English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall not speak for long. I was looking around the Room, trying to add up how many former local leaders there are, and I got to five or maybe six. We probably all had one thing in common: our generation of politicians was extraordinarily reliant on our local paper to broadcast our successes and failures and, more importantly, to hold local institutions to account.

When I first became a councillor in Brighton, in 1983, my local paper had three editions a day. It had a circulation of 120,000. It had arts, health, local government and crime sections, with a general list of reporters, all different specialists, who worked from the city centre. The paper was also given different opt-outs for Worthing, Hastings and Crawley. There was an extensive newspaper network, and it was complemented by three radio stations, two of which were commercial, and two TV stations. Brighton and Hove had a degree of news saturation.

That meant that the spotlight was placed on us as local politicians in a way that was sometimes aggressive, but more often than not benign, because they believed in reporting the facts. As a local politician sitting on a committee—including as leader of the council, which I was towards the middle end of the 1980s—if I could see the journalist’s pen twitch in the corner of the room, taking a note, I thought I had scored a good hit politically, and invariably I had. I am sure many politicians were reliant on people such as Adam Trimingham, our local reporter, for broadcasting their political views and making sure that people knew what the local authority was about.

This amendment is a practical one. It would be a shame if local authorities were not obliged to publish notices in the way they have historically. The decline and death of local news is a great sadness, because people are less well informed about what has been going on in their name. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about investigative journalism; that is as important at a local level as it is at a national one. Our society is poorer without it, so anything we can do through local government to help strengthen local news is very important. I am sure local authorities themselves are worried about that, because it is part of their population’s decline in knowledge and understanding of the democratic process. I hope the Minister can offer us some comfort and encouragement, and perhaps say that we should do more to stimulate local news services. This is one practical measure that the Government should actively consider.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I very much support what other noble Lords have said, given that I promoted amendments to her previous Bill on this subject. It seems to me immensely important that notices should come to the notice of people. I know what my local council would do, if faced with this clause: it would publish either nothing or as little and as obscurely as it could. Its practice is to try to ensure that people do not know what it is up to.

It is entirely undesirable that local councils should have this direction in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 27, without any rules as to how they should apply it. If we are to keep this clause, at the very least councils should be given an objective; for example, that they should publish it in a way that will lead to the widest readership over the widest spread of the community. In other words, they should know what they are trying to achieve, and they should have something through which to justify their actual performance against what they are supposed to do. I also ask that the publication be, at least in part, in IPSO-regulated spaces, to make sure that what is getting out is of quality.

As noble Lords will remember from the previous Bill, we need to get rid of the 19th-century definition of “newspaper”. There is a much broader section of local news enterprises. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows, because we are very close neighbours, the level of local news that we get now is very degenerated; the level of investigation, rather than just reprinting material they are given, is really very low. However, in that gap, little local enterprises are springing up. They are often not yet of a sufficient size to afford a print run, but they are getting out there and doing the investigative work. They ought, in the right circumstances, to be supported. I urge the Government to change the definition —if we keep newspapers, that is. If we do not, as the schedule proposes, and we broaden the discretion of local government, we must make it clear what it has to achieve rather than allowing it to achieve nothing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support the principles behind this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, which has attracted widespread interest from both within and without your Lordships’ House.

At its heart lies a simple question: how do we ensure that the public continue to have clear, independent and accessible routes to information about the decisions made by their local authorities? For a long time, local newspapers have played a vital role in this. Our local journalists are there not only to report news; they scrutinise local decision-making, as we have heard, and act as guardians of local democracy. They are often the only regular observers of the workings of local government. In many parts of the country, it is only local journalists who regularly attend council meetings, who probe and challenge, and who ensure that decisions are brought to the attention of residents.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, all of us here who have been in local government have been at the end of the pen of many journalists—sometimes in a positive way, but often in a negative way. Local newspapers have always been the starting point for many young journalists who have gone on to be better and more successful journalists. As a local council leader, it is always interesting to watch that progression. I have always been pleased to give as much support as possible to local journalists learning their trade.

The requirement for councils to place statutory notices in local newspapers has long been one of the practical mechanisms that enable this transparency and accountability. It ensures that important matters handled by local authorities reach their residents where they are most likely to see them. Crucially, they reach residents through an independent medium—not one controlled by the authority. That independence is a safeguard we should not discard lightly, even in part.

It is true that the local media landscape is changing. Many local news organisations now operate both in print and online or only online, and audiences increasingly access their news digitally. However, as we have heard, the answer to such change cannot simply be to remove this duty—altogether, in some instances—and, in extremis, to see people rely solely on council websites. Many residents seldom visit council websites, as we all know. Some find them difficult to navigate. They are not used to being widely used as a source of day-to-day information on their local authorities. If statutory notices are placed only there, this would be not modernisation but invisibility. There is evidently concern, as reflected in the broad support for this amendment, that the Government’s current proposal would weaken transparency rather than strengthen it.

I listened with interest to the compelling cases in this debate, and I cannot help but wonder whether there is another way. If this policy requires updating, modernising or broadening, why do we not consider doing precisely that? Rather than the Government removing the requirement completely, allowing publication

“in such manner as the local authority thinks appropriate”,

would they consider expanding its scope instead? It could be broadened to include reputable independent local news websites, trusted digital publishers and recognised social media channels, operated by established local news providers. I defer to those who know the industry better than I do, but would this not reflect the realities of contemporary media consumption while preserving the more core democratic principle that notices should be published through independent and accessible outlets?

Above all, we must avoid a future in which councils become the sole gatekeepers of information that should be publicly available, easily accessed and subject to external scrutiny. The partnerships between councils and local media remain essential to the health of our local democracy, and we consider that any move to weaken that would be a big mistake. For these reasons, I believe that the principle of the amendment deserves serious consideration and I hope the Government will reconsider their approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord is absolutely right about that. The interesting thing is that, just because an area is urban, it does not mean that it does not have parishes. London, one of the biggest cities in Europe, is very often called a city of villages. That they are called parishes is normal in urban areas as much as it is in country areas. “Parish” is not a rural concept; it is a well-established historical concept, wherever you happen to live. Extending parishes across the country would be an admirable way of extending neighbourhood governance.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, could I take advantage of my noble friend’s expertise again? How are unitary councils included under Clause 60(5)? It lists only counties, districts and London boroughs, so I am not clear how the clause applies to unitary councils.

--- Later in debate ---

I am keen to see devolution work and for it to harness community commitment and engagement. However, the decision-making and responsibility need to be as near as possible to the community concerned. Does the Minister agree with the objectives that I and others have set out? If so, does she agree that the Bill should clarify this? If not, can we know what the Government propose? Is it reinforcement of this first tier of activity, whether you call it “community” or “government” or whatever, or is it to be its diminution and effective absorption into a much larger and more remote body? It is for those reasons that I have tabled my amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I live in the middle of this problem: Eastbourne and Hastings have district councils and no parishes, so when we go unitary, we will be without any form of local structure.

Will the Minister publish the draft regulations before we get to Report? We are supposed to see plans for Sussex going unitary sometime in March or April. It will be enormous. We are at the moment undergoing a consultation process on whether we have a town council or a succession of parishes, or whether we look to the unitary model and have a local structure that embraces the whole of Eastbourne. The borough of Eastbourne has grown enormously beyond its boundaries. If we want to be seen as a big community, we need those big boundaries. We want to be a whole town, thank you very much. If we are to be parishes, we will still need to understand what we will interact with at the unitary neighbourhood panel or structure—whatever it is going to be. For us, this is an enormously important bit of knowledge. We are being asked to decide things at the moment, but we are not being told what the most important factor is: how will the unitary structure these things?

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

In my view, a process of parishing does not consist of the dividing up of a borough—if I can call it that—such as Eastbourne into a load of little bits and pieces. That may be the way in which it is being presented because of the electoral ward structure that pertains at the moment but, as I said, there are some very large town councils—Weston-super-Mare is one and I am sure that there are others—that have very significant populations. The question is: what best forms community in the area concerned? I suggest to the noble Lord, for whose continued and creditable battling for Eastbourne I have the highest regard, that he should perhaps look into that and see whether a form of parishing to create a town council would not be a better way forward.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I can understand that, but how does a big town council for 100,000 or so people actually work within a unitary of half a million people, given that the town council will have the powers of a parish only and most of the decisions will be taken by the unitary? The important structure at the level of the town will not be the town council, with its rather artificially constrained boundaries, but the local unitary neighbourhood—whatever it calls itself—with the rather expanded boundaries, and the budget, and responsibility for all the things that we want to happen, which the town council will not have any of. If we are looking at parishes, we do not want them on ward boundaries. Ward boundaries have grown to fit the needs of the Electoral Commission. If we are having parishes, we want them to represent communities, which we do not have with our ward boundaries.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have been looking at the clause and I come back to the fact that the local authorities in question are clearly not strategic authorities; the point is that they are the unitaries. I do not know about Sussex, but in Suffolk, for example, the unitaries may end up being districts or the county but, either way, they will be comprised within the local authorities that would have to undertake this job. Bear in mind that Clause 60 does at least enable functions to be conferred on this neighbourhood structure, so if one were to establish a town council in Eastbourne, the unitary in question—let us say it was a county—could seek to confer functions on that town council.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Yes, but the town council will be on our current boundaries, presumably, whereas to work with the last 30 years of building and development we really ought to incorporate all those large areas of housing and commerce that Wealden has stuck on our boundaries rather than elsewhere. Understanding how the Government intend to proceed on this is relevant to the decisions that we are being asked to take now. I very much agree with what other noble Lords have said. Representation is important, as are the concepts of parish and local identity. We would like to take what will be a rather challenging decision in the full light of knowing what the alternatives open to us really are.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a really important debate because it has emphasised and demonstrated the muddle that is in the Bill: the vacuum that will be created following the local government reorganisation process. How is it that Clause 60 cannot even bring itself to mention the town and parish councils that have formed the bedrock of our society?

I know it is inconvenient to have those pesky politicians interfering in that administrative competence: why do we want delegates and deputies at that lowest level? I can understand why the dead hand of Marsham Street has written Clause 60 as it has, but it is not good enough, because it does not have the golden thread of legitimacy that comes only with elections or democratic accountability. We are not seeing authoritative governance, but authoritarian governance; we will be leaving it to local authorities to impose relationships in some smaller parts of their territory without any regard or requirement for democratic legitimacy.

We have had an interesting discussion. The number bandied around was that 20% of places are unparished. It is not equally spread throughout the nation but, by and large, the historic county boroughs have not been parished because they have been billing authorities and districts in their own right. Areas such as King’s Lynn —a proud Hanseatic town—are currently going through a consultation to form their own parish so that there is not a vacuum. I am very attracted to Amendments 207 and 210, and especially Amendment 209A from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because they would prevent a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, but there will be one unless we have these absolute requirements here.

In our discussion about parishes, there was some confusion over what we might call ecclesiastical parishes —those parts of a town with a parish church—but we have not really got to constituted, incorporated parishes that are part of a parish council. It is important that our nomenclature is straightened out. I will talk about civil parishes as opposed to ecclesiastical ones.

There are already multiple arrangements. In my electoral ward, the two parishes of Alpington and Yelverton are inconveniently at both ends of the alphabet but have come together to form a community council—a joint parish council with warding for periodic elections. A minimum number of councillors from Alpington and a minimum number from Yelverton must come together as part of that. Put together, about 400 or 500 people live in those two parishes. Where is the equivalence between Alpington and Yelverton working together and Weston-super-Mare? We are trying to shoehorn this. The Bill should be clear.

In the previous session on the Bill on Monday, I ploughed a lonely furrow as I tried to make some sort of size distinction between these smaller parishes and the larger towns. I was on my own; had that debate been held today, I feel I might have got more support. Nevertheless, we must make sure that we end up with properly constituted, incorporated bodies to govern these smaller bits. Just establishing a joint committee or sub-committee of the new body that sits above it will not be any good, exactly because of the library point that was made so well.

The Bill is deficient because none of this texture is explained or laid out. There is just a muddle, with no legitimacy. This must be brought back on Report with significantly more flesh on the bones and I encourage the Minister to do so. I am not sure whether even Stevenage is parished; it was certainly a new town. That is a whole new class of authority that we may need to look at in this regard. We must try to bring together all those bits from my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and others to bring some order to this. Otherwise, it will be disorderly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very pleased to hear that. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me earlier whether the Bill will go to Report, and I confirm that is the case. I hope that the noble Earl will still be here to participate on Report, and we look forward to his contributions. He has a great deal of knowledge and experience of the property sector and many other areas related to all of the issues we have debated on this and other Bills. I particularly valued his expertise on property safety and his knowledge of construction when debated the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I am very grateful to him.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with that. Do the Minister and the noble Earl realise that the last place in the UK named Lytton—spelled with a “y”—is in Stevenage?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is actually in Knebworth, north Hertfordshire, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 216A, 216B and 216C. I also associate myself with most of the other amendments, certainly the ones in the names of my noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, in Amendments 211 and 212 proposes a sort of ban. I do not agree with this, but we do need to allow for emergencies, so I agree with the thrust of what he is trying to say.

I agree with my noble friends about the importance of not cancelling elections for LGR, but this does not take into account the funny business around cancelling mayoral or PCC elections or council polls when LGR is not the reason. My amendments are therefore drawn more widely than those of my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Jamieson.

There has not been a revolution here for about 350 years. Your Lordships might say that this is because the British are a placid race, but they can easily be stirred. The reason the rule of law has been sustained for so long is that we are a democratic country. We sit in this House, in a building that is the cradle of democracy and mother of Parliaments. The people of this nation go to the ballot box to select those who are to represent them in pursuance of a stronger economy, better lives, robust defence and all those other things that the state provides. That consent lasts until the next election, at which point those elected are either replaced or re-elected.

I know that this is obvious, but it needs to be said because the Government have forgotten it. The democratic principle is the cornerstone of our society and our civility. It safeguards the boundaries between the state and the individual. It takes something pretty important to disturb that delicate equilibrium, such as national emergencies. The foot and mouth epidemic and Covid were two cases in point, when elections were delayed for proper purposes.

But this time last year, elections were cancelled. Last March, we had a debate and the Minister made it quite clear that the 12-month cancellation was strictly a one-off. Back then, LGR was nothing more than an outside possibility. No detailed plans had been submitted, there had been no consultation and it was not clear what type of reconfiguration might be proposed. Surrey thought it was getting a mayor until it was not, and London was most definitely in until it was not. It was all just nods and winks. Local government reorganisation was no more certain then than saying now that the Prime Minister will be in place until the next elections—which would have been in May, until they were cancelled.

I am not saying that the Minister misled the House last March, but events have shown that she did not have the authority to give the reassurances that she did. She certainly did not advance the ridiculous notion that decisions to cancel elections should be made by those who are already elected and have the most to lose. Had she explained that process back in March, she would have been laughed out of the Chamber, but that is her Government’s position today.

I have been a councillor for many years. I can tell noble Lords that you do not go into local government for the money but, once you are in, the money can be pretty handy, so asking those people whether they ought to stay on is both a conflict of interest and a moral hazard. Part of the justification for the delay was that economic growth was the number one priority. Mayors were to be the conduit through which growth would be delivered. Those elections have been delayed by two years, which says all you need to know about the commitment to growth. The mayoral angle is why I prefer my amendments over those of my colleagues, because I have amendments that would not just go for local elections but mayoral and PCC elections.

I am sure that the Minister will want to say that three elections were cancelled in Yorkshire, Somerset and Cumbria in 2021, and therefore there is precedent, but I do not accept that for a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will be reassured that I argued forcefully with the Minister that, in the case of Yorkshire, putting Skipton, Selby and Scarborough in the same so-called local authority was crazy. But at least, by that moment, although I disagreed with the outcome, orders had been laid and proposals had been made and consulted on. There was certainty about the creation of local government reorganisation when the elections were cancelled—and, in any event, it was only a single year’s delay. None of that relates to today’s situation. It is dishonest to draw some equivalence between the circumstances in 2021 and those of today. That is why the law needs to be changed to stop the abuse.

Those who want to dodge democracy have advanced quite a few bogus reasons. The county councils talk about capacity issues, forgetting that it is the district councils that run the elections in the shires. They said that it was all rather expensive—but democracy has its price, and the money has already been salted away, accrued and set aside. So that argument holds no water. I have heard it said that staff are busy with other things, but running elections is a specialist task and the electoral registration officers tend to focus on that alone. They are not the people who are engaged in LGR and consultation on the big strategic matters with other authorities, including matters such as disposal of assets. All these arguments are bogus when measured against the fact that free and fair elections should be operated separately from those standing in them, which is one of the fundamental separations of duties and one for which the Electoral Commission, among other bodies, was established.

In an earlier group we discussed local government reorganisation. One problem is that the public have not been offered a chance to express an opinion on LGR, just in case the electors do not share the same view. My noble friend Lord Pickles told me in 2008, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right, but that does not suit a Government with a tin ear for democracy and the value of civic history. Democracy is being denied in councils; it has already been denied in the mayoral elections. While the Government are signalling that the police and crime commissioners are on their way out into the sunset, my amendments would at least require that the strongest possible relationship between the state and individual is not to result in a reckoning, because society has been abused by these proposals.

My proposal is that only the super-affirmative process can be used when you might want to cancel elections. I cannot think of reasons why you might want to do that in future but, if it was so, this would ensure that there was a two-step process whereby permission must first be sought to enter secondary legislation and then only by the affirmative method would it be separately approved by resolutions laid before both Houses. In any event, any resolution to cancel an election should be made no less than three months before the date of publication of the election, because it is important for parties and individuals to have enough time to prepare a manifesto, select candidates, raise funds and address all the practical matters that need to be taken care of. My amendments would ensure that the preparation could take place effectively, allowing voters to mark their choices clearly on the ballot.

It is not just that it is the right thing; it is wrong that confidence in elections has been undermined. That infects, contaminates and taints democratic structures and processes. Democracy is the underpinning of our society, the stability of our nation and the integrity of all we hold dear. Here is the paradox: this evening, in this Room, the unelected Chamber is standing up for the elected rights of the population. I am not going to go on about Schedule 28 and the funny business against first past the post, but by this debate, noble Lords are being seen to be on the side of the people. Those who would reform your Lordships’ House can see what a slippery slope would happen if we are shoved out of the way: more cancellation of elections. What an irony that would be. The law should be changed so that elections cannot be cancelled for ministerial convenience, except in the most extreme and robust cases of national emergency, such as Covid or foot and mouth, but not local government reorganisation.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 216D seeks to deal with a consequence of the correct and necessary but sad development that councillors and those standing for council seats and in other elections are allowed to hide where they live. It has become necessary. I am sad about it, but it has meant that in these elections it is extraordinarily difficult for an elector to contact people who are standing for election. There is no way of getting messages to them if they are not part of a mainstream party. Even where they are from a mainstream party, you send the message in and it sticks with that party’s central office and does not get out to the candidate because the candidate is allowed to have only the authorised views of the party. I would like to restore that connection between voters and candidates by making sure that there is a way in which voters can contact candidates and hopefully receive replies from them.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 216D tabled my noble friend Lord Lucas about candidates’ addresses. Over my 28 years as a councillor, I have been proud to have my address on the ballot paper, not least because for the majority of that time I either lived in my own ward or it was at the end of my road. People could know that I have not got daffodils—I certainly have not got green fingers—but people had no problem in speaking to me or knocking on my door.

I always thought it was a good thing to have your address published, but over that period of 28 years, technology, the internet and keyboard warriors have changed my view. Like many others, I have had death threats. To a certain extent, you take that on the chin and you say that it is part of the job. The absolute worst situation I got in was when one of these idiots decided to say they were going to firebomb my home. I have three little girls living next door to me. The hardest thing I ever had to do was speak to their parents and say not that I felt threatened but “watch out”. Three little lives were potentially at risk because of one of these idiot keyboard warriors.

Frankly, that is why people are considering whether they want to stand for election, and I believe that is one of the reasons why people do not want their address on the ballot paper. That means you move to the situation about how people can contact you. We know that the electoral returning officer has to have an address to show that there is a proper qualification. You also have to have an agent who has an address, so is there an opportunity for that address to be used by the returning officer to take away the need for a person’s personal address to be given at any time in future? There are some parties that do not believe in imprints, but most of us do. There are addresses there, so there is an opportunity for contact, but I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

222A: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Funding for buying assets of community valueThe Secretary of State may, in conjunction with the National Lottery or otherwise, make funds available for the purchase of assets of community value.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is proposed in order to ensure that there is a dedicated source or sources of funding, to enable this part of the Bill to function well.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 222A just picks up the Government on the disappearance of the funds that the last Government made available to support the community right to buy. I very much hope that the Government will in time reverse that decision, because it made a huge difference to the effectiveness of this provision. It was not that the Government paid the whole of it, but it made the base from which the community could raise the money, particularly if the community was not one of the richest in the world. It was a really important initiative and an important part of what to my mind is a really important clause underpinning the relationship between the community and the space that it occupies. I very much hope that in time the Government will come back to the position as we used to have it. I have seen it do an awful lot of good.

I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 235ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because she is unable to be here. First, Amendment 235 essentially says that the planning uplift should be ignored. That is a really important part of the relationship here. If you do not ignore the value uplift that comes with hope value, you make it absolutely impossible for the community to purchase the land. A charity, beyond anything else, is not allowed to buy land above its value, and the value to the charity is the land without hope, so that closes off a substantial route for buying assets of community value.

Secondly, the hope value belongs to the community. It is not something that is generated by the owner; it is something that is generated by the community, which might wish to give at some future time permission to do something else on that land. It is not appropriate that that should be appropriated by the owner. We need the value at which these transactions are done to be the value without hope value.

Thirdly, we need to do something to make it possible to deal with sporting fields. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the trials that Udney Park has dealt with over the last 10 years, with a succession of developers blocking the continued use of that space as a sporting facility and its transfer into community ownership. It would be really helpful under those circumstances if it was possible for the local authority to intervene and use its compulsory acquisition powers to ensure transfer. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group relating to assets of cultural value and I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg.

Between them, the amendments do just two things. First, Amendment 233 tells us more precisely what cultural interests are by giving specific examples of assets such as music venues, theatres, rehearsal spaces and so on. I take on board the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, expressed in the previous debate, about the use of “culture” or “cultural”, and indeed the phrase “cultural interest” could on the face of it mean a number of different things. I suggest that there are three ways of addressing this. You can strictly define the term; you can use associated words to help lock down the meaning of the term, such as in the phrase “arts, culture and heritage”; or you can give specific examples, which is what I have done here.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 222A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

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

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Lord Banner (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Lord Banner (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

Clause 73 agreed.