English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

Removing this clause would prevent the government from forcibly rearranging local government.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 57 and Schedule 26 and express my deep concern about the way in which the Government are pushing through local government reorganisation under the banner of devolution. Local government reorganisation is not new. It can and does happen but, where it does, it should happen by consent. Councils already have routes to propose mergers and restructuring where they believe it is right for their area.

What is different here is the scale and direction of travel. This feels rushed, top-down and imposed. It runs directly counter to the notion of devolution and the stated purpose of this Bill. I do not accept that the creation of new strategic authorities requires, as some kind of quid pro quo, the rapid abolition or forced merger of existing authorities. One size does not fit all. I have some experience of unitary authorities and recognise that they can work well, but that does not justify imposing them everywhere regardless of local circumstances, identity or consent.

Crucially, there is no strong evidence to support the argument that these changes will save money or improve service delivery. Larger councils are not automatically cheaper or more efficient to run. At a time when local government is already under extreme financial pressure, it is extraordinary that Ministers are pursuing structural upheaval rather than addressing the underlying problem of chronic underfunding. Local authorities are still grappling with the consequences of austerity. Councils across the country face serious and growing funding gaps and services are already stretched to breaking point. Before imposing disruptive reorganisations, the Government should fix that.

There are also serious risks to community identity and representation. Evidence from councillors on the ground suggests that these proposals could result in arbitrarily drawn, very large authorities with little sense of place or shared identity. Many towns with long histories and strong civic cultures—places that people care deeply about—are at risk of being effectively wiped off the local government map. It is important because democracy is about not just administrative efficiency but connection, accountability and trust. There is clear evidence that size matters for democratic engagement. Increasing population size and geographic scale risks reducing electoral turnout and lowering participation in local decision-making. We already have far too few elected representatives compared with many comparable countries. These proposals will significantly reduce the number of councillors overall, further thinning out representation at precisely the moment when communities are facing increasing pressures and greater complexity.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on casework and local advice. Councillors play a vital role as accessible, familiar faces in their communities, helping people navigate failing systems, resolve problems and get support in times of crisis. Many already work far beyond what their allowances reflect, often with limited support. When I was a councillor in Southwark, I could not do any gardening in my front garden because people would come up to me and tell me about their awful problems with black mould—clearly more important than my daffodils—so going into my garden was sometimes a challenge.

Schedule 26 risks abolishing whole tiers of representation almost overnight. That will inevitably lead to spikes in casework and confusion about where people turn for help. Local advice centres are already under immense strain, having lost staff and volunteers, while demand continues to rise. I see no evidence that the Government have seriously considered how this reorganisation will affect advice provision or where that additional pressure will land.

I do not agree that having services under one roof will make things simpler for residents. It might sound true in principle, but transitions of this scale are not frictionless. Removing thousands of local representatives at once is a disruption, and disruption without consent carries real democratic costs. Schedule 26 concentrates power in the hands of the Secretary of State, allowing directions to be issued, boundaries to be changed and authorities to be abolished with little or no local say. For all these reasons, I believe that Clause 57 and Schedule 26 represent a huge step in the wrong direction.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 196EC to Schedule 26 fairly sets out some of my concerns, which, having listened to the noble Baroness, I am sure are shared by others in the Room. I tabled it in part to probe how Ministers will determine the new pattern of unitary councils. I appreciate that, by and large, they will be shaped by the submissions being made by current local authorities to the department, but my concern is that there is little thought or discussion about the size, shape or culture of the new councils.

The Government’s White Paper, published in December 2024, was clear that unitary councils should have

“a population of 500,000 or more”.

It argued that this would be

“the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.

The White Paper also said that

“reorganisation should not delay devolution and plans for both should be complementary”.

The Government have sensibly delayed the election of a number of the combined mayoral authorities and slowed the process down. Until the last general election, the pace of devolution was rather more measured, which was wise. Understandably, the new Government want to get a move on with their major reforms. At the same time, we will be asking the combined mayoral authorities and the new unitary councils to deliver much of the Government’s growth agenda and their political priorities in education, housing, childcare, nursery provision and so on. Quite right, too: they are the vehicles for a lot of those things, in particular transport. But the idea that these new and very powerful institutions will be capable of delivering new policies and plans while simultaneously creating themselves is something of a stretch. When Brighton and Hove City Council was set up back in 1997, we wisely gave ourselves two and a half years of preparation, including one year as a shadow authority. None of these structures will have that luxury.

It is well known that I favour unitary councils and have long argued for them, but they have to be well grounded to work and, to be well grounded, they have to be based on recognisable boundaries that have a clear relationship with local geography and a sense of community. My authority, Brighton and Hove, is constrained by the downs and, for that matter, it makes sense. It is a place, and place-making, as the Government say clearly in the White Paper, is of great importance not just to government but, more importantly, to communities. Make the unitaries too big and start tying urban and rural districts together and you lose that. You also lose the sense of community identity.

In the past, when unitary authorities were established, many place names were lost. I go back to 1974: who knew that Sefton was Southport and Bootle, or that Kirklees subsumed places such as Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley? Kirklees is the name of a hall on an estate, some of which is, I think, in the neighbouring borough of Calderdale. My point here is that place-making and community building, which are surely part of the stuff of local government, rely on the ability to be readily identified so that people can understand who is responsible for what and in whose name. Abolishing a lot of the place names, as the last local government review did in 1974, risks depriving people of that ready point of identity, which would be unfortunate and wrong.

Currently, looking at the size of authorities, we have few that fit the 500,000-plus margin—just nine: Birmingham, Cornwall, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, County Durham, Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire. It is an open question as to whether their size makes them more efficient; it is possible that it makes them more remote. The more remote they are, the more citizens feel left behind and left out, and less engaged and able to influence local decision-making.

For that reason, my amendment seeks to ensure that, in making a direction on the future pattern of local councils in a given area, the Secretary of State must have regard to local geography, because of its influence on travel and community relations; the sense of identity that the new authorities will take on in terms of places and communities; and whether it is wise simply to glue together urban and rural areas for administrative convenience. Additionally, the environmental and financial sustainability of a council area, and its proposed size, have to be considered.

The White Paper seemed to assume the bigger the better and that savings would flow. I am less convinced. If I look back to the unitarisation of Berkshire in 1998, for example, when the council was broken up into six unitaries, all then had to find directors of social services, education, environment and highways. A similar impact will be felt with the unitarisation that takes place under combined mayoral authorities.

I suspect most councils have stripped out excessive costs over the past 15 years and most will have come from back-office mergers. There may be savings in the administration of council tax as larger council tax areas come into view, but the integration of many district council systems into new unitary council tax collections will certainly come at a cost.

To conclude, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can she confirm that a fixed size for unitaries—the 500,000 figure—has been dropped? Do the Government have a number in mind? Will the Secretary of State be mindful of ensuring that mergers respect the need to have identifiable boundaries that respect urban and rural differences and the historical bases of councils, to enable place-making and help with community resilience? Can we be assured that resources will be in place to ensure a seamless transition from the current pattern of districts into larger unitaries?

What steps will the Government take to guarantee a level of democracy that makes councils accessible to local electors and residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the point that councillors already work hard. The White Paper confirmed that the number of councillors would reduce—that is pretty obvious, really—but can we be assured that councillors will be sufficient in number, and well enough resourced and supported, to represent the inevitably larger communities that they will be part of?

I do not oppose unitaries; in fact, I am rather keen on them. I do not oppose devolution, but it has to be done at a pace, and in a style and manner, that works for local communities to ensure that democracy, demography and community identity are preserved, because place-making should be at the heart of the changes. We all need to be assured that that will be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for addressing the local government reorganisation measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, opposes Clause 57 and Schedule 26 standing part of the Bill. Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can be sustainable for the future and deliver the high-quality services that all residents deserve. The Bill amends the existing legislation to enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise.

We are committed to working in partnership with local areas and are already doing so on this current round of reorganisation. All two-tier areas that were invited in February 2025 have now submitted proposals for reorganisation, which have either been consulted on or are now subject to consultation, because they acknowledge that the status quo is not feasible or sustainable. Therefore, this power would only ever be used in the future, where areas had failed to make progress following an invitation.

The new merging provisions enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas. With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed to ensure that these reforms work in harmony.

The ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority is a common-sense and necessary measure. Without it, there would be no streamlined route to ensure that the existing combined and combined county authorities remain intact once their constituent authorities implement reorganisation. The ability to abolish a combined authority or a combined county authority could be used only in very limited situations. It ensures that, if a reorganisation proposal would render a strategic authority obsolete, the proposal can be implemented and the strategic authority abolished as necessary. Any such proposal requiring the use of the abolition power would need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as the Government’s reorganisation criteria set out. This ensures that these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Government’s approach to funding. This week we publish the local government finance settlement, which has restructured local government funding to ensure that the areas that need it get the most funding. We have put more than £5.6 billion of new grant funding over the next three years into local government. We know that unitarisation can unlock significant savings. Unitary councils reduce duplication, cut waste, improve services and give better value. Of course, exact savings from each proposal will vary from place to place, depending on the proposals implemented.

The noble Baroness also mentioned casework. I take her point and I know the bit about growing daffodils out in the garden—I still often get stopped when I am doing my garden and I am not even a councillor now. Casework support varies from council to council, but it is perfectly possible to provide support for casework at any level of local government. I know that many councils do this extremely well—I hope that those that are not so good will learn from the best.

I turn to Amendment 196EC, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I shall correct myself, because I did not thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, as I should have done at the beginning, so my apologies. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when taking a decision on the merger of existing unitary councils. The new merging provisions set out in this Bill enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change will be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. This aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

I reassure my noble friend that having regard to the size, geography, public services and local identity of an area is already embedded in our approach and decision-making when it comes to reorganisation. This is demonstrated by the statutory guidance that we have issued to areas that have been invited to prepare proposals for local government reorganisation.

My noble friend mentioned the size of areas. I point out that the invitation letter to two-tier areas in February made it very clear that the aim for new councils to have a population of 500,000 or more is a guiding principle. Instead of presenting a top-down solution for each area, our starting point is to support and empower local leaders and respect their knowledge, expertise and insight. This approach is in line with the new partnership between government and local government. In discussions with individual councils, with parliamentarians and in interviews given throughout the process, the Government have further reinforced that position to aid the local discussions. I have seen a huge variation in the proposals that have come forward in terms of size. People have taken that as guidance and taken it very seriously. Yesterday, we had a debate on the new authority that has been set up, Cumbria, which has a population of much less than 500,000, because that was appropriate for that area.

Furthermore, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already requires that the Secretary of State may invite or direct a relevant principal authority to make a proposal for the merger of single tiers of local government only where it would be in

“the interests of effective and convenient local government”.

The 2007 Act also requires that affected local areas must be consulted before a proposal for local government reorganisation can be implemented. This gives local residents the opportunity to voice their opinions on the criteria outlined by the noble Lord in his amendment.

Next to my council is a council called North Hertfordshire, which includes four towns. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will know these towns very well—Hitchin, Letchworth, Baldock and Royston. These places have not ceased to exist because their council is called North Herts. The noble Baroness mentioned Wiltshire, which I know she feels was greatly strengthened by the introduction of unitary government. Wiltshire has survived in spite of its unitary status and I am sure that Hertfordshire will equally survive long into the future, no matter what happens with local government.

My noble friend’s questions can all be answered by the criteria that local authorities have been asked to respond to as part of the invitation process, including issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance. Although I appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has tabled this amendment, it is the Government’s view that placing further legislative conditions on the merger of unitary councils would be duplicative and unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I know she has huge experience of local democracy and councils, but there is quite a lot of experience in this Room as well. If noble Lords from the Conservative Party are agreeing with the noble Lord over there, I think there might be a problem. I just hope the Minister can perhaps think about some of the things that we have said and that we are concerned about. The Government are doing quite a lot of good things, but they are very bad at telling us about them, and that is part of the problems that they face at the moment. I will not come back on all these things. My concerns are still very much there, so this might come back later.

Clause 57 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that if you have a referendum, or, for that matter, a decision of the council that it wants to run the system in a particular way, why not? Nobody in Rotherham, Barnsley or Derbyshire gives a fig how Sheffield’s decision-making process works so long as it works—nobody—so, even with the modest amendments that have now been made, why impose a system when you simply do not have to? It is meddling, muddled and not democratic. I am desperate to save my Government from going down the wrong road. If we believe in devolution and community empowerment, we should ensure that we can practise it, which means setting aside Clause 59 and Schedule 27.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in opposing Clause 59. As an opponent of centralised control of all sorts, I feel that, if we are talking about democracy, it really ought to mean what it says. Centralised control of any sort is, for me, not democracy.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading but I want to speak to the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to abolish Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I do this as someone who has lived in Sheffield and who still represents the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the council. We were actually on different sides of the argument when that referendum was held in May 2021, when 90,000 people—65% of those who voted in Sheffield—voted to change from the strong leader model. The Liberal Democrats brought that in during the Blair years, because that is what we were told to do.

I find it ironic that we are discussing the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill but we are now dictating the governance arrangements that communities will have. I really do not see how you can stack that up. If communities want to move away from a governance arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, that can be a simple vote in council or it could be the route that the It’s Our City! community organisation took in Sheffield, which was to collect 25,000 signatures and trigger a referendum. I normally say to councillors that if communities are collecting 20,000-odd signatures, it is best to change your mind, otherwise you are going to get the vote that we had in Sheffield.

I urge the Minister to realise that if you can get the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and me on the same page, having for many years thrown rocks at each other in Sheffield, you seriously need to listen. Although you might favour the strong leader model, if you genuinely believe in community empowerment then let the people decide. If they ultimately want a leader-and-cabinet model, they will vote for it and support it through their local councils. Let us not have this top-down diktat. That is why, on these rare occasions, noble Lords can find me and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on the same page.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I think the Minister might wish to refer to that, if necessary. My understanding is that, just because an authority is unitary, it does not mean it stops being a county or a district. You could have single foundation counties and districts, in theory.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am not going to mention parishes; it is too controversial. In my village, the parish council is incredibly important. It sets up a litter pick, once a month, which I do every month and it is wonderful. I love walking out in front of cars in the village that are going too fast and just stopping them with my little stick. There is not much rubbish left anymore.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, used a very good word for what this side of the Room is experiencing: unease. Sometimes it goes a little bit beyond that, as well.

This amendment seeks to strengthen Clause 60 by setting clear minimum standards for meaningful community participation in neighbourhood governance. The Bill repeatedly speaks in the language of devolution, empowerment and bringing decision-making closer to communities but, to do that, you must make sure that people are genuinely involved in shaping decisions, rather than just being consulted once it has all been fixed.

As the Bill stands, it requires only that “appropriate arrangements” are made for local engagement. That phrase is far too vague, and that vagueness risks exactly the sort of weak or inconsistent participation that has undermined public trust for years. Without minimum standards, engagement can easily become technically compliant but practically meaningless. Meaningful participation requires more than consultation; it requires deliberation, and spaces where people can learn, discuss, challenge and contribute to shaping outcomes. That is why the amendment refers to

“deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations”.

In my village, we have community conversations on the street, on a regular basis—and very healthy it is too.

These approaches are well established, increasingly used by councils and effective at engaging people who would not normally take part in formal consultations. The amendment also rightly emphasises inclusion; there is a danger that engagement exercises are dominated by those with the time, confidence and resources to respond. Communities are affected most by decisions, and those who are already underrepresented in policy-making are precisely the voices that are hardest to hear and most important to include. That probably counts double for inner-city parishes or areas.

Transparency is equally important. People need to be able to see how their input has influenced decisions. When communities are asked for their views but see no visible impact, trust is eroded. We need to report on how engagement has shaped plans and outcomes.

The amendment also recognises that meaningful participation needs support. The Minister has said that there is a lot of money going into local councils. I very much hope that it is enough to do exactly this sort of participation and engagement, because asking councils to deliver deeper participation without providing the means to do so risks setting them up to fail.

I do not think that existing powers and future regulations will be sufficient. Although flexibility matters, flexibility without standards leads to inequality. Minimum standards prove a floor, not a ceiling. They ensure that all communities can expect a basic level of involvement. There are excellent examples of councils doing this well; the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such good practice becomes the norm, not the exception.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 209A in this group is in my name. I express my regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise. This is my first intervention on this Bill. I have interests to declare: I am a former president, and now a vice-president, of the National Association of Local Councils, and I am a current joint president of the West Sussex Association of Local Councils. I am very grateful to NALC for its help in drafting Amendment 209A.

I stepped straight into the controversial sector that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested she would keep well clear of. I have very much in mind the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Shipley, in our debates on the earlier groups in connection with Clause 59 and Schedule 27. I also relate 100% to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his introduction to this group, as well as those from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I support the other amendments in this group, which are on the same theme as mine.

I wish to comment on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the extent of parishing. I cannot give him an answer, but if I tell him that East Sussex and West Sussex are almost completely parished but Surrey is at a much lower percentage then that will indicate to him that it can be a bit of a patchwork. Up and down the country, there are reckoned to be about 10,000 parish and town councils, so there are a lot of them around; there are also a lot of elected members. Noble Lords have raised other things about parishes, but I will pass on them.

I share a concern with noble Lords. If we have a combined county authority for a population of 500,000, say, and the borough and district structure then disappears because of that, where the relevant area or part of it is unparished—this is often in urban areas, though it is not always—what represents the community? As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that bit is uniquely well placed to deal with those local issues that have the most immediate impact on the electorate. It is usually—almost always—a community of geographical interest, as well as other types of interest.

My amendment seeks clarification of the Government’s intentions here; as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, they look a bit opaque and need clarification. In particular, my amendment tries to make sure that any arrangements that are put in place pursuant to the Bill, once it is enacted, do not impinge on the existing parish structures or impede their formation.

I will expand further by asking what the Government envisage the specification template or other structural characteristics might be to respond best to the needs of community. Here I am not stressing size. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the council in Northampton. We always used to say that the biggest town council in the country was Weston-super-Mare, but I may be a bit out of date. It was considerably larger than some of the other principal authorities; they come in all shapes and sizes.

The point here is to ask: will community representation be some form of hand-me-down process through the principal authority, and will it be dependent on that authority for its finance, appointment of members, functions and so on? Will it just leave it to some ad hoc or perhaps business-related organisation to fill the void? Or will it have legal status, defined structure and powers, direct democratic accountability, financial accountability and autonomy through a precept, and the opportunity to move to a general power of competence, with rules of conduct, procedure, an accountable officer and so on? If that is what the template looks like, it looks very much like a parish council in structure. Let us not get too hung up about what the precise name should be, because what I am concerned about is the form. The democratic and financial accountability and its governance are what matter here, rather than size or other factors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendments 211 and 212 in this group, which are in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

On the return to this vexed question of election postponements and cancellations, as we have covered that several times already on various previous occasions—I am sure we will again in future—I will take a slightly different tack this time and focus partly on the future. I also hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that the Minister feels that these amendments are actually helpful.

Thinking about the future first, there are very clear, sad and worrying lessons from countries all around the world about how quickly democracies can become fragmented and undermined. The responsible reaction we all should have to that is to be determined to embed democratic norms as deeply and firmly as we can. That does not guarantee their future protection but it will certainly make life more likely to be successful, whether for our future selves or our successors, if we have to defend democracy. I hope we all agree on the clear principle of embedding the idea that democracy should not just be an easy thing to postpone or cancel.

However, at the moment, unfortunately, it is just a little bit too easy for elections to be postponed or cancelled. The two amendments in my name set out a very clear route, as indeed do other amendments in this group, by which we could more firmly protect our democracy against future strains.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, rightly pointed out, there are several different approaches that one could potentially take to this. I certainly acknowledge the merit of the approach taken in some of the other amendments regarding both ensuring that the 2007 and 2011 Acts referred to in them are properly catered for and, indeed, the interesting idea of the one-year limit that is present in one of those amendments.

My concern, though, with those alternative approaches —I will certainly listen carefully and with interest to noble Lords who contribute to the rest of this debate—is that those alternative approaches rest, in the end, on the willingness of Parliament to vote down secondary legislation. In the end, that is the prime safeguard in them. It is obviously a matter for another day or occasion to debate the merits of the deeply held, principled position that I know many in both the Labour and Conservative groups here take—I do not share it but I appreciate it—that the main opposition party in the House of Lords should not vote for a fatal amendment to a statutory instrument.

The problem is, whatever one thinks are the rights or wrongs of that principle, that that essentially means that any safeguard that is based on the idea that the Government have to put a statutory instrument or secondary legislation in some form to Parliament is of very little use. In the end, when push comes to shove, whatever the principal opposition party is in the Lords, it will say, “As a matter of principle, we aren’t going to vote it down”. It is a safeguard that, when needed, will not keep us very safe.

I said that I was going to be optimistic and try to persuade the Minister that these amendments are a helpful measure. I say that because I am absolutely sure that, in good faith, the Government never set out to say that some councillors who are elected for a four-year term of office should stay in office—as it will turn out under their plans—for seven years. I am sure that was not the original intention, but it is unfortunately the position that we have stumbled into through a sequence of events. That is a very significant and, outside of wartime, unprecedented extension to the term of office of councillors. We have ended up in this unprecedented and frankly unsatisfactory position because some of those councillors who have had their four-year term extended to seven years are in power, running councils, and they are being given three extra years in power without the public getting a say on that.

As I said, I appreciate that that is the result of a sequence of circumstances, and in that sense it seems that the Government have stumbled into a series of events. Whether through the mechanisms set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, or through mine, the advantage of making it a little harder for the Government to cancel elections in the future is that it would protect Governments from stumbling into a similar sequence of events again. So I hope we will hear some movement from the Minister in due course on this issue.

But of course, like any good Liberal Democrat, I cannot resist the opportunity to talk a little about the merits of different voting systems, so I will refer briefly to Amendment 213, although the ticking clock protects noble Lords from a William Gladstone-type speech about the relative merits of different voting systems, tempting though that may be. Although it is obviously no surprise, I am sure, for the Minister to hear me say that I certainly prefer the supplementary vote to first past the post, it is a real shame that the Government do not intend at the moment to go a step further and introduce the alternative vote. The big weakness of the supplementary vote is that you have to correctly second-guess the two parties that will be in the final round so that you can cast your second preference vote in a way that will be counted.

I will briefly make reference to the research by the Make Votes Matter coalition that was carried out a couple of years ago and which encompassed 217 different elections conducted by the supplementary vote in the UK. It found that only 46% of the second preferences that people expressed actually ended up being counted in the final run-off round. Over half of all second preferences correctly filled in on the ballot paper none the less got discarded because they were for candidates who did not make it into the second round. That is quite a flaw in the supplementary vote. It is a system essentially designed for a world in which it is pretty clear who the two main parties, or the two main candidates, in an election will be. However good or bad it may be, we are certainly not in a situation where that is the norm in our politics any more, so I very much hope the Minister will consider the merits of the alternative vote.

On Amendment 214, I simply observe that, in Scotland, the single transferable vote is used for council elections and is pretty popular with not only many members of the Labour Party but indeed many members of the Conservative Party there. If it works well in Scotland, as it does, perhaps we should be able to have it in England as well.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will not talk about different voting systems; I cannot think of anything more boring—I am so sorry. Actually, lots of things are more boring. I could not agree less with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the value of first past the post. It is a thoroughly discredited system and its time is over. What we see again and again is that we have a completely unrepresentative Government, as we do at the moment: they have a huge majority on a small proportion of the vote, and the Conservatives should be thinking more about how they can get back into power—obviously, I do not particularly want that.

Under first past the post, councillors elected often bear little resemblance to how people actually vote. Large numbers of residents can turn out, cast their ballots in good faith and still see their views go completely unrepresented. That leaves too many people feeling that local government is something done to them rather them with them, and proportional representation offers a way out of that. My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle’s Amendment 215, and Amendment 214 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would allow a shift towards a voting system that would reflect the diversity of political opinion in our communities and reward candidates who can build broad support, rather than those who simply scrape through on a minority of the vote. It would open the door to councils that would look more like the places they serve, politically and socially, and that really matters, especially at a time when councils are becoming larger, more remote and more powerful.

As the noble Lord said earlier, in Scotland local government elections have used the single transferable vote for nearly two decades. In Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, STV is well understood and widely trusted. In Wales, councils are now able to choose it for themselves. Of course, we have proportional representation in London for the London Assembly.

I have been elected under PR and under first past the post. Quite honestly, it did not feel very different, but a completely different view could be spoken and presented much more forcefully when we had more people elected under proportional representation. Voters in those countries manage perfectly well with a system that allows them to rank candidates in order of preference. The result is representation built on consent and co-operation rather than tribalism. This will be much more important as we move towards much larger councils and combined authorities. If power is to be devolved upwards, representation must be strengthened downwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Sorry; would it not make more sense—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?