English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly to clause 57. The Opposition recognise why the Government are bringing in this system. As I have said before, I was a councillor in a unitary with a leader and cabinet system, and I think that that delivers the fastest decisions, and the most accountable decisions when there is a full council. In fact, we were able to constitute an overview and scrutiny committee, the chairmanship of which we gave to the opposition.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Having been a district council opposition leader for 10 years, I can say with some real clarity that the agenda was not always dominated by the controlling group; in fact, a lot of the motions put forward by the group I led were accepted by the controlling group. It is all about the quality of the councillors and the opposition—it goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said about culture—rather than necessarily the system. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Paul Holmes]

I do agree. I am sure the main reason his group’s motions were accepted is that they were very well written. I know how he behaves in here—I do not agree with his speeches most of the time—and he comes from a decent place. I know that any motion would have been beneficial to the residents of wherever he served at the time.

Councils will have the power to internally constitute themselves to give opposition councillors the best way to scrutinise them. As I said, in Southampton city council, we gave the Labour group leader, or an allocated person, the chairmanship of a genuine overview and scrutiny committee, whose power the administration used to fear. Particularly at a time when the first-past-the-post system delivered what might have been a hung council or a minority administration, that committee, consisting of opposition councillors, had huge power. So I do not have a huge amount of agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on that point.

However, we have just had a debate about referendums, and an amendment asking for referendums to allow people to say whether they want local government reorganisation, so I want to say something about paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 25. Paragraph 3 would prevent any local authority from deciding to establish a directly elected mayoralty, which is absolutely fine. Paragraph 4 would amend the Local Government Act 2000 to allow an authority with a mayoralty to change to a leader and cabinet system. However, it leaves in place provisions governing how that change could take place, and a mayoralty established after a referendum could be abolished only if that is approved in another referendum, which can be triggered by the local authority, a petition or the Secretary of State.

In the schedule, the Government want to hold referendums to try to get what they want, so they approve of them. But they somehow do not approve of referendums to ask people in the first place whether they want to go into this local government reform. If the Minister could explain how that is not having her cake and eating it, and being completely inconsistent in the Bill, I would be grateful. Here, she is saying, “Well, we want you to change to a leader and cabinet system, but you need a referendum to do that, because you have already had a referendum.” That is tacit approval from the Government; when it comes to local government reform and changing how a local authority is set up, they want the consent of the people, but on the overarching view of local government reform, they somehow do not. After the last debate, I would ask the Minister to clarify again: do this Government believe in the right of local people, by referendum, to change the way in which they approve their local structures and live their lives? Yes or no? If it is good enough for this clause, she should go back to the schedule we have just discussed and put in the amendment we discussed to approve a referendum there.

I am slightly teasing the Minister, but she must understand that there is inconsistency in the Government’s approach—although I am not surprised about that. Overall, that is not enough for me to say that the clause is not worth being in the Bill. I think it does deliver a streamlined and accountable process for a leader and cabinet system, but she really does need to tell her officials, whom she leads and gives political direction to, to be consistent about when the Government believe the public should and should not be asked.

--- Later in debate ---

Perusing the website or hard copy of the local newspaper overwhelmingly increases the engagement in democratic channels the Minister is seeking. It acts as a safeguard to make sure that people have their say, particularly demographic groups and communities that are not online or digitally connected. We are expecting many, many more statutory notices and planning applications to go through in our rural areas and villages under this Government, as they attack the green belt and build on agricultural land across the country. Many of the people who live in those areas are older people whose digital infrastructure is not good and who might rely on being able to consult statutory notices in the right way.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Gentleman rightly praises the role of local newspapers. I have some brilliant ones in my constituency, including one that goes out in Chipping Norton and hence is called Chippy News. It is produced by volunteers and does a lot of the things that the hon. Gentleman talked about. However, he mentioned the diminished circulation of newspapers. If he really wants better consultation and engagement with residents, does he accept that making the proposed amendments that might not be the best way to ensure that?

[Paul Holmes]

There is an argument for accepting that, but I would ask in return why the Government are giving local councils the opportunity not to use newspapers. Why put that in the Bill rather than allow the status quo to continue while enabling local authorities to do it in other ways? Why are we bringing forward legislative changes that will harm our independent newspaper sector? I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about not making useless amendments or putting useless new clauses into legislation, so why is this measure in the Bill in the first place? That is why we feel that we have to amend the Bill to protect our local newspapers, the vulnerable people who use them and their engagement in the democratic process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions.

Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved.

This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent.

For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities.

Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success.

Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement.

Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver.

I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in.

Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance.

Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important.

More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs.

Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured.

I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing.

The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.

[Sean Woodcock]

Briefly, I want to put on the record how much I value the protection of sporting assets. I have already mentioned Chipping Norton in my constituency, and how the football club there lost its land to a rather unscrupulous developer the best part of a decade ago and ever since has not been able to play in the town itself; it has to play almost 10 miles away. The protections are very close to my heart and I very much support them.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon talked about pubs. I have numerous pubs in my constituency with active campaigns—the Fox Inn and the Bell Inn, for example—where the community is very active and keen to take on the pub to save it so that it is not lost to the community.

I rise to speak, however, because sometimes pubs close down and, with the best will in the world, are unable to reopen, despite the efforts of the community and people nearby. There is a real danger of unintended consequences if the amendment puts in too much protection and removes the flexibility that is necessary to allow historical buildings to survive.

I offer an example from my constituency, where massive efforts were put in to retain a particular pub. The brewers who owned it put it out to all sorts of people. Unfortunately, the amount of money required to bring it back up to standard made it totally unviable, not only for other brewers or people wanting to take it on, but for the community. The pub was in a historical village, and the real danger is that we wrap it up so much in protection and regulations that, in trying to save the pub, we will lose the historical building. If the landlord is not able to do anything with it, it can fall to rack and ruin, and even with the best will in the world we can end up losing that historical building. That pub ended up becoming a house; granted, it is no longer a pub or a community asset, but the building is retained and is no longer a dilapidated ruin in the middle of a village.

Although the amendment comes from a really good place, I cannot support it. I support the Government making it easier for communities to get involved, giving them more time and granting them more powers to take on historical pubs that are important parts of the community, but there is a real danger that the amendment could have an unintended consequence: a historical building being lost purely because it is so wrapped in regulation and protection that nobody is able to do anything with it. I would therefore vote against it.