who supports this aim and has helped with this work.

At present, the legal definition of “assets of community value” recognises social interests. The Bill adds economic interests, but still leaves out environmental interests entirely. Why has that been left out? I would like to hear an answer to that question, because it is absolutely incomprehensible. Across England, communities are coming together to take ownership of land and buildings not just to save a pub or run a shop but to protect and improve green space, reduce pollution, grow food locally and make neighbourhoods healthier. Planning law, national policy and development frameworks all work on a simple, widely accepted principle that social, economic and environmental goals belong together, yet assets of community value remain stuck with a narrower definition that no longer reflects that reality.

The Government’s response so far has been to say that environmental benefits will be dealt with through statutory guidance, but guidance is not the same as law. When communities are trying to raise finance, persuade landowners or make a credible case to a local authority, being able to point to a clear statutory definition can really matter. Plus, leaving environmental interests outside the legal framework will weaken communities’ hands at precisely the moment we should be strengthening them. We know this from practice.

In Scotland, communities have successfully used a sustainable development approach to acquire land and assets by demonstrating combined social, economic and environmental benefits. A recent example is the Poets’ Neuk project in St Andrews, where the environmental case was integral to the community’s success. Without it, the project would have been far harder to justify. It is also important to be clear about what these amendments are not doing. They will not create a new or separate category of assets. They recognise that environmental outcomes are already part of what communities are trying to achieve when they take ownership, whether that is retrofitting a community centre, restoring a neglected green space or supporting community food growing in both urban and rural areas.

I should also say a word about Amendment 225, which comes from a similar place and reflects a shared concern about how environmental value is treated in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, presented it clearly. I am concerned that there are some practical reasons why it would not quite achieve what many communities are looking for. As it stands, it would make a change in only one part of the legislation, which would leave the overall definition of assets of community value uneven and potentially confusing in practice. I very much hope that we can work together to perhaps agree a way forward that will satisfy us both. We need councils to exercise judgment, rather than apply a blanket rule that removes local discretion and narrows opportunities.

That is why these amendments take a different route. They would, however, bring environmental interests properly into legal definition, align assets of community value with established development principles, and reflect how communities work in practice, pursuing social, economic and environmental goals together. If this Bill is truly about devolution and community power, it should trust communities with that integrated approach. These amendments would help ensure the law supports rather than constrains the positive role that communities want to play. I urge the Government to support them.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 239. I support all the amendments that have just been talked about—it is vital that communities can buy land. However, I am, in a way, offering up a “get out of jail free” card to the Government with this amendment.

This time last week, we were standing here asking about allotments. I understand the Government’s and local authorities’ problems with allotments, in that once they are designated then they cannot be undone. I see that that can be problematic. In fact, in London, the only allotments that have been ripped up so far were for the Olympic park, so I know that they have a great status. However, if you go for growing spaces and meanwhile leases, all we are asking for in this amendment is that local authorities are able and willing to publish a list of the spaces available.

That is what we did when we ran the Capital Growth project in London. We achieved 200 acres of this city which are now growing vegetables, inspiring communities and holding people together. One of the many things that happened in the duration of the project was that it was used as a research base by City University to look at good routes to get the long-term unemployed back into work. It was found that community gardening hit the nail on the head in many different ways: it taught patience, because you cannot just put a seed in the ground and expect a result tomorrow; it taught how to have respect for other people; and it taught how to work in a group and in a community. Extraordinary results were found. We were praised by the police, local doctors and local communities. We set targets of 60 spaces per borough—and we made it.

It was very simple. A meanwhile lease, designed with the help of the London water board, meant that, after five years, the local authority could claim the space back if a builder wanted to put up a house. In fact, this rarely happened. What happened was that strange little corners and odd little spots, as has been seen with the Incredible Edible campaign all over Britain, suddenly became something important and respected, that put colour, life, community and cohesion back on to the world’s streets—basically, for no money, on behalf of the Government. It takes just a small effort, with an enormous return.

I have put this amendment forward so many times. It is about time for it, given the strength of all the other amendments and the strength of feeing we have heard from so many people from all around the House so many times. Why not? What has the Minister got against this?

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Debate between Baroness Boycott and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I very much support Amendment 6. In fact, most of the amendments in this group are sensible. Forgive my ignorance, but surely if we pass the criteria for the international treaty, what is to stop us adding things to the Bill? Is there anything? We could, could we not? It would be irrelevant for the international treaty, but relevant for our Government. Quite honestly—I am looking around the table at all these plastic bottles—our plastic use is horrendous. That is what this amendment is about. It is within the scope of the Bill and speaks directly to the aim of what we are trying to do.

The agreement’s preamble is clear. It recognises the need to address biodiversity loss in the ocean caused not just by climate change but by pollution, specifically plastic pollution. In other words, plastic is not just a side issue here; it is identified as one of the core pressures driving the destruction of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Plastic pollution is now found throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed, in some of the most remote parts of the seas. It causes injury and death, enters the food chain as microplastics and adds further stress to ecosystems already under strain. One floating patch of plastic out on the remote sea is three times the size of France. It is not the only giant patch. We are producing roughly the same weight of plastic each year as the weight of humans on the planet, and that is projected to keep going up. I do not know who put these plastic bottles here, but can we please complain about that? What is wrong with refilling glass bottles? I do not understand why we would add to the problem.

Amendment 6 is about making sure that, when we have a chance to make a difference and improve our sea, we can do so. The Government need to set out how they will assess and respond to the risks that plastic pollution poses and how the UK will work with international partners to reduce and monitor that harm. The amendment would help ensure that the UK takes every opportunity to lead rather than leave a recognised threat unaddressed.

Having suggested that the UK could lead on this, I feel it is rather undermined by the fact that most of our own marine protected areas are barely protected at all. There is bottom trawling, dredging and overfishing. We need to sort that out for ourselves. Signing up to international treaties is brilliant—it is good to work with other countries—but not if we cannot even manage our own resources. The five-year review is fantastic, but what about a five-year review of our own marine protected areas? The human use of plastic and fossil fuels is driving our destruction. I do not understand why the whole House cannot see that—in fact, the whole population.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.

On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.

The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.

I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.