Thursday 5th March 2026
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (3 Mar 2026)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on what was—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before we were interrupted, I was just saying that we are very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on 11 February—it was as far away as that, and we have not met since then. If noble Lords think back, it was quite a substantial debate on quite a detailed group. It exposed three central questions, which the Government must answer before the Committee can be satisfied with Schedule 29. First, is community right to buy being strengthened, or is it being quietly diluted? Secondly, will the new way of doing it be workably practical? Thirdly, are we broadening community value or are we narrowing it?
I will begin with Amendment 222A in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. However carefully drafted Schedule 29 is, community right to buy will not function without progressive funding, and that is simply a fact. Under previous Administrations, community right to buy was not merely a legislative gesture; it was always backed by dedicated financial support. That funding was increased year on year. It was recognised that if communities are to compete with commercial purchasers, they require practical backing and not statutory wording.
I ask the Minister directly: what funding will operate under this regime? Will there be a National Lottery partnership funding, or are communities now expected to rely entirely on their own fundraising capacity?
Schedule 29 makes significant changes to the way assets of community value are defined and protected under the existing localism framework. A number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly step back and ask a more fundamental question: are we improving the system that communities rely on, or are we making it more fragile? Her amendments probe whether protections could fall away too easily, whether designated periods are being weakened and whether the balance is shifting away from communities and towards expediency. At the heart, this is about certainty for communities.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, take us to valuation and compulsory purchase. If market value is assessed in a way that takes into account speculative planning uplift, communities will often be priced out right from the very outset. Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 was designed to deal with precisely that issue. Therefore, I would like the Minister to explain why the Bill does not address this directly and whether the current drafting leaves community purchasers at a structural disadvantage.
Finally, Amendment 234B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, raises a practical but important point about maintenance. What is the point of designation if an asset can be allowed to decay beyond viability into the future? If local authorities are to hold these powers, do they also have the tools to prevent deliberate neglect?
This group of amendments reveals a consistent concern across the Committee. We support the principle of community right to buy. We introduced, funded and strengthened it. But Schedule 29 represents a significant rewriting of that framework. The Committee is entitled to clear assurances that we are not, through complexity or technical adjustment, weakening the very protections that gave the right meaning. The Government must now demonstrate three things: that the right will be properly funded, that protections are not being eroded and that the definition of community value reflects modern community life in all its cultural, environmental and sporting dimensions. If those assurances cannot be given, this House will inevitably return to these issues at a later stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments on the community right to buy and assets of community value, which I will refer to as ACVs. I know we debated this as far back as 11 February and, if it were not for the magic of Hansard, it would be a considerable memory test as to where we got to.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the determination of our Government to strengthen community right to buy and make it work. I will turn first to Amendment 222A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject of funding for the purchase of ACVs. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we are already putting record investment into communities, supporting them to take ownership of valued local assets and ensuring that they can make effective use of the new community right-to-buy powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that if you do not do that, there is little point in having a community right to buy at all. Our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places to regenerate and improve their communities. The Pride in Place impact fund will also provide £150 million of funding for up to 95 places to support the development of community spaces, as well as revitalising local high streets and the public realm.
The Government launched the £175 million community wealth fund in September last year as part of our commitment to put power in the hands of communities and deliver on the Pride in Place strategy. The community wealth fund is funded, as the noble Baroness indicated, through dormant assets and match funding from the National Lottery Community Fund, our delivery partner. Disadvantaged communities will receive funding pots of between £1 million and £2.5 million each over a 10-year period, building community power in the places that need it most. Local people will have a say on where the funding should be spent, be that community cooking classes, after-school clubs, improvements to the look and feel of neighbourhoods, sports facilities or many other projects that have come forward for that funding. We believe that providing funding directly to the most in-need communities and putting them in the driving seat is the right approach. Communities can use their funding on the projects that are most important to them, including protecting local assets.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I understand all that money coming in, but it is targeted to certain communities. The community right to buy was for communities across the whole country. They had the ability to ask for support to save their pubs, or village or town amenities. I worry that those not in the schemes that the Government have now set up are going to be left behind.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The point is that many communities have managed to raise funding for schemes themselves. We are trying to target those communities that are less able to do that, and that is the point of the way in which this is funded.
Turning to Amendment 222D, I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to ensure that communities do not lose local assets that are important to them. She tabled an identical amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and, as she will be aware from the debates on that amendment, it is already the case that the demolition permitted development right excludes many types of buildings that may be designated as ACVs. This includes pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and so on. Local planning authorities are able to use Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights in their area where they consider it appropriate to do so.
However, as the Minister for Housing and Planning acknowledged during Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill,
“we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 362.]
The Minister has, therefore, already committed to consult on this matter. We intend to include this proposal in the next consultation on permitted development rights, which we will publish in due course.
I turn now to Amendment 222E on the listing period for ACVs, which was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Under the provisions in the Bill, a local authority must remove an asset from its list of ACVs after a period of five years, with the Secretary of State able to amend this period through regulations. Although we want to ensure strong protections for ACVs, we do not think that it would be appropriate to remove this requirement and thereby make the listing period indefinite. Our intention is to empower communities at the same time as protecting the rights of asset owners. Indefinitely subjecting asset owners to the sale restrictions created by community right to buy would not be justifiable, given that the value of an asset to a community may diminish over time. There is also a risk that local authorities would be incentivised to make tougher judgments on requests from the community to list ACVs if listings are indefinite. This would conflict with the intention of the policy to allow communities to protect as many locally important assets as possible.
The noble Baroness pointed out that sporting assets of community value will, by contrast, be indefinitely listed. This is to provide sports grounds with longer-lasting protections, in recognising their inherent value to communities as places that foster local pride and identity and promote healthier lifestyles. It also reflects the low take-up of sports grounds under the existing regime for ACVs. Eligible sports grounds will also be listed automatically, meaning that there is not a similar risk of indefinite listing resulting in tougher listing decisions by local authorities.
The current five-year listing period for ACVs recognises that the needs of the community can change over time and that an asset may not retain the same value for a community in future. The policy must be responsive to this, but I will of course reflect on the noble Baroness’s proposal to ensure that this period is the right length.
I turn now to Amendment 222F. I agree that the scheme should not be limited to assets with a current use that furthers the economic or social well-being of the community. There are many assets that have had a community use in the past and continue to hold significant value for a community. It is right that these assets are also in scope of the policy. That is why proposed new Section 86B already allows buildings or land that furthered the economic or social well-being of communities at any time in the past to be listed as ACVs. We believe that Amendment 222F is, therefore, not necessary.
I turn now to Amendments 223, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 and 234 on assets of cultural value. I agree in this case with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—I nearly always do—that it is important to safeguard arts and cultural spaces such as music venues, recording studios, theatres and rehearsal spaces. They ensure that artists can thrive and play an important role in the vibrancy and identity of local areas. However, a broad range of arts and cultural assets will already be in scope of the protection through community right to buy, provided that communities are able to demonstrate a social or economic value to the community. Indeed, the provisions are clear that the social interests of the community include cultural interests. Statutory guidance will make clear the types of assets that we expect to be listed by local authorities if they are nominated; I welcome the noble Earl’s feedback on its development. This guidance will also be explicit that cultural assets are in scope of the policy, with examples such as the spaces I have already mentioned.
The noble Earl will also be aware that the planning system already offers protection for cultural assets and that there is a range of other government support available for both these assets and the artists who use them. I hope he will agree that, taken together, these measures provide strong support for valued cultural spaces.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Is the department still looking for feedback on this? It may not be complete yet, so I thought I should ask that question.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Indeed, I would very much welcome the noble Earl’s feedback as we start to develop the statutory guidance on that. He is very welcome to comment further on the issues around this use of cultural assets.
Amendments 223A, 224A, 225, 226 and 228 are on assets that further the environmental well-being of local communities. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Freeman of Steventon—I am sorry that she cannot be here today but I will send a draft of my speech to her—that the community right to buy will empower communities to protect a broad range of assets that are important to local life. That includes environmental assets. Communities will be able to nominate an extensive range of environmental assets, where they further their social or economic well-being, through the current provisions in this Bill. This could include allotments, playing fields, woodlands and farms, to name but a few. Statutory guidance will make clear that local authorities should accept nominations for such assets that meet the criteria.
However, the scheme is not intended to be used as a vehicle for general environmental protection. While excluding land allocated in local development plans will be helpful in preventing the scheme being used to block development activity, it is important that it remains focused on those assets that have an existing or historic role in community life. Environmental problems are best tackled through effective regulation, and this scheme should not act as a fallback or proxy for that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I feel that, once you have left the environment out of the legal safeguards on this particular aspect, you are inviting people to ignore them. I am very concerned about that. I am not just talking about sorting out problems; opportunities for local people could be completely disregarded.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, there is a whole range of safeguards in the planning system for environmental purposes. This asset of community value is there for communities to enable them to protect particular assets that they find of value in the environment. We will be developing the guidance for this and I hope the noble Baroness will take part in that guidance. She asked me earlier today if I will meet her and I am of course very happy to do that.
I turn to Amendments 232A and 232B. I agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiment that as many assets as possible should come into the scope of the policy; however, we have to recognise that there are some types of land that it will not be feasible or justifiable to designate as ACVs, as other interests may take precedence. That includes private residences and operational land used for statutory undertakings such as water, gas and electricity. It is right that the policy prevents the listing of land in these limited circumstances, which is why the Secretary of State has the power to set out land that is not of community value in regulations. We will continue to keep the list of exemptions under review to ensure that it is not unnecessarily restrictive and that communities can protect a wide range of assets.
Amendments 234ZA and 234A seek to broaden the definition of a sporting asset of community value. The current statutory definition of a sports ground in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 explicitly states that the ground must have a spectator facility, so that provides a clear objective framework to help councils assess eligibility for listing as an SACV. There is no comparable alternative legislation that provides a comprehensive or universally applicable statutory definition. Broadening this definition would place a considerable burden on local authorities to identify grounds they consider to be eligible for SACV listing and to retain up-to-date lists of them. Any ambiguity could lead local authorities to being less confident about listing these vital assets.
The current definition of an SACV, which encompasses the majority of grounds that have a spectator facility, will significantly increase the number of assets that communities can take ownership of under the new community right-to-buy scheme. Furthermore, a spectator facility is a sensible and objective indicator of community value. A ground with a built space for spectators is clearly designed for shared organised use and already serves a wider community purpose. Grassroots-level grounds that do not meet the definition under the 1975 Act will still be eligible for listing under the regular ACV scheme.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
If a council decides to designate, say, Hackney Marshes or some other area like that and it is clearly for sporting value, will it then get the same protection even if the council has not initially designated it because it did not have spectator facilities? Will it then get the same protection for life?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a very good question. Because those are sporting facilities, I would imagine that they come under the ACV scheme or the SACV scheme. I feel that they should be because they are all sporting assets but I will check that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
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.
Lord Banner
“Chapter 2ALand disposed of by local councilsDischarge of statutory trusts
Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts(1) LGA 1972 is amended in accordance with this section.(2) After section 128 insert—“Discharge of statutory trusts
128A Statutory trust discharge orders(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in relation to land in England (a “statutory trust discharge order”).(2) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory trust discharge order in relation to land unless— (a) a person has applied to the Secretary of State for the statutory trust discharge order to be made in relation to the land, and(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the qualifying conditions are met (see section 128D).(3) The effect of an order being made in relation to land is that the land is freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with—(a) section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 (pleasure grounds), or(b) section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 (duty of local authority to maintain open spaces and burial grounds).(4) The order has that effect in relation to that land generally (and so its effect is not limited to that land as freehold or leasehold land as held by the applicant for the order).(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision as to the making and determination of any application for a statutory trust discharge order.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may in particular make provision as to—(a) the steps to be taken by a person before making an application;(b) the form of an application;(c) the information or evidence to be supplied with an application;(d) the publication of an application;(e) the holding of an inquiry before determination of an application;(f) the evidence to be taken into account in making a determination and the weight to be given to any evidence.(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may include provision for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to discharge any or all of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to an application for a statutory trust discharge order.(8) The power under subsection (5) to make regulations includes power to make—(a) different provision for different cases;(b) incidental, supplementary or consequential provision;(c) transitional or saving provision.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(10) Section 128G contains further provision about the making of statutory trust discharge orders.128B Applications for statutory trust discharge orders(1) A person making an application must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to how the application is made or to its form or content).(2) Qualifying condition B (see section 128D(3)) limits which kind of person is able to make a successful application.(3) An application may be varied after it has been made (and section 128A, this section, and sections 128D to 128G then apply to the application as varied).(4) The Secretary of State may require a person making an application to pay a fee before the Secretary of State considers the application (the “application fee”). (5) The application fee is to be of an amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made under section 128A(5).(6) The determination of an application for a statutory trust discharge order which relates to particular land does not prevent a further application from being made subsequently in relation to the same land.(7) But the Secretary of State may reject a further application if the Secretary of State considers that there has not been a material change in the circumstances relevant to the qualifying conditions.(8) If a further application is rejected, the Secretary of State must publish notice of the rejection in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128C Applications where land has been divided up(1) This section applies where—(a) a principal council, parish council or parish meeting appropriated or disposed of land, and(b) the freehold or leasehold title to that land has subsequently been divided.(2) An application may be made in relation to the land comprised in any of the relevant titles.(3) A single joint application may be made in relation to the land comprised in two or more of the relevant titles; and, in the case of such an application, the question of whether the qualifying conditions are met must be decided separately in relation to the land comprised in each title.(4) For the purposes of this section—(a) a freehold title is “divided” if either or both of the following occurs—(i) the title is divided into two or more different freehold titles;(ii) a lease (including a sublease) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the freehold title;(b) a leasehold title is “divided” if—(i) the title is divided into two or more different leasehold titles (for example by an assignment of part);(ii) a sublease (including a sublease that is not immediately inferior to the leasehold title) is granted over some or all of the land comprised in the leasehold title.(5) In this section “relevant title” means—(a) the freehold title to the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of;(b) the title to a long lease of the whole or a part of the land appropriated or disposed of.128D The qualifying conditions(1) This section sets out the “qualifying conditions” (referred to in section 128A(2)(b)).(2) Qualifying condition A: the application for the statutory trust discharge order identifies land in England in relation to which the order is being sought.(3) Qualifying condition B: the applicant for the order is—(a) the freehold owner of the relevant land, or(b) the tenant of the relevant land under a long lease, whether granted before or after commencement,at the time of the application (whether or not by virtue of the previous appropriation or disposal).(4) Qualifying condition C: a principal council, parish council or parish meeting—(a) appropriated, or (b) disposed of,the relevant land at a time before the application for the statutory trust discharge order is made (the “previous appropriation or disposal”).(5) It does not matter whether the previous appropriation or disposal occurred before or after commencement.(6) Qualifying condition D: the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal.(7) For the purposes of determining whether qualifying condition D is met—(a) it is sufficient that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with;(b) accordingly, it is irrelevant—(i) whether the previous advertisement procedure in fact had to be complied with, or(ii) whether the land was in fact land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with a trust of the kind mentioned in section 128A(3).(8) Section 128F includes provision for presuming that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with; and qualifying condition D must be taken to be met if that presumption is made.(9) Qualifying condition E: the new publicity requirements have been complied with.(10) Qualifying condition F: it is in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the trusts by virtue of the order.(11) The reference in subsection (10) to the public interest includes the public interest in—(a) nature conservation;(b) the conservation of the landscape;(c) the protection of public rights of access to the relevant land;(d) the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest;(e) development proposals relating to the relevant land;(f) economic, environmental or social benefits which the order would facilitate if made.128E The new publicity requirements(1) This section sets out the “new publicity requirements” (referred to in qualifying condition E in section 128D(9)).(2) The applicant must publish a notice of the application in four consecutive weeks—(a) in a local newspaper — and, if there are two or more local newspapers, it must be the main local newspaper;(b) if there is no local newspaper, either—(i) in a national newspaper, or(ii) on a website with a readership in the local area that is comparable to the readership of a local newspaper.(3) If—(a) a newspaper is published in print and on a website, and(b) it is possible to publish notices of the kind required by subsection (2) in both versions,a requirement under subsection (2) to publish a notice in the newspaper can only be complied with by publication of the notice in both versions.(4) If the applicant is a principal council, a parish council or parish trustees, they must also publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on their website (if they have one). (5) The applicant must display a notice of the application for a period of 28 days at the point of entry, or at the main points of entry, to the relevant land.(6) The Secretary of State must publish a notice of the application for a period of 28 days on the website, or main website, containing information about the Secretary of State’s department.(7) A notice under this section must identify the relevant land.(8) A notice under this section must—(a) state that a person who wishes to make representations about whether or not the order should be made may notify the Secretary of State of the representations, and(b) state the manner in which, and date by which, representations must be notified;and that date must be later than the last day of the period of 56 days beginning with the day when that notice is first published or displayed.(9) When publishing or displaying a notice under this section, the applicant must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (whether relating to its publication or display or its form or content).(10) In this section—“local area” means area in which the relevant land is situated;“local newspaper” means a newspaper circulating in the local area.128F Previous advertisement procedure: co-operation by councils etc and presumption(1) This section applies if an application has been made to the Secretary of State for a statutory trust discharge order.(2) The Secretary of State must notify the relevant council or parish trustees of—(a) the application,(b) the relevant land, and(c) the information about the previous appropriation or disposal which the Secretary of State has as a result of the application.(3) Within the response period, the relevant council or parish trustees must give the Secretary of State—(a) notice which—(i) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal,(ii) confirms that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, or(iii) states that the relevant council or parish trustees are not able to confirm either of those things, and(b) any information relating to compliance, or non-compliance, with the previous advertisement procedure which the relevant council or parish trustees have.(4) If the relevant council or parish trustees—(a) give the Secretary of State a notice under subsection (3)(a)(iii) within the response period, or(b) do not give the Secretary of State any notice under subsection (3)(a) within the response period,the Secretary of State must presume that the previous advertisement procedure was not complied with in relation to the previous appropriation or disposal, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the procedure was complied with. (5) In this section—“relevant council or parish trustees” means—(a) in a case where a principal council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(b) in a case where a parish council undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish council or parish trustees for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;(c) in a case where a parish meeting undertook the previous appropriation or disposal—(i) the parish trustees or parish council for the area where the relevant land is situated, or(ii) if the relevant land is no longer in the area of a parish, the principal council for the area where the relevant land is situated;“response period”, in relation to a notification given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), means the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is received by the relevant council or parish trustees.128G Making statutory trust discharge orders(1) In deciding whether to make a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State must take into account all matters that are relevant, including these matters—(a) whether, and how, the person making the application has had regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 128B(1) and section 128E(9);(b) any representations about whether or not the order should be made that are notified to the Secretary of State (including any representations made by persons who are freehold owners, or tenants, of land comprised in the previous appropriation or disposal but who are not applying for the order).(2) A statutory trust discharge order may relate to only some of the relevant land specified in the application.(3) A statutory trust discharge order takes effect—(a) on the day after the day on which the order is made, or(b) if the order specifies a later day on which it is to take effect, on that day.(4) In relation to each application for a statutory trust discharge order, the Secretary of State—(a) must publish notice of the decision whether or not to make the order, and(b) if the order is made, must publish the order.(5) That notice, or the order, is to be published in the manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.128H Sections 128A to 128G: interpretation and application to the Crown(1) In sections 128A to 128G and this section—“application” means an application for a statutory trust discharge order;“commencement” means the coming into force of section (Secretary of State to have power to discharge statutory trusts) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;“long lease” means a lease which was granted for a term of 20 years or longer; “new publicity requirements” has the meaning given in section 128E(1);“previous advertisement procedure” means whichever of the following applied to the previous appropriation or disposal—(a) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the appropriation in accordance with—(i) section 122(2A) in the case of an appropriation by a principal council;(ii) section 126(4A) in the case of an appropriation by a parish council or parish meeting;(b) the requirement to advertise notice of the intention to make the disposal in accordance with—(i) section 123(2A) in the case of a disposal by a principal council;(ii) section 123(2A) as applied by section 127(2) in the case of a disposal by a parish council or parish meeting;“previous appropriation or disposal” has the meaning given in section 128D(4);“qualifying conditions” has the meaning given in section 128D(1);“relevant land” means the land identified in the application for a statutory trust discharge order as the land relation to which the order is being sought;“statutory trust discharge order” has the meaning given in section 128A(1).(2) A reference in sections 128A to 128G to the freehold owner, or the tenant under a long lease, is a reference to—(a) the Crown Estate Commissioners, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown and forms part of the Crown Estate;(b) the government department having the management of the freehold or long lease, if it belongs to His Majesty in right of the Crown but does not form part of the Crown Estate;(c) the government department concerned, if the freehold or long lease belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department;(d) a person appointed by His Majesty in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, or if no such appointment is made the Secretary of State, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of His private estates (which must be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Crown Private Estates Act 1862);(e) the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if the freehold or long lease belongs to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster;(f) a person appointed by the Duke of Cornwall, or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, if the freehold or long lease belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall.”(3) In section 266(1) (orders which are to be made by statutory instrument), for “other than section 261 above” substitute “other than section 128A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would enable the Secretary of State to make an order in relation to land previously appropriated or disposed of by a council. The order would discharge the land from statutory trusts relating to open land that arise under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 or section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 222C is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick. Noble Lords who participated in the House’s recent consideration of what was then the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall that we proposed an amendment to that Bill with a view to addressing the wide-reaching consequences for persons who acquire former public open-space land in light of a Supreme Court decision known as Day: R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2023] UKSC 8.
To recap, open spaces held by the local authority under the Public Health Act 1875 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 are subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public being given the right to go on to that land for the purpose of recreation. Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that the local authority may not dispose of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless, before it does so, it advertises its intention to sell the land in the local newspaper for two weeks and then considers any objections received in response. Section 123(2B) provides that the sale of the land post-advertisement proceeds free of the statutory trust.
In the Day case, the Supreme Court held that, even when the decision to dispose of open-space land has not been challenged, and even when it was made many years or even decades in the past, a historic failure to comply with the advertisement requirements means that the statutory trust continues to exist and therefore continues to frustrate the beneficial repurposing or redevelopment of the land in question. Crucially, that is the case even if the land was sold in good faith by the local authority to a bona fide purchaser who was completely unaware of any procedural irregularity, even if there remains no dispute that the land was surplus to requirements when it was sold.
That is highly problematic; it means that the land that has been sold on the basis of an unchallenged decision that it is in the public interest to dispose of it—land that now has planning permission for beneficial reuse—is none the less permanently banned by the statutory trust and cannot be put to its intended beneficial use for which planning permission has been granted. Given that the advertising cannot be done retrospectively, the land may be blighted for ever.
This is causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities, sometimes decades ago. The evidence about whether the land in question had or had not been properly advertised prior to sale may no longer be readily available, particularly in historic cases. Land that may very well have been properly advertised is brought within the blight because of this issue, and this is holding up many developments across the country that already have planning permission.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and have added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is unable to be with us this afternoon and apologises to the Committee for his absence. The background has been well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and I shall emphasise a couple of points.
The purpose of the amendment is to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr Day v Shropshire Council. In paragraph 116 of her judgment, Lady Rose very fairly said:
“I recognise that this leaves a rather messy situation”.
The mess referred to by the learned Supreme Court Justice is that, although the land was acquired by the purchaser in good faith and for value, and the Local Government Act 1972 expressly confirmed that a good title passed to the purchaser, the fact that the local council failed to advertise the proposed sale in local newspapers for two weeks meant that the public right to go on the land for recreational purposes remained in place. As a result, the land cannot be developed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, suggested, it is blighted, effectively forever, because the original failure to advertise cannot ever be put right. Also, your Lordships will readily appreciate that the original sale by the local authority in such cases may have taken place many years earlier, which would likely give rise to the key evidential question: was the original sale properly advertised? It would be impossible to go back to the records in a case that had happened many years earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, explained what happened in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I need not repeat the history. That said, when this issue was before this House, concerns were expressed by some noble Lords about the form and content of that amendment. The concern—I hope that I summarise it accurately—was that the amendment would merely have reversed the decision in the Day case, leaving members of the public who are concerned to protect recreational space with no ability to challenge a proposed sale.
Amendment 222C takes full account of that concern. It would make provision for a robust public consultation process; it would mean that an application would have to be made for a statutory trust discharge order, associated with strict requirements for the giving of notices and the publication of suitable local advertisements. Before making the order sought, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take account of all comments received and would have to be satisfied that the qualifying conditions were met, as per proposed new Section 128A(2)(b). The qualifying conditions are precise and stringent, as laid out in proposed new Section 128D. Most importantly, new publicity requirements, as set out in proposed new Section 128E, would have to be complied with, as per proposed new Section 128(D)(9), and the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied—this is critical—that it was in the public interest for the relevant land to be freed from the public trusts by virtue of the order, as per qualifying condition F in proposed new Section 128D(10). I inserted the word “public” there for clarification purposes. The public interest is fully defined. I do not need to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Banner, already said on that point, but it is defined in the widest possible terms in proposed new Section 128D(11).
I appreciate that there are more wide-ranging concerns regarding recreational space and general well-being, as expressed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and others. For those groups, we are told, this amendment does not go far enough. I will respectfully make two points on that. First, this amendment has a very precise scope. It is not concerned with the much wider political issue of—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
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.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I was making a point about public consultation. Since the land is held by a trust for public benefit and for the public good, it seems to me that some consideration should be given to giving the people who benefit from that trust—the community; I am sure it could be defined—some sort of veto over any change in the status of the land held in public trust. Obviously, it could not be just half a dozen folk thinking that it should not happen, but if there were a huge swell of public opinion in favour of keeping the land in a public trust, as was done many years before, maybe that ought to be an option for local people.
There are various places across different parts of the country where the council’s own land in public trust would be affected if this amendment were accepted by the Government. The ones I have been able to find—apart from Wimbledon, of course—include Winchester, Swansea, Finchley, Hornsey and many others. Once a statutory trust discharge order takes effect, the land would be freed from the trust “generally”. Its status would be altered for all time, regardless of who holds the title. We should not enable a statutory loophole in this amendment that would allow the procedural errors of the past to become the justification for stealing the green lungs of our communities in the future. As noble Lords might have realised, the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this amendment and stand on the side of communities that strive to protect the integrity of our public open spaces held in trust.
I finish with a common little rhyme that emerged from the 18th century when the enclosures were taking place at great pace—when common land was taken by landowners. It goes:
“The fault is great in man or woman,
Who steals a goose from off a common;
But who can plead that man’s excuse,
Who steals the common from the goose?”
Lord Grabiner (CB)
Before the Division Bells, the noble Baroness was very dismissive of the consultation process, which is spelled out in the amendment. She referred to what sounded like her own unpleasant experience of such processes in the past. I wonder whether, on reflection—we have had a bit of time to reflect during the break—she thinks that a fair criticism of the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.
With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.
In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?
We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody for their patience while we have had to adjourn the Committee several times for voting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his Amendment 222C and for his engagement on this matter. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for his very careful consideration and constructive efforts to address the issue at hand. We need a mechanism to close this lacuna in the law, while ensuring balanced decisions can be made in the public interest. In my view, Amendment 222C does just that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out, and as we discussed during debates on what is now the Planning and Infrastructure Act, there is currently no way of releasing such statutory trust if the statutory advertisement procedure is not followed. This means that the land is bound by the trust in perpetuity, which can risk holding up important developments that may be in the public interest—for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The amendment would provide a practical solution to this issue, while still ensuring that balanced decisions are made in the public interest. The noble Lord helpfully set out the safeguards enshrined in the qualifying conditions, which the Secretary of State will have to consider to make a discharge order.
The issues around community rights are, of course, very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this but the amendment would embed a robust public interest test and significant transparency safeguards. Before any statutory trust discharge order can be made, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all six of those qualifying conditions are met, including full compliance with the new publicity requirements and a broad public interest test. I remind the Committee that the conditions are: nature conservation, landscape conservation, public rights of access, features of historic interest or archaeological remains, development proposals, and economic, environmental or social benefits, which the order would facilitate, if made. This is a transparent, evidence-based process and it would ensure that trusts can be discharged only where it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so.
The purpose of Amendment 222C is to provide clarity for those who are already impacted by this lacuna in the law. It does not address past failures to follow the advertising procedure. However, it places additional requirements on local authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State to identify if this procedure has not been followed. Most importantly, the application process and advertising procedure in the amendment would maintain the core elements of the Local Government Act 1972 by ensuring that communities have opportunities to make representations, should they object to the release of the statutory trust held for public recreation.
The proposed amendment also provides that a statutory trust may be released only where this is in the public interest, which the advertised provision in the Local Government Act does not specify. I feel that, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has misunderstood the narrow focus and purpose of this amendment, and the rigorous guardrails that have been placed around it. We need a method of resolving an issue. This amendment effectively allows that public consultation to be responded to in a Secretary of State process where it has been omitted originally.
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.
Lord Borwick
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Borwick, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State makes regulations related to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I rise on this St Piran’s Day to carry forward the millstone of ensuring accessibility just a bit, knowing that so many disabled people still struggle with accessibility every day, even 30 years after we legislated to make a change. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for pointing out the importance of the patron saint of Cornwall. His miracle was to carry a millstone across the Irish Sea. My task is much easier: getting accessibility to actually happen. I should first declare my interests as the owner and driver of a wheelchair-accessible London taxi and as a London taxi proprietor. I have had a long history in the taxi trade.
The amendments in my name, co-signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, come in two sets. One is a set of probing amendments that add a new twist to an old chestnut—if noble Lords will forgive a badly mangled metaphor—and the other amendments are serious improvements to the reliability of wheelchair accessibility in this country. Thirty years ago, in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Parliament decided that all taxis in the country should be able to carry disabled people who use wheelchairs in dignity in their chairs. This intention was repeated in the Equality Act 2010. The phrase
“The Secretary of State may make regulations”
was used but, 30 years later, they still have not done so.
This English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, whose taxi clauses I thoroughly support, also states that the Secretary of State “may” bring forward regulations, but I am puzzled. Does this mean that they may bring forward regulations in more than 30 years’ time? How can we be assured that the Government will bring forward regulations called for by the Casey report, when they have not done so in 30 years on disability? Can the Minister therefore tell us when the Government may bring forward these regulations? Can he also compare the regulations with the accessibility regulations that were passed by agreement 30 years ago? We must have both sets, not just one set of regulations.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe in the sovereignty of Parliament and that, when decisions were made in Parliament, those decisions were the law and something that law-abiding departments followed. It appears that Parliament has achieved the credit for improving accessibility, while intentionally leaving disabled people, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to walk home in the snow pushing their wheelchair because it has a flat battery.
This is only a probing amendment and I have no intention of proposing it on Report, provided the Minister deals with my next point. The requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, repeated in the Equality Act 2010, is that disabled people should be able to travel safely and comfortably in their chairs in a taxi. Private hire vehicles are different. The words to be inserted under my Amendment 235B are that:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations (in this Chapter referred to as ‘taxi accessibility regulations’) for securing that it is possible for disabled persons—
(a) to get into and out of taxis in safety;
(b) to do so while in wheelchairs;
(c) to travel in taxis in safety and reasonable comfort;
(d) to do so while in wheelchairs”.
Of course, when we at Manganese Bronze Holdings plc made the first wheelchair-accessible taxi to enter volume production in 1997, we discovered that the majority of people who could not walk were babies in baby buggies. We all spend time in a wheelchair while we are babies, and we are very lucky if that is the only time in our lives when we are dependent on wheels. The arguments used when Parliament decided on this matter included that the country needed a dependable, integrated transport system on which disabled people could rely. The fact is that they can now get wheelchair-accessible transport—a bus or a taxi—from anywhere in London to a mainline station, where they can get a wheelchair-accessible train to almost anywhere in the country. Only after this amendment is accepted will they know that they can get a wheelchair-accessible taxi at their destination. Hooray—this is an integrated transport system.
This amendment would abolish one of the constant problems of disability: the overhead of planning. Can I get an accessible loo at my destination? Will there be steps on the way? These are all old problems that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—has done more than his fair share to abolish. As disability becomes more complex in general, many more people have a range of simultaneous disabilities that can make the overhead of planning much harder.
Another argument produced is that taxi drivers cannot afford the cost of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. This argument has the flaw that drivers compare the cost of a new taxi with the cost of a second-hand car. A new taxi is indeed expensive, but that is partly because the volume is so low. I am confident that the price will reduce as volume increases.
Comparing two 100,000-mile vehicles makes the answer different. My taxi, which is parked in a car park outside and has 126,000 miles on the clock, has only one year left on its life in London because of the emissions regulations and age limits in London, so it will be sold next year for very little. However, all taxi drivers have had 30 years’ notice of this change, ever since the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995. Is 30 years’ notice insufficient?
If any noble Lord wants to replay this argument, I am perfectly content to do so, but I would say that the argument is over. Parliament has already decided on this matter, and the choice is either to implement the Equality Act 2010 or to repeal it. Hiding a change in the long grass of legislation, passing an accessibility measure and modestly accepting praise for it but then doing nothing is immoral and offensive to disabled people; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, would not want to have anything to do with it.
I was amused to see a press release issued by the Department for Transport on 27 November last year. It was proud that these taxi clauses in the English devolution Bill improved accessibility—so proud, in fact, that the press release mentioned accessibility four times. The trouble is the clauses do not mention accessibility at all. On introducing these clauses on Report in another place, the Communities Minister, Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, said that they are
“improving the accessibility of services for everyone. That means that people—particularly those who rely on these services the most, such as women, girls and people with disabilities—can be reassured”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 286.]
However wonderful and necessary Clauses 64 to 72 are, they do not seem to me to improve accessibility at all.
This should not be a party-political matter. All parties and the department have been trying to do the right thing over the past 30 years. No party is trying to stop this. Any criticism of the Department for Transport may be misplaced because, clearly, the department showed extraordinary foresight in knowing both that I would propose such amendments as these and that its prediction that these clauses would improve accessibility would come true in the end, because it would accept my amendments and take the credit for them. I do hope that I am right. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, there are a number of issues in this group on taxis and private hire, but I will explain my Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bradley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for adding their names to them.
Out-of-area working, also called cross-border hiring, allows drivers and vehicles licensed in one area to operate entirely in another. The scale of this is highly significant and is a major feature of the private hire sector nationally. It is estimated that more than 11% of all private hire vehicles nationally are licensed by just one licensing authority: the City of Wolverhampton Council. Let us put this into some context. Back in 2023, TfL was aware of at least 300 private hire vehicle drivers licensed by Wolverhampton but with a London residential address. Data from Greater Manchester shows that 49% of private hires operating in Greater Manchester are licensed by authorities outside of their current 10 local licensing authorities.
Why does this matter? It undermines the ability of local licensing authorities to regulate effectively and creates serious risks for public safety. Last year, the Casey audit into group-based child sexual exploitation exposed harrowing failures in protecting vulnerable children and identified that cross-border hiring was being exploited by individuals and groups sexually exploiting children. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government should introduce more rigorous safety standards and put a stop to cross-border hiring. The recommendation was:
“The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’ and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers”.
The Government accepted all the recommendations made in the report, in order, they said,
“to get justice for victims and survivors, and to get perpetrators behind bars”.
However, the Government have not yet set out when and how they will take action that fully closes the loophole that enables cross-border hiring. In December, they introduced amendments to this Bill that have focused only on national minimum standards. Although those national minimum standards may work to ensure a strong foundation and ensure that more consistent standards apply across different licensing authorities—I welcome this as one step in dealing with this complex issue—this alone does not go far enough. These standards will be subject to consultation, with no clear deadlines for implementation, and they do not close the existing loophole. They are only part of the solution to addressing the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.
Additionally, the Government have not set out how national minimum standards will be enforced. Enforcement is already a challenge for many licensing authorities, and the ability of drivers effectively to licence shop means that authorities who rely on local licensing fees to fund their enforcement will continue to be undermined. I also understand that there is anecdotal evidence that existing enforcement mechanisms are not being used correctly by all licensing authorities, including in cases of driver behaviour representing public safety concerns.
In January, the Government launched a consultation into simplifying the taxi licensing system. However, this is about significantly reducing the number of taxi licensing areas, and it does not set out any actions to address the issue of out-of-area working, meaning that passenger safety will remain at risk. In London, Transport for London has long called for national enforcement powers, which would enable enforcement officers to uphold national standards regardless of where a driver or vehicle is licensed, supported by data-sharing provisions. In Greater Manchester, the mayor and leaders of all 10 local authorities have been advocating for an end to out-of-area licensing, most recently through their “Local. Licenced. Trusted” campaign which they launched last April. In addition, an independent review undertaken in Greater Manchester, with input from over 5,200 licensees, trade bodies and local authority officers, highlighted that legislating on out-of-area was necessary, even in a regional system with licensing powers at a city-region level.
If the Government are serious in their commitment to improve standards and safety for this industry, this Committee urgently needs assurances from the Government on how and when they will fully close the loophole of cross-border hiring and that they will continue to improve enforcement powers as part of their review of the industry. My Amendments 235CB and 235CC look to tackle the out-of-area licensing issue and have the support of Transport for London, Transport for Greater Manchester, other metro-mayor areas and the Local Government Association, which I have contact with. It said:
“The LGA supports this amendment as the most effective way, combined with minimum standards, to meet Baroness Casey’s objective”.
However, I have also tabled my Amendment 235BA, which would grant powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. In my view, this could be the way forward that would plug the gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, flagged, but would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, standards and so on, so that, in tackling one issue, the legislation does not restrict access to taxi services in another area. I hope that the Minister will consider that carefully.
The accessibility issues that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and other noble Lords today are really important as we look at private hire and taxi services across the country. I thank the Ministers for meeting me and other noble Lords to discuss the complexity of issues in this area and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief for the reasons that we all know about—the number of votes that have taken place in the House this afternoon.
I offer my support to the movers of the amendments that have just been spoken to, first on accessibility. It is fairly close to my heart. Even with a high national profile, I have sometimes had real problems with accessible transport because of having a guide dog, and it is a nightmare for those who are wheelchair users. I hope that we can do something that is within the practicalities of protecting those who are prepared to have the vehicles and pay the extremely substantial investment that is needed to have accessible vehicles when Uber and other operators clearly do not.
I also give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. An issue has been rumbling along for years in relation to the licensing shopping scheme, where people have been able to license a taxi and then rove around the country, which certainly put people at risk. In my own region, that applied to Rotherham. Apart from Wolverhampton, my city of Sheffield seems to have an inordinate number of taxis licensed in Kirklees in West Yorkshire; we clearly need to do something about it. There would have to be flexibility.
In my Amendments 235CA and 235E, which I speak to this afternoon, I am trying to say that there should first be a recognition that devolution and local empowerment means that there should be continuing engagement of elected members. That is not easy in strategic authorities that are combined authorities, because although we can proclaim elected mayors, the engagement of those who know the localities within which those strategic authorities are placed is left out.
First, we need an accountable input and, secondly, we need national standards that apply right across England and deal, in part at least, with the correct assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made of the difficulties and dangers. There should be some flexibility: if you are genuinely licensed in Wolverhampton but the license authority becomes the West Midlands Combined Authority, you need to also be able to use your licence in Telford in Shropshire. I know it quite well and I think that people in Shropshire county are quite bereft of taxi services as it is. There needs to be flexibility that allows the licensing authority to specify very clearly and then, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to actually have some enforcement powers.
But local authorities also tell me that we need transitional arrangements. We need to assess the costs and ensure that there is that genuine local input. There is a serious issue here. I know my noble friend very well and know he will be incredibly sympathetic to the points that have been made this afternoon and, overcoming internal bureaucracies within government, will seek to find a way forward on Report, should we reach it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name. I associate myself with all the amendments in this group. I must also apologise that this is my first intervention in this Bill. A mixture of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and my own children’s well-being, I am afraid, has precluded me from taking part so far. As this is my first time speaking on this Bill, I must declare, as ever, that I am a teacher in a state secondary school.
As we have heard, there is real concern from local licensing authorities that, nationally, cross-border hiring generates serious public safety issues while undermining local licensing regimes. The TaxiPoint website says:
“The Casey Report highlights what has been evident for more than a decade: in a small minority of cases, taxis have played a role in the exploitation of children. Vehicles have been used both to traffic victims and to introduce them to perpetrators. This was identified as early as the Rotherham inquiry in 2014, where Professor Jay found that taxi drivers were a ‘common thread’ in abuse cases. Subsequent reports from Oldham, Newcastle and Telford reinforced these concerns”.
The scale of the cross-border hiring problem has been magnified significantly in recent years through the advent of new technology, with many taxi and private hire customers now mainly being through app-based services. This also restricts the enforcement capabilities of local licensing authorities, as they have only limited powers to enforce against out-of-town vehicles. Cross-border hiring in the taxi and private hire industries has been commonplace for many years, which has resulted in localised issues, particularly in areas where there are a number of licensing authorities in close proximity. This is coupled with a significant and rapid growth in the number of private hire drivers and vehicles, and all these issues have exacerbated cross-border hiring concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about Wolverhampton Council, which has issued in excess of 40,000 private hire licences, far exceeding local operational demand. The proposals considered by the Law Commission review in 2012, in respect of addressing cross-border hiring, are now considered by TfL and other stakeholders to be out of date. Urgent legislative reform is required to address these issues. The Metropolitan Police Service has said that cross-border hiring is the single largest risk to policing nationally. Amendments 235CB and 235CC would go a long way to solving these issues, and Amendment 235BA would strengthen enforcement. They have been needed for far too long, and I urge the Government to accept them.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with all the speakers and amendments so far. In making my comments, I would like to focus on just one word. It is in the title of the Bill: “empowerment”. I ask this very simple question, not only on taxis but on transport in this country: if you are a disabled person, where is the empowerment? That is true with so-called shared space—completely inaccessible and excluding to large swathes of the community—and so-called floating bus stops, ditto. When it comes to taxis, having an integrated transport strategy that does not consider the key role of taxis at key points in people’s journeys means that there is no integrated transport strategy and there is certainly no inclusion.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments, which I fully support. I can be even briefer than I thought I might be because of the eloquence of the speeches already made, and any repetition I make will be to reinforce the message and the value of those amendments, having been pleased that the Government have increased the scope of the Bill to include taxis during its passage—that is not meant to be a pun.
I want to reinforce the point on Greater Manchester, where I live and where I was the chair of the licensing committee many years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned its “Local. Licensed. Trusted” campaign, which the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and the 10 district leaders fully supported. As we have heard, in Greater Manchester, over 50% of private hire vehicles are licensed outside it, particularly in Wolverhampton but also in St Helens on Merseyside. That is totally unacceptable in terms of proper enforcement of their activities across the country.
We have also heard of the audit of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. Again, that has a great resonance in Greater Manchester because of the issues that were faced there. It continues to be a great, urgent public safety concern. It is believed that this Bill is the quickest and most appropriate way to tackle that issue that so desperately needs tackling.
I will not go through the details of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name. I fully support it. She eloquently presented it to the Committee. My noble friend Lord Blunkett made a point on transition. There clearly needs to be a transition period, certainly in Greater Manchester and in other strategic authorities, so that it could align with licence renewal, which would reduce the costs and disruption of an immediate transition and provide sufficient time for local authorities to rebuild capacity in their licensing departments, while supporting the Government’s aim for all regions to move towards strategic authorities.
I welcome the constructive meetings that I have had with both Ministers responsible for this Bill, my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, and their desire to make progress to address licensing and enforcement across the country. I also recognise that there are many more difficult issues that need to be addressed about taxi and private hire vehicles, and this is just one particular aspect that this Bill enables us to address. I strongly believe that this group of amendments would take a significant step forward for the benefit and safety of the public across the country, and I am sure that we will receive a positive response from the Minister.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will make a very brief speech in support of the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Borwick in moving Amendment 235A, an amendment beloved in Committee: delete the word “may” and insert the word “must”.
I commend in passing the moving speech made by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I have a paternal interest in this in that when the Disability Discrimination Act was put on the statute book in 1995 by my noble friend Lord Hague, I was Secretary of State for Transport and therefore had responsibility for taxis. My department was responsible for Section 32 of the DDA which, as my noble friend said, made provision for regulations that taxis should be accessible to wheelchair users and that they should be carried safely. It is interesting to see what happened in London. In 1989, the then Transport Minister Michael Portillo said that all new London taxis had to be wheelchair accessible. We were actually the first capital city in the world to take that step. By 1 January 2000, all licensed London taxi cabs—some 20,000 of them—were wheelchair accessible. That gives an indication of the timescale in which it is reasonable to expect the taxi trade to make the transition from where it was to where it is now.
As we know, Section 32 was repealed and replaced by a similar provision in the Equality Act. I wanted to see what Members of your Lordships’ House thought would happen when that section of the Bill was debated. The Minister at the time was Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish. Reading his speech, it was quite clear that he did not think that 30 years later we would be where we are today. He said,
“more accessible taxis will be a boon for more than just wheelchair users”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1995; col. 890.]
At the time, the Opposition spokesman was the late Lady Hollis. She said this:
“My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly support the Government’s position on taxis. We believe that they are public service vehicles. Taxis are an important ingredient of public service transport and, therefore, they must be accessible to disabled people on a flexible and realistic basis. We believe, as the Bill lays down, that new vehicles introduced must be fully wheelchair accessible”.—[Official Report, 20/7/1995; col. 442.]
They would both be surprised at the position that we are now in. One cannot possibly blame the Minister for any inaction on his part, but what we are entitled to on Report is some timescale by which the rest of the country will be brought into line with what has already happened in London. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will give us some reassurance that that will be the direction of travel and that there might even be a date at which we reach the destination.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate, which goes to the heart of both public safety and the need for flexibility within our transport system. The proposed introduction of national minimum standards has an important role to play in delivering consistency across the country, but it is to be run alongside a system where local licensing authorities can add to those standards, as local flexibility and responsiveness is of course important. The Government’s responsibility in this context must be to ensure that such variations do not place unnecessary burdens on operators.
There is also the issue of cross-border services, which are essential for many passengers. While these services continue, they raise legitimate concerns about how they are to be regulated. In her report, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended more rigorous standardised statutory requirements across all licensing authorities in order to close the loophole whereby a driver can be licensed in one area but work exclusively in another. Ultimately, it is important that the Government recognise the need for a licensing framework that comprehensively deals with abuses, supports operators and keeps public safety at its core.
Regarding the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Borwick, he is right to point out that all London taxis are accessible. He has long been a consistent and principled advocate on this issue. Over many years, he has drawn attention to the importance of ensuring that those with disabilities are not left behind by our transport system. His work has helped keep accessibility firmly on the policy agenda. The case he advances appears to be both practical and fair. He makes a compelling argument: accessibility should be viewed not as an aspiration but as a standard that passengers across the country can reasonably expect. Although achieving this may present challenges in some areas, the progress made in London demonstrates what is possible in the right circumstances. As I say, my noble friend has made persuasive arguments as to why this requirement should apply more widely, strengthening independence for disabled passengers and promoting a more inclusive transport network. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to this important point.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on taxi and private hire vehicle national standards, licensing authorities and enforcement powers, and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
For me, this is a bit of déjà vu because, as the commissioner of Transport for London 15 years ago, I personally, with others, worked very hard on the Law Commission’s work on taxi legislation, but, sadly, nothing was done as a consequence. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, remarked, the work is, sadly, substantially out of date, principally because, in those 15 years, the growth of the private hire sector of this market, which many users regard as interchangeable, has been enormous. I will come back to that.
I will begin with Amendments 235A, 235D and 260A. The Government recognise the pressing need to reform the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles. The current legislation is archaic and fragmented. I am absolutely aware of the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, and of the huge variation in the supply and use of taxis and private hire vehicles across both urban and rural areas in the country.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
As the Minister works through options to bring back on Report, would he be prepared to meet with me and other interested noble Lords on the matter of enforcement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can absolutely confirm to the noble Baroness that I will do exactly that. It is a very important subject.
Lord Borwick (Con)
On taxi accessibility, is the Minister arguing that the local requirements of disabled people might be different in one area from those in another? Surely, that is completely wrong, because the whole purpose of this is to organise transport—that a disabled person in London should be able to travel to Penzance and know that in Penzance there are the same standards of accessibility. It is in the nature of travel that people change their location; therefore, they surely need to have the same standards. It is the job of the Government, as was put in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that they set the regulations that can be met by as many disabled people as possible. That I would approve of, but saying that we cannot do anything just in case there is a difference in the local arrangement seems to me more in the nature of an excuse than a plan for the future.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am certainly not arguing that the needs of disabled people are different in different areas, but—and some noble Lords have heard this in the course of meetings that we have already had on this Bill—I am expressing that there are extraordinarily different sets of local circumstances across the country and that what the park of vehicles in local areas consists of is very different in different places, and serves quite different purposes.
Lord Borwick (Con)
I thank the Minister for his point, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with him and I look forward to the meeting and to Report. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments(1) A local authority which is a planning authority must, when considering any application for planning permission or change of use for premises which are to be used for gambling, take into consideration any relevant cumulative impact assessment published in accordance with section 349(1A) of the Gambling Act 2005, and where the conditions in that document are satisfied they shall in the absence of very special circumstances refuse the application.(2) The Gambling Act 2005 is amended according to subsections (3) and (4).(3) In section 153(1)(d), after “statement” insert “, including any cumulative impact assessment,”.(4) After section 349(1), insert—“(1A) A licensing authority may include in their statement an assessment (“a cumulative impact assessment”) stating that they consider that the number of premises licences granted under section 163 in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment is such that it is likely that it would be--(a) inconsistent with the licensing objectives in section 1, or(b) harmful to the wellbeing of the community,for the authority to grant any further premises licences which would result in an increase in the number of such premises in that part or those parts”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I apologise for being a Johnny-come-lately, having left my noble friends to do all the heavy lifting on this Bill. I have come to raise only one issue: the concern that many of us have about the prevalence of gambling premises on our high streets.
In raising that issue, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and the chair of Action on Gambling. Many noble Lords will be aware of the serious concerns about the large number of gambling premises, particularly betting shops and adult gaming centres, on many of our high streets. Only a few weeks ago a Minister wrote in a Written Answer:
“Some high streets have become increasingly dominated by certain types of premises—including gambling establishments—which don’t always meet the needs of their communities. According to the Gambling Commission, the number of adult gaming centres (AGCs) rose by 7% between 2022 and 2024, with additional data showing that AGCs are most concentrated in areas of higher deprivation”.
That last point was confirmed by the NHS’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which confirmed that the most deprived local authorities have three times more gambling premises per head of population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only very clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and all the problems that brings to the individuals, their families and their communities.
As a result, communities across the country have been demanding that local councils take action to stop the proliferation. But, as has been seen in many council areas—Peterborough, Brent and numerous others—they have come up against a stumbling block: Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section, under which the default position that councils have to take is that they must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Councils that have tried to stop new gambling venues have often had lawyers from the very powerful and wealthy gambling companies to contend with and have always ended up losing.
No wonder Brent Council, which has been leading a group of councils to try to bring about change to get more power, has come up with a little card pointing out that it is easier to block a fast food joint opening next door to a school than it is to stop a high street casino next door to a homeless shelter. Quite simply, planning and licensing authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject premises being used for gambling.
On numerous occasions the Government have said that they wanted to do exactly this. The Pride in Place strategy, published on 25 September 2025, said:
“We … want to empower local authorities to curate healthy, vibrant public spaces that reflect the needs of their communities”.
It reaffirmed the Government’s commitment
“to strengthen councils’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets”.
That is a clear commitment and has been repeated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers time after time. Sadly, the answer has been not to rule out the aim to permit but to come up with another solution. This alternative way forward was based on the solution to a problem that used to exist when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol, and it is the basis for my amendment today.
That solution enabled local authorities to review and consult on the number and impact of the existing relevant premises, including pubs, in a particular area. Are there too many? Are there enough, or could we have some more? That was called a cumulative impact assessment. If that CIA concluded that there were already enough pubs in an area and that an extra one would harm the well-being of the community, it could be used to reject a licence for an additional one.
That idea of a cumulative impact assessment being used for gambling premises was picked up by the Conservative Government when they were in power. Their White Paper on gambling said categorically:
“We will align the regimes for alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments”,
for gambling licences,
“when Parliamentary time allows”.
The new Government have come to the same conclusion. The Prime Minister announced that it is the Government’s intention to introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows, and Ministers have used it time after time in answers to Written Questions.
During the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I argued that it provided the necessary parliamentary time, so I introduced an amendment that would have provided CIAs for gambling licences. The Government accepted that it was a great idea and they really wanted to do it, but told me that that was not the right Bill to do it in. I was confused at the time as to why that was but nevertheless accepted it. I am very much hoping that we have another Bill which is the right Bill in which to do it. My Amendment 235F would therefore bring forward, as I have done previously, the giving of the power to local councils to use cumulative impact assessments to address, where it is appropriate, concerns about additional gambling premises coming to a particular area.
I hope the Minister will agree at least in principle to the amendment. If she is in any way unhappy with any of the details, I hope she will agree to work with me and other interested parties so we can resolve them and bring back an amendment that is acceptable to all parties at a later stage in the Bill, therefore giving councils the additional powers they need to curb the proliferation of gambling venues with all the problems they can create on our high streets.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.
This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amendment, for all the work he continues to do on tackling gambling harms—it is much appreciated—and for raising this very important topic. I assure him the Government are committed to introducing cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing. Once introduced, these will help local authorities take evidence-based decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. They will also create a presumption against new gambling premises licences being granted in specific areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, this is not about banning gambling premises; it is about assessing the harms and being able to deal with those.
Anyone who has been a councillor will know the issue, how this works and how it can cause detriment to high streets, so I absolutely support the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. As drafted, it would introduce cumulative impact assessments to guide planning decisions. However, the cumulative impact assessments will be most effective for local authorities when specifically applied to the licensing process and licensing applications, rather than simultaneously applying to planning and licensing. This would match the approach already taken by licensing authorities when using cumulative impact assessments in relation to the licensing of alcohol premises, which the noble Lord mentioned. The planning and licensing regimes are separate legal frameworks. This amendment risks creating inconsistencies between a local authority’s planning process and licensing process.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require the planning authority to consider a cumulative impact assessment published by the licensing authority during the planning process. By granting this power to the planning authority, the amendment risks conflating the licensing and planning regimes. The noble Lord is quite correct to say that licensing is in the scope of the Bill. However, this amendment would not allow local authorities to use cumulative impact assessments in the most suitable and effective way and risks creating conflict between the planning and licensing regimes. That is our concern.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, before I do exactly that, I thank the Minister for her very warm response. I am well aware of the difficulty around the issue of planning and licensing. The Minister will be aware that many councils have combined the two, even though they must have separate business because of the regulations and rules surrounding that. I absolutely appreciate that there are a lot of issues around that.
If the Minister’s indication is that we can work this out together before Report, I look forward to that very much indeed. I know that the Government are very keen to do this, so I am sure that, between us, we will come up with a way of making it happen. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I apologise again to the Committee for being a one-trick pony and departing fairly rapidly after having done it.
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.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to the question. His intention is not to frustrate the purpose of the legislation but to probe an important constitutional question: how powers exercised by the national park authorities will intersect with those newly empowered devolved authorities. National parks occupy a distinctive position within our public framework. As devolution evolves, and as mayoral and combined authorities acquire broader strategic competences, clarity of responsibility becomes ever more important.
We would therefore welcome the Minister’s reassurance on two points. First, how do the Government envisage disputes of competence being resolved where priorities differ between the national park authorities and devolved bodies? Secondly, how will the statutory purposes of national parks be safeguarded within the new governance structures? This is not a question of resi1sting devolution but of ensuring that, in our enthusiasm to devolve, we do not dilute clear lines of accountability or the protection afforded to some of our most precious national landscapes.
This are sensible probing clause stand part Questions, and we are most grateful to my noble friend for raising them today. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for opposing Clause 73 and Schedule 30 standing part in order to encourage a debate on the role of national park authorities in the production of spatial development strategies. We have discussed this issue during the passage of both this Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I know it is a matter of great interest to him.
As they are not strategic planning authorities, the legal duty to prepare a spatial development strategy does not apply to national park authorities. That means that they cannot be constituent members of a strategic planning board either. They remain local planning authorities with responsibility for preparing a local plan. Although national park authorities are not formally part of spatial development strategy governance, we still expect them to play an active role in preparing the strategy. This could be as a non-constituent member of a strategic authority or as a co-opted member of a strategic planning board.
Strategic planning authorities will be under a legal duty to consult any local planning authorities within or adjoining the strategic development area and affected by the strategic development strategy, including national park authorities, on their draft spatial development strategy. Planning inspectors examining a spatial development strategy will want to make sure that any views expressed by consultees have been properly taken into consideration.
During a previous Committee debate, I confirmed that the Government intend to publish guidance to support strategic planning authorities in engaging effectively with national park authorities on their strategic development strategies. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government still intend to publish guidance on this matter alongside other guidance to support the implementation of the new strategic planning system.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that guidance will set out how protections are in place for the statutory purposes of national parks, how that can be conveyed as part of the strategic planning process and how park authorities can contribute to the development of strategic plans in that way, and it is the same with the competencies.
With this confirmation, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I did ask about this: if there is a disagreement between the national park authority and the mayor, who takes precedence?
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.
Lord Ravensdale
“Report on Local Area Energy PlansThe Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report setting out—(a) the number of strategic, combined, or local authorities that have—(i) developed, or(ii) implementeda Local Area Energy Plan (LAEP);(b) barriers to progress that authorities have had in the introduction of LAEPs;(c) options for introducing, within one year of publication of the report, a statutory requirement for LAEPs;(d) proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives to assist local authorities in preparing and implementing LAEPs;(e) clear evaluation criteria and success metrics for the programme and any pilots carried out.”
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of Peers for the Planet and as chief engineer at AtkinsRéalis. This is another one of those areas where we have recycled amendments from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We had a few of those earlier. I worked on a similar amendment on that Bill with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The response of the Government at that time was pretty much “Wait and see” in relation to the publication of various plans, many of which we have now seen, which includes the warm homes plan and the local power plan. We have an opportunity to come back to this issue and see what progress we can make. I thank the Minister for her engagement with me on this matter and for her recent letter, which helps to clarify some of the thinking within government.
This amendment aligns closely with my Amendment 3, debated on the first day of Committee, on competence for strategic authorities relating to energy. There are two key issues with the energy transition that local area energy plans will help to resolve. The first is a cost-effective transition. Of course, the cost of energy has received a lot of attention in recent years, but bringing in the local knowledge that knows the housing stock, the charging infrastructure and the grid infrastructure best in local areas is of real benefit to ensure that the most cost-effective and efficient solutions are taken forward in the transition. Also of critical importance is that buy-in from local stakeholders. There is a huge amount of infrastructure that needs to be built as we go through the energy transition, and ensuring that local stakeholders are brought into that, are taking part in it and making a lot of those decisions is of huge benefit in ensuring that the transition is successful.
I work closely with the East Midlands Combined County Authority—EMCCA—on a number of areas. I am chair of Midlands Nuclear, where the EMCCA is the secretariat for that organisation. EMCCA is blazing the trail with local area energy plans, and it is worth focusing a little on what it is doing as an exemplar in this area to illustrate what is possible. EMCCA funded a region-wide development of local area energy plans for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and it used a single provider to develop eight plans across the 17 local authority and unitary areas. Those plans will also have a digital-twin model to bring all that data and proposed interventions to life.
As part of this, those organisations have clarified the governance route in respect of how local area energy plans fit into the overall governance of the energy system. The regional energy strategic plans—RESPs—are developing with the National Energy System Operator, but local area energy plans are a key input into those RESPs. This has tested how these really need to be live documents; they cannot just be produced once and sit on a shelf but need to be constantly matured and to be integrated into governance and decision-making.
To give one example, the Nottingham local area energy plan has highlighted a number of things. There is potential for a significant increase in solar from 40 megawatts to over 200 megawatts in the dense urban area that Nottingham is; the type of retrofit that is appropriate for the housing stock in that particular area; the heat transition, heat network expansion, air source heat pumps and what the most appropriate level of technology is for heat transition in that area; EV charging; and capacity planning for the different headroom in each substation across the geography. It has shown how these local area energy plans answer those practical questions on how the energy transition needs to work for a local area. They have proven their worth.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 241 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I should have put my name to it and apologise to the noble Lord for not having done so, but I very strongly support this amendment; it is a very well-reasoned and proportionate response. As the noble Lord said, we worked together on a similar amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so it is good to come back to this issue.
For clarity, local area energy plans—LAEPs—are data-driven spatial plans, led by local authorities, that map out how a place will decarbonise its buildings, transport and local energy infrastructure over time. They identify which low-carbon measures—such as heat pumps, heat networks, EV charging and local renewables —should go where, when and at what cost, using a whole-system approach. They create consistent, place-based and evidence-based guides for regional and national decision-making on the energy transition, helping to align local plans with network investment and regulation.
They are important because they turn our national net-zero targets into locally specific, cost-effective investment pipelines and give network operators, investors and communities a shared, evidence-based plan for the energy transition. They are the spearhead of the energy transition delivered at the local level in a way that is particularly suited to local needs. In energy terms, we are undertaking the biggest energy revolution since the start of the Industrial Revolution. For this to work, we need to work in conjunction with our local communities to empower them. Their empowerment is the key driver of this success.
The amendment is an important but measured enabling amendment that would help us move from high-level ambition on net zero and warm homes to the practical local delivery plans at ground level that we require. This amendment would not force the Minister’s hand but would require the Government to assemble the evidence, confront the barriers and set out a pathway for local area energy plans across the country. The energy transition is fundamentally a place-based endeavour and it needs to happen at the local level. Although the Government are acting—we recognise that and we welcome the warm homes plan, the energy systems catapult and the regional energy strategic plans—my worry remains that this landscape is still quite confused and not as joined up or as focused as we feel it needs to be for the delivery of these plans.
Decisions about where to reinforce electricity networks, where to zone for heat networks, where to focus on insulation or heat pump installation, and where to roll out EV infrastructure cannot sensibly be taken in Whitehall alone; they depend on the fundamental character of our local housing stock, patterns of local industry, levels of fuel poverty and the capacity of local grids. LAEPs are exactly the emerging tool designed to answer all these questions and help deliver these needs. In Wales, they are being rolled out and deployed at national level and they are the go-to choice for helping with the transition. Many local and combined authorities are also taking this initiative but my worry is that, despite some progress being made, it is patchy and uneven. What we have is really a postcode lottery when it comes to these local area energy plans.
This amendment fundamentally addresses that head on and asks the Secretary of State, within 18 months, to publish a report that would do four simple but important things. First, it would take stock of which combined, strategic and local authorities have developed LAEPs and which have begun to implement them. Secondly, it would identify the barriers, the funding gaps, the skill shortages, the data and any co-ordination problems. Thirdly, it asks for options to move, within a year of the report, towards a statutory requirement for LAEPs, so that local energy planning becomes the norm, not the exception. Finally, it would require proposals for the funding, technical support, training and capacity building needed to make these plans real, with clear criteria for how success will be measured.
This last element is really important and key to the amendment. Without support on skills, data and project development as a statutory requirement, this could be an underfunded mandate and lead to underdelivery. By requiring clear evidence criteria and successful metrics, it would ensure that Parliament, Ministers and local leaders can track which LAEPs are delivering lower emissions, lower bills and greater systems resilience. Without this, we risk moving to a piecemeal, scheme-by-scheme approach. We need to know where to go first, how to phase interventions and how to co-ordinate them with local energy systems, which is precisely what this system does. We have the warm homes plan with a lot of money going into it, but it is just not clear how these plans will integrate and work together.
This amendment is really asking the Government to do what a good Government should be doing: to understand what is happening on the ground, to identify what is getting in the way, to set out options for a clearer, consistent framework and to match any new expectations placed on local government with the right support. It is modest in its ask but potentially transformative in its consequences. I hope the Minister will see Amendment 241 not as a constraint on the department but as a constructive tool to help deliver our shared goal of achieving the energy transition.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the valuable contributions of noble Lords in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing this amendment forward. As has been highlighted, local area energy plans could be helpful in addressing how local energy infrastructure can cope with the pressure of increased housing and commercial targets from central government in the context of a changing energy environment in their local areas.
Paragraph (d) would also require that the Secretary of State’s report includes,
“proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives”
to ensure that local authorities are capable and well-equipped to introduce local area energy plans. In addition, the amendment insists on clear evaluation, criteria and success metrics for any pilots carried out.
I commend the noble Lord on his amendment, which rightly recognises that authorities must have the means to ensure that the local energy infrastructure can meet the needs of economic and housing growth and provide resilient energy. However, I would hesitate before introducing a statutory requirement for local area energy plans. If we are serious about community empowerment and trusting local representatives to determine what is right for the areas, it should be up to individual local authorities to set targets for which local area energy plans might be needed. There is also the question of the resources and powers that would be given to local authorities, without which plans would be undeliverable.
Finally, and crucially, energy systems are part of a broader national energy system, where all parts must work together in an integrated manner. This cannot be looked at in isolation, although those plans will obviously be a hugely helpful contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for Amendment 241 and for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government continue to work in partnership with local government, recognising the important role that local authorities play in reaching net zero and achieving our clean power 2030 mission.
We recognise that in support of local and national net-zero targets some local authorities have developed local area energy plans and have found them very helpful. We also welcome the work that many local authorities have already undertaken to incorporate planning for future energy needs into work such as the development of local growth plans and their contribution to the development of regional energy strategic plans.
Perhaps there has been a slight misrepresentation of the fact that there is no co-ordination to this. It is being co-ordinated. In fact, NESO published the transitional regional energy strategic plan on 30 January 2026. These plan for energy needs over the next few years at a regional level but include a lot of energy-related data at a lower super output area—that is, neighbourhood level. This will influence business planning for distribution network operators across the country. NESO recently consulted on the methodology for enduring regional energy strategic plans, which will be developed in partnership with local communities and implemented by the end of 2028.
However, the amendment, as drafted, risks duplicating or constraining current activity in this area. For example, the recently published transitional regional energy strategic plans contain a wealth of data on energy at local authority level and neighbourhood level as well as an assessment of regional energy infrastructure need consistently across all regions.
The local net-zero hubs have also worked with Energy Systems Catapult on Ready for RESP to support local and regional stakeholders to help deliver energy system planning aligned with investment plans and planning needs. This work included updating which places have already developed local area energy plans. Local net-zero hubs’ most recent report, published on 5 February, sets out some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to local decarbonisation plans. I welcome that as a very helpful approach to take. In parallel, the Government are aware of work undertaken by the Local Government Association to consider options for a statutory duty that we plan to discuss at a future, ministerially chaired, local net-zero delivery group.
We are sympathetic to the points raised in this debate and in previous debates on energy planning by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We are yet to be convinced that a national statutory requirement to produce local area energy plans would support local authorities rather than reducing their flexibility to produce plans that meet their needs. We continue to discuss with the Local Government Association and others the benefits of statutory duties on net zero, and we will continue current research in this area. I hope that, with these reasons and explanations, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for all his welcome support for these amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, all parts of the system must work together. That is what we need to focus on in the energy transition for this to work. In order to do that, we absolutely need bottom-up as well as top-down. We absolutely need a bottom-up view to inform the spatial plans that are being put together by NESO so that we can have the most effective transition.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I note that she referenced a lot of the work that is being done on regional energy strategic plans via NESO, which is, of course, welcome. For example, the Nottingham example that I gave highlighted the importance of having these local plans to inform regional energy strategic plans to ensure that the data and local picture are there to support those regional plans. There is still work to do to figure out how this overarching governance of the energy system will work.
I look forward to further discussions on this issue with the Minister but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Local Authority Social Media Strategies(1) A local authority must prepare and publish a social media strategy.(2) The strategy must set out—(a) how the local authority intends to use individual social media platforms,(b) governance and oversight arrangements for social media use, and(c) arrangements for review of the strategy.(3) The strategy must include a risk assessment addressing—(a) risks relating to misinformation and disinformation,(b) risks to public trust and confidence, and(c) risks relating to data protection, information security, and the use of automated or algorithmic tools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require local authorities to publish a social media strategy, including a risk assessment, setting out how the authority and its elected officials intend to use individual social media platforms.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I have one amendment on its own in splendid isolation in this group. It is, as I hope noble Lords will agree, on an important topic: the use of social media in local government. This is an important topic for several reasons. One is that social media is so central to how local government and mayors may or may not choose to communicate with residents. It is also a crucial part of how elected public officials, whether they are councillors or mayors or, indeed, at the national level, experience politics. Often, that is an unhappy experience in terms of harassment and threats, but it can also be a very positive experience in terms of being able to engage more effectively with members of the public.
Of course, social media is important in many respects for its wider impact on society. That is why it comes up so often in debates and Questions on other topics in our House. In that respect, local authorities and local government in general have an important leadership role in setting some of the practical realities of how the social media landscape plays out. Sometimes, we are all collectively a bit too passive in assuming that the social media landscape is set by a combination of tech bros in California and Ofcom getting to grips with the Online Safety Act, but there is a practical degree of leadership at all levels of government that can encourage and help bring out the best of social media while downplaying the worst of social media.
There is an important role at local government level, in particular, because local government is the original source of information on so many topics that people love discussing, debating and sharing information about, whether it is which days you should put your bins out or which days schools are being closed due to snow in the winter or often controversial issues regarding, say, planning applications. Local government can make decisions on how and where to share information on all those things. Even if, in a sense, people think that they are not making those decisions but are simply following by default the social media channels that they have always used or that other parts of government use, that in itself is a decision.
The intention behind my amendment is absolutely to respect the discretion and flexibility that there should be—different places will wish to make different decisions, as appropriate—but also to show that there are two benefits to giving an explicit strategy a bit of a nudge. One is making sure that people are thinking through these issues sensibly and appropriately, and the other is enabling democratic accountability for the decisions that are being taken. Many of us probably have a wide range of views on how appropriate or not it is for people at any level of government to use Elon Musk’s social media channels, but, crucially, for the democratic accountability element to play out effectively, it is important to know what decisions are being made, how they are being made and what the rationale for them is. Different voters in different places may come to different decisions about which approach they prefer, but having a social media strategy that is explicitly published will make that democratic process much more effective.
Of course, I appreciate that if the Minister were to kindly accept my amendment, all the issues that it mentions, such as disinformation and public trust, would not suddenly be solved by it. On the other hand, they are difficult issues that we need to try to tackle, using all the different levers available to us. In that sense, I hope that the amendment would be a small contribution to that overall challenge, and therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely understand the intention behind this amendment. Social media clearly brings its challenges, particularly around misinformation, public confidence and data security—all serious matters. However, we do not agree that this is an appropriate statutory duty to place on local authorities.
Councils are already under immense operational and financial pressure. Their focus must be on delivering front-line services: social care, housing, waste collection, planning and public health. Requiring every authority to draft, publish and continually review a bespoke social media strategy, complete with formal risk assessments, would impose additional administrative burdens at a time when capacity is already stretched.
Local authorities should of course act responsibly and lawfully online, as they already must, but mandating a specific statutory strategy in primary legislation is neither necessary nor proportionate. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 241A, which would require local authorities to prepare and publish a social media strategy. When he talked about the values of social media, it reminded me that my local authority has recently introduced food waste recycling. The bin arrived on my doorstep, and I did not know what the system was—I am not the leader of the council any more, strangely, so I did not know it was going to do it. I did not think to open the bin. Inside was a lovely set of bags that you put your food waste in and a little bag you put on your worktop. I managed to get all that from the website before I actually opened the bin and found all the relevant information. As we know, not all social media is as helpful as that.
Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment is well intentioned, we believe it is unnecessary, given the existing legislative requirements that all local authorities must have regard to when using social media. All local authorities are already required by legislation to consider the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity in coming to any decision on publicity, which is defined as
“any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public”.
That definition clearly includes any communications posted on social media. Given that the proposed amendment would, in effect, replicate aspects of the publicity code, to which every local authority must already have regard, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments on my amendment. Although I do not agree fully with them all, I welcome the recognition of the importance of social media for local government and the importance of getting it right. Reflecting the views that I have heard in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill
“(3) In performing its functions, the Local Audit Office must pay immediate regard to and investigate any issues concerning risk management identified by audit committees established under section 33A.”
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 243, 249 and 250 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who regrets that he is unable to be with us today. We on these Benches absolutely understand why the Government have created this new entity of the local audit office in the Bill, but we will still listen with interest to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, on Clause 74. However, I believe that our concerns are different. These amendments speak directly to a problem that the Committee fully understands all too well: what happens when power runs ahead of scrutiny.
Amendment 243 is an early warning: it would require the local audit office to take immediate notice of serious management concerns raised by local audit committees. This is not an abstract concern. We have seen authorities where internal warnings were repeatedly raised about governance, liabilities or control systems, yet decisive action was delayed until failure became unavoidable. Audit that intervenes only after a Section 114 notice is not an oversight; it becomes a post-mortem.
I speak from bitter experience. When I was a councillor in opposition, we had our accounts disclaimed for two years on the trot. Apparently, this had never happened to any local authority before; we were not aware of it and we did not even know what the word meant until the auditor himself took the unprecedented step of breaking the story to the local Watford Observer—hence my passion to make this system work.
Analysing all those past failures, I find that they were not accidental. They were often accompanied by a pattern of executive overreach. Major decisions were taken at pace, scrutiny bodies were sidelined and challenge was treated as obstruction rather than protection. In some cases, significant financial commitments were entered into through mayor-led vehicles with limited transparency, optimistic assumptions and weak democratic oversight. In others, scrutiny committees raised concerns only to find themselves ignored, overridden or marginalised.
Amendments 249 and 250 are to deal with what happens next. They would ensure that audit scrutiny extends not only to money already spent but to how resources are planned to be used. They would allow serious findings to be made public where the audit committee considers this to be in the public interest.
Past failures were not hidden in the accounts; they were embedded in business plans, regeneration strategies and commercial ventures that were never properly stress-tested. Audit that cannot interrogate those plans early and that cannot speak publicly when necessary is simply too weak for the system that the Bill is creating.
This brings me to the local audit office itself. Done well, it could be a real asset. It could provide consistency, expertise, early challenge and a clear line of sight across a fragmented audit landscape. It could join up intelligence, spot emerging risks and give local leaders, mayors and central government the confidence that problems will be confronted early, rather than quietly managed until they explode.
We must be honest about the starting point—where we are now. The current local audit system is not working as it should, and I am absolutely certain that the Minister is aware of that. Audits are delayed, capacity is stretched and expertise is uneven. Serious concerns too often circulate without traction. The danger is that we create a local audit office in name but not in reality—an institution with responsibility but insufficient muscle.
This is now coming to the heart of our concerns, and this is what makes it more pertinent. The new system deliberately concentrates power in the hands of directly elected mayors over strategic planning, major investment decisions, long-term borrowing and delivery bodies operating at arm’s length. That concentration of power may deliver momentum, but it also magnifies risk when challenge is weak.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which concern the proposed local audit office. Having read the statement of intent and the consultation on local audit reform, we recognise that the Government have identified three systematic challenges. Two are particularly pertinent. First, on capacity, there is a severe shortage of auditors and too few firms in the market. Secondly, on complexity, financial reporting and audit requirements are overly complex and difficult to deliver on time. They are modelled largely on corporate auditing, rather than tailored to local public bodies. That encourages risk aversion and delay.
We do not dispute that there are real problems, but we want clarity over the proposed solutions in this Bill and in the transition plan published last November. Our opposition to Clause 74 standing part is not an attempt to frustrate reform; it is a probing step to understand the necessity and design of the proposed local audit office. What specific problem does a new statutory body solve that reform of the existing framework could not?
Regarding capacity, how does establishing a local audit office increase the number of qualified auditors in the system? Will it expand the training pipeline and make local audit more financially viable or attract firms that have previously exited the market? The Bill provides that the office will determine audit fees, while audit firms must nominate a lead partner for each audit. On what basis will the fees be set, and will local authorities and firms have any input at all? If fees remain inadequate, capacity constraints may persist.
There is also the question of delivery. If public provision is intended to sit alongside private provision, what scale of direct audit activity is envisaged for the new body? If it begins conducting audits itself, what impact would this have on competition and the long-term health of the market?
We are also told that the local audit office will reduce the audit backlog and strengthen relationships between local bodies and their auditors. Will this be achieved through simplification of reporting requirements, reform of risk and liability expectations and the adjustment of fee structures, or simply through centralised oversight? We need solutions to underline market weaknesses, not just structural governance reform.
The proposed local audit office will have regulatory functions, including maintaining a register of firms qualified to conduct local audits. Amendment 244 probes why a register is proposed while the office is also able to designate another organisation as an external registration body responsible for holding such a register. How many more bodies do we need in this landscape? At the same time, it may have operational functions. How will a clear separation between those regulating and operational roles be maintained? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest if both bodies regulate and potentially participate in the market?
That concern lies behind Amendment 246, which is explicitly a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify why the local audit office should be given the powers to acquire interest in audit firms or to provide assistance to them. What is the rationale for allowing the regulator to act as a market participant? Under what circumstances would it exercise those powers? Would it provide financial support to prevent market exit? What principles would guide such decisions?
Amendment 247 seeks assurance that the local audit office undertakes local authority audits itself and that its works will be subject to the same standard, scrutiny and independent oversight as private firms. Therefore, will the local audit office be subject to equivalent inspections and ethical standards when acting as an auditor? We would quite like a yes or no on that point.
Finally, Amendment 248 probes how rotations of key audit partners will work in practice and how independence will be safeguarded. If the local audit office undertakes audits directly, what arrangements will ensure appropriate rotation of the individuals acting as the key audit partner? What rotation period is envisaged? What process will govern handover and continuity? What safeguards will be put in place to prevent overfamiliarity and to protect professional scepticism? Just as importantly, where will these requirements sit? Will they be set out in the legislation, in regulation or through reference to an external ethical or professional standard? If an existing framework will apply, which one, and how will compliance be ensured in practice? The principle of rotation matters for independence but requirements that are too rigid risk worsening capacity in an already stretched system. How will the Government therefore balance independence with operational resilience?
These are not wrecking amendments. They are intended to provide clarity to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I will start with the clause stand part notice for Clause 74 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which questions why a local audit office is required at all. The local audit office is critical to overhauling the local audit system. The Kingman review, Redmond review and Public Accounts Committee all recommended a new independent oversight organisation to simplify the system and drive change. The current model of dispersed functions across different organisations has not delivered for the system, local bodies, taxpayers or government. As someone who was involved for many years with the LGA resources board and as a spokesperson for finance in Hertfordshire County Council, I felt sometimes as though I were watching this audit problem occurring like a car crash happening in slow motion—you could see it coming along.
While audit can seem like the dry and dusty aspect of local government, it is of course, as both noble Baronesses have said, absolutely vital to ensuring that members, officers and the public can have confidence in their local authority’s financial systems. That is why when we came into government I was so determined that we would fix this. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has set out some of the reasons why this is even more vital and urgent now, as we enter the new era of devolution. The local audit office will play a crucial role in ensuring that the reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers.
The missing data and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of government accounts for the past two years, providing no assurance to Parliament and a general loss of public accountability and trust. That is just not acceptable and we cannot carry on like that. Significant steps already taken by this Government mean that the backlog has been cleared and assurance is being built back. However, without the establishment of the local audit office and our wider reforms to tackle the root causes, the situation could recur.
To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I will come to some of her other questions as we go through, but the local audit office will support and enable our wider audit strategy, which tackles capacity and capability issues among auditors and account preparers, as well as overly complex financial reporting and audit requirements. Without the establishment of this office and the wider reforms to tackle the root causes of these problems, we could end up back where we were a couple of years ago. The local audit office will be pivotal in rebuilding that transparency, accountability and public trust in local government and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred.
Amendment 243 would give the local audit office an additional function to investigate risk management issues identified by audit committees within local authorities. These committees play a vital role across all local authorities. That is precisely why this Bill requires every local authority to establish an audit committee and ensure that it includes at least one independent member to provide robust scrutiny.
If audit committees identify risk management issues within a body, they should ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address them effectively, escalating serious issues to full council where necessary. The statutory guidance for audit committees that this Bill will enable is the appropriate mechanism to consider such issues. While the local audit office will have an important role in overseeing the local audit system, the statutory audit committee framework will remain with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of local government and, crucially, is directly accountable to Parliament. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate for the local audit office to have statutory responsibility for investigating risk management issues identified by audit committees.
Amendment 244 seeks to remove the statutory requirement for a register of local auditors to be held. The local audit register is a proven and effective regulatory mechanism for audit providers that has been in place since the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Currently, the register is held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, overseen in this role by the Financial Reporting Council. Audit providers that join the register agree to its rules and fund its regulatory activity through their fees. In the short to medium term, we expect the local audit office to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms.
New Section 6A replicates that arrangement for the new system, with two changes. First, the register-holding body will be overseen by the local audit office, not the Financial Reporting Council, meaning that the local audit office will have the final say on enforcement where serious quality or professional conduct issues occur. Secondly, there is provision for the local audit office to hold a register itself, and regulate audit providers directly, in case this becomes a more suitable mechanism at a later stage. In the unlikely event that a register-holding body became unwilling or unable to continue in its function, this provision would also enable the LAO to step in at pace to maintain regulation. This arrangement strikes a sensible balance between independent regulation of private firms and the local audit office providing oversight and taking the final enforcement decision in the rare cases where serious infringements of quality or professional conduct occur.
Amendment 245 would remove the provision enabling the body responsible for maintaining the register of authorised local audit providers to charge a fee to applicants and registrants. The register will be both a statutory requirement and a critical regulatory mechanism, supported through a range of activities that need to be properly funded. It is right that the cost of maintaining the register should be borne by those applying and registered to receive public funding for undertaking local audit work, not through the public purse. It is also unreasonable to expect an external body to assume responsibility for the registration and regulation of the local audit market without a clear mandate to charge for the range of activities required to do so. While it would be possible for the local audit office to rely on more generic fee-charging provisions elsewhere in the Bill, it is more suitable for the register to be set up and maintained by an external registration body. Registration costs covered through fees is current practice, and continuing this is the most appropriate approach, at least in the short to medium term.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am going to be very honest and say that the Minister packed one heck of a lot into that response. I struggled to keep up with her and really understand the ramifications, because this matter is technical and detailed. I will revisit Hansard. I know that my noble friend Lord Shipley and I will have some detailed questions, which it did not seem appropriate to ask here but which we would like the Minister to go through with us. For us, this is about early, robust and public challenge. I am not sure that, with the Bill as it stands at the moment, we can be assured of that in the face of catastrophic failures that are shameful to local government, as well as this imbalance of power. The Minister knows that I want this to work, but I believe that it will work only if the scrutiny is as balanced as the powers of the new mayoral authorities.
With that caveat, in the hope that we will be able to have some specific discussions—and with the aim of reading the Minister’s detailed response in Hansard, perhaps tomorrow—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Shipley.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I am conscious of the time; a number of us on all sides of this Committee will have a hard stop at 6 pm. We all want to use our best endeavours to complete these last two groups by 6 pm, I think, but we will stop then. I say this just so that noble Lords know that our intention is to try to finish this stage tonight; I know that the Minister and others will take that into account.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the stand-part notices and the amendment in the group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Our intention is to oppose Clause 85 and Schedule 34, which seek to abolish long-standing, upward-only commercial rent reviews, standing part of the Bill, while Amendment 254 proposes a review of the market impacts of rent review provisions. I speak with a deep concern for the stability, liquidity and long-term health of the commercial property market and for the businesses, pensions, investors and communities who depend on it.
Clause 85 and Schedule 34 would enact an outright ban on upward-only rent reviews in new and renewed commercial leases. This represents one of the most interventionist market reforms in modern commercial leasing, yet it arrives without the benefit of any industry consultation. The British Property Federation has been clear that it does not support the Government’s blanket ban and expresses its concern about the absence of proper consultation. Why are the Government not listening?
The existing evidence is clear. Upward-only rent reviews have long underpinned confidence in UK commercial property as an investment asset. These proposed changes have caused widespread concern in the sector. We have heard that upward-only rent reviews provide vital income certainty and support property valuations by ensuring that rental income cannot decline mid-lease—an important factor for institutional investors and particularly lenders assessing long-term risk. Lawrence Stephens, one of the main real estate lawyers, notes that outlawing upward-only rent reviews will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance—a consequence that risks delaying regeneration projects and suppressing new commercial investment. There is a significant concern that the Government’s proposed changes will have a widespread impact on market stability and investment confidence, affecting everything from property values to regeneration projects. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government have taken this analysis into account and how they plan to mitigate it?
The likely effects of these measures on business tenancies that the Government claim to support cannot be ignored. Landlords will inevitably respond to this change by front-loading rents and shortening lease terms to protect themselves against the prospect of downward-only risk exposure. This would most significantly impact the very businesses that the Bill says it aims to help, especially those that require stability over the long term.
My opposition to Clause 85 and Schedule 34 standing part of the Bill reflects several key concerns: reduced investment in liquidity, threatening regional development; shorter lease durations with fewer stable long-term tenancies; higher initial rents, counteracting the Government’s aim of supporting the high street; increased financing costs, making commercial development harder to deliver; and a slowing down of regeneration projects across the country, especially in areas dependent on external investment, thereby hampering growth, which the Government say is their number one priority.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I have taken a scythe to my speech, so it might come out a bit disjointed. The short version should be directed to noble Lords at the other end of the table: I understand their position because turkeys do not vote for Christmas. It depends on which lens you look at this through.
So it is no surprise that I rise to oppose the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34. They are the mechanism by which the Bill ends upward-only rent reviews for new and renewed commercial releases. Removing them would preserve the system that has been quietly hollowing out our high streets and small businesses for years. The noble Lord talked about evidence and there is plenty of evidence to show that. The real-world effect of upward-only rents is very simple: when trade is good, rents go up, and when trade is bad, rents go up. Rents do not come down. That might look neat in a contract but, on the ground, it has meant businesses paying yesterday’s rents in today’s economy.
We have all seen what that looks like: a shop where footfall has dropped, but the rent is still set at pre-pandemic levels and is going up; a café that has survived lockdowns, energy shocks and staff shortages, only to be hit by a rent review that moves in one direction regardless of takings; or a small local business doing everything right but that is forced out because the lease allows rents to rise but never to reflect reality. I confess to my hairdresser being exactly in that position: after 40 years of work in Watford, she is no more. “The rent rise”, she said, “was the final straw”. This is real.
Clause 85 matters because it allows rents to move down as well as up, so that they can reflect what is actually happening on a street, in a town centre or in a local economy. Markets work both ways and leases should be able to do the same. If we remove Clause 85, we are not defending the market; we are defending a one-way ratchet that has already failed our high streets.
I will blot out a big paragraph here. That does not mean that we should ignore the risks. Markets will adapt and some landlords may try to push the risks elsewhere through higher initial rents or shorter leases. This is why scrutiny, monitoring and review matter, but they are arguments for refining Clause 85, if necessary, not for removing it altogether. Perhaps the Government might consider this on Report.
Likewise, a small caveat: this is a broad reform applying across all commercial sectors, not just retail and hospitality, where the effects and problems are most visible. I would be interested to know what work has been done to understand the impact of this change on commercial property investment, particularly in struggling town centres and regeneration areas. How do the Government justify the big-bang breadth of this measure? Have they considered whether a more targeted approach might have achieved the same aims over time?
If we are confident that this is the right direction—we believe it is—we also have to be confident enough to measure its effects. Therefore, we have some sympathy with Amendment 254 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but we feel that 12 months would not be enough time to measure the true effects of this significant change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for Amendment 234. I will start with the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34.
Upwards-only rent reviews have been a long-standing issue for businesses throughout England and Wales. The British Independent Retailers Association and UKHospitality gave evidence in the other place about just how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. The practice of upward-only rent reviews has an invidious effect on the efficiency and accessibility of the commercial property market—not to mention the impact on our high streets and town centres that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined. It is designed to ensure that landlords and investors are insured against market conditions, but there is a cost to this, which falls chiefly on the business tenants left paying excessive rents when they are already stretched to breaking point, unable to invest or improve their productivity, or, in times of hardship, to keep the lights on or pay their staff wages.
Ultimately, these clauses make running a business less viable, damaging the competitiveness of the economy. Alongside reform of business rates, banning these clauses will help make commercial rents fairer and more efficient, help businesses invest and give them greater resilience to economic conditions. In recognition that these clauses can provide some security to investors, we have committed to consult on how caps and collars could be used. I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to work carefully and closely with the property industry and others to implement this policy, help manage risk and maintain confidence in the market, without relying on one-sided mechanisms such as upwards-only rent review clauses.
I turn to Amendment 254. I understand the desire to consider the impacts of legislation once it has passed. However, 12 months is too limited a period to see the ban fully implemented and the market adjusted. The Bill’s impact assessment also finds that the ban is likely to have a net positive impact on the UK economy because it will make the commercial property market more efficient, reducing rents for tenants who can instead invest in their businesses and help keep consumer prices low. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Our key point is that this is a very significant change to the commercial property market, and it has not been done with the industry. The Minister said that she would “work carefully and closely” to implement it. It would have been better to have worked closely and carefully with the industry in developing it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Our issue is with a blanket ban rather than looking at how we can come up with a potential system that works better for all parties. I am glad that she is more supportive of our amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am dreadfully sorry; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Can we have that officially minuted? I share those concerns. The key point is that we need something that works.
I wish to point out that upward-only rent reviews are nowhere near the biggest problem facing businesses up and down the high street. They are contending with devastating increases in business rates and are facing increased regulation, increases in national insurance charges and the effects of changes to the minimum wage. Although we would all like a higher minimum wage, it must be affordable.
The Government’s solution—tearing out a long-established market measure without proper consideration, without careful engagement with the sector and without understanding the consequences for investment and lending to commercial markets—is a high-risk strategy. The question today is not whether commercial tenants deserve fair terms—they do—but whether the proposal before us is the right one. There are too many uncertainties and risks that have been left unaddressed.
We will seek to revisit this issue on Report. I hope that, by then, the Government will have reflected on the concerns raised today and will come forward with proposals grounded not in assertion but in evidence, balance and economic reality. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my clause stand part notice.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and(b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must publish an invitation for interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Government Whip may be pleased to know that my mother used to say that I spoke far too quickly. This amendment complements other amendments, which have been discussed, seeking reviews of one form or another. It is distinct in its scope and its timeframe. It would provide for post-legislative review within five years of the measure being enacted.
The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny. The problem is in delivering it. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. The law may be implemented in a way that does not deliver on what Parliament intended. Some law may never be commenced; this is what I have termed “law but not law” and is covered in Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. Some law may be misinterpreted or poorly understood. We cannot properly know that without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, completing a legislative feedback loop.
As I said on our first day in Committee, success for the Government should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—this is how Ministers have tended to see it—but, rather, as delivering what it is intended to achieve. The answer is to ensure that there is post-legislative scrutiny. The Government are commitment to such scrutiny, at least in principle, and have been since 2008, when they accepted the recommendation for Acts to be subject to review three to five years after enactment. Giving effect to this is, in practice, more sporadic.
Some departments are good at such scrutiny, but not all are. The reviews are sent to the appropriate departmental Select Committees in the other place, but the committees have several tasks to undertake and following up on post-legislative reviews is not necessarily a priority. In our House, we usually appoint a special inquiry committee chair to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or Acts covering a particular subject, but we are—necessarily—highly selective. We are not able to compensate fully for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny in the Commons.
During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I argued the case for putting in provisions for post-legislative scrutiny where a Bill is large or complex; makes substantial changes to the law; is contested; and has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. This would have ensured that the Bill will be reviewed. Knowing that it will be reviewed serves as useful discipline for the Government. As I touched on in our discussion of Amendment 1, proposed by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, there is merit in adumbrating clearly the purposes of the Bill, providing, in effect, the criteria against which the Act may been assessed once it is in force.
This Bill clearly qualifies under the terms I have outlined. It is demonstrably large—the term “heavyweight Bill” would certainly apply—and complex. It makes substantial changes to the law; that is clear from the numbers of Acts that are amended by its provisions. It is contested, and it has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group: Amendments 256 and 264. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has added his name to them, for which I thank him.
Both of these amendments attempt to tackle, though in slightly different ways, the problem of law/not law to which the noble Lord just referred. It is about that accumulation of sludge on the statute book of legislation that has been passed by Parliament but never commenced. That is a problem for two reasons. One is that, in a way, it undermines Parliament’s role because, when legislation is passed by Parliament, it is meant to become law. It is not meant to be simply a menu for future Ministers to pick and mix from as they wish, with commencement orders whenever they fancy. If Parliament has made the decision that something should be law, we should be able to have confidence that it will become law.
There is also a more practical problem: the huge complexity of the statute book, which flows from having this mix of legislation that has been passed and commenced, passed but only partially commenced and passed but not commenced. This is a problem because it builds up incrementally. Indeed, that is partly why the problem exists. At every individual level and every individual stage where we add a little more sludge to the system, it is easy to say, “Oh, it doesn’t really matter this time. It’s not really that important”—but it accumulates.
I will give a little example of the scale. The House of Lords Library very kindly pulled together a list for me of all of the Acts relevant to local government in England that have been passed since 1960 but have not yet been fully commenced. Bear in mind that some of these Acts were passed by Parliament before several Members of the House of Lords had even been born, yet 44 such Acts have never yet been fully commenced.
In these two amendments, I try to take two different angles on the problem. Amendment 256 is a probing amendment picking out four examples of legislation that passed a significant time ago but has not yet been commenced. If parts of that legislation have been hanging around for so long and never been commenced, perhaps we should do a little tidying-up and take the opportunity of this Bill to clear out some of those leftovers from the statute book.
The other amendment, Amendment 264, seeks to tackle this problem from a slightly different angle. It is in the nature of closing the stable door after the horses have bolted, because the statute book already has that complexity, but, as we keep on—to extend the analogy, perhaps to breaking point—adding new horses to the stable with a continuous flow of legislation, would it not be better to at least stop making things worse by ensuring that we have confidence that a piece of legislation will be fully implemented, at some point? Five years in the future, it provides a generous backstop to say that, whatever Parliament decides to pass overall, we will be sure that it comes into force at a particular date in the future.
I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that there are some areas of law where the Government absolutely understand and value having a neat and clear statute book. We have a regular rolling programme for consolidation of the rules of procedure for various parts of the legal system, which is hugely beneficial, but we should be a little more ambitious and not simply restrict the benefits of neat and tidy parts of the statute book to those where it has always been done; we should perhaps be a little imaginative in starting to extend some of those benefits to a greater part of the statute book. I very much hope that the Minister will, in due course, show some desire to expand the level of neatness and clarity in the statute book.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is not the first time I have found myself getting in the way of the last part of a Bill, usually in talking about territorial extent. The last train that would get me to Saltaire tonight leaves King’s Cross just after 7 pm, so I will try my best to be brief.
This is about terminology but also about honesty. My amendments would provide some tighter definitions of “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. Having seen the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, tabled on “parish”, perhaps I should have also included one on that. I note that his definition of a parish council includes anything that may have the same population as Greenland. The intended ideal size for a “local authority”, which this takes us to, is about the same as the population of Luxembourg. That is not really local government and it certainly is not local democracy.
I grew up believing that all politics is local, and that citizen engagement is a fundamental part of what politics should be about. This would take politics away from the local community and neighbourhood representative model, with references to community groups that are not representative but are entirely self-formed from civil society. I would not only regret that but think it a deep step back away from the principle of democratic self-government.
I know from my early experience with the Labour Party in Manchester that there are many within Labour who regard the relationship between the party and local people as one in which Labour delivers services and the local people are supposed to be grateful for them. The Liberal approach to democracy is one in which we work with people, and we expect and encourage citizens to be engaged in local and community politics.
This is a Bill that abuses the terms “community”, “neighbourhood”, “parish” and “local”. It sets up sub-regional strategic authorities and reduces the number of local elections and councillors. If I understood the answers to the Question yesterday, it is intended that, following this legislation, the next thing will be to reduce the number of local councils and borough councils in the Greater London Authority so that we have local authorities in London that are roughly the size of Luxembourg.
I regret this; as I have sat through Committee on this Bill I have found the whole Bill deeply distasteful and weakening of our democracy—but there we are. However, I wish that the Government would at least be a little tighter in their use of these important terms than they have been, and those are the intentions of my amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this final group of amendments, beginning with Amendment 251 in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, which would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act after five years and to report before Parliament. This report would assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this legislation have been achieved, and whether objectives and measures remain appropriate.
This amendment speaks to a broader concern throughout Committee on this Bill. It is simply not clear what the Government’s objectives are in the Bill, as it does not follow through on its title—as we tried clearly to explain with the purpose clause in the first group of amendments on the first day of Committee. I cannot remember how many weeks ago that was. As we have said before, the financial implications are unclear, as well as whether local authorities will have the capacity to deliver on their responsibilities. But I do not think that we should wait to find that out in five years’ time; we need, and indeed your Lordships’ House deserves, that clarity now about the finances and the geographical configuration of these new authorities.
Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, intends to repeal the statutory provisions, which have never been enacted. I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to do this to simplify the statute book, unless the Minister can outline reasons as to why these provisions must be kept or announces a timeline for their commencement.
Amendment 264, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would ensure that the provisions in this Bill will be enacted within five years of its receiving Royal Assent. Again, we must have the assurance that the Government intend to follow through on legislation agreed in this House, and to be clear on what their exact plans are for the powers contained within it.
Amendments 257 to 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, seek to divine more clearly in law what is meant by “local”, “community” and “neighbourhood”. That has been a crucial debate throughout Committee; we need to ensure that newly reorganised authorities and local government structures are not just areas neatly drawn on a map for the ease of those in central government. We on these Benches believe that they must also reflect local people’s wishes and be in keeping with local history and traditions. However, we have to be realistic—these new authorities are also going to be responsible for delivering not just very local services, which are now delivered by the district councils or by the town and parish councils, but the big services of social care, SEND, highways and so on. This legislation must not be based on a shallow understanding of what constitutes local communities and neighbourhoods. If anything, I am not sure that the noble Lord’s proposed definition of “local” as
“an area suitable for shared government, linked by easy communication”
goes far enough. People do not think of their local communities and neighbourhoods as districts or from the top-down perspective of governance structures.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Norton and Lord Wallace, for their amendments in this group.
Amendment 251, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, does not specify how the objectives of the Bill are to be identified and, as such, it is not clear from the amendment what the Government would be required to report on. The Government already produce the annual report on English devolution, which covers many of the key elements of this Bill, including the establishment of new strategic authorities, and the functions and funding devolved to strategic authorities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for Amendment 256, and I appreciate his desire to see primary legislation which passes through both Houses commenced following Royal Assent. I commend his desire to tidy up the statute book—I am a bit of a tidy-upper myself, so I appreciate that. However, it is my view that the Government should not prioritise parliamentary time and resource for the repeal of uncommenced provisions in existing Acts which have no impact on the effective running of local government.
Although I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that legislation which passes through both Houses is then commenced after Royal Assent, this amendment would not be appropriate and risks unintended consequences. Most provisions in the Bill will be commenced either at the point of Royal Assent or two months after it. However, some provisions will need to be commenced by Ministers after Royal Assent using commencement regulations, and some of these provisions will require secondary legislation or guidance to be published before the provisions can come into effect.
The automatic commencement of all provisions in the Bill risks unintended consequences, especially if powers are devolved to strategic authorities and communities without the necessary guardrails in place. Therefore, it would not be sensible to set an arbitrary date at which all provisions need to have been commenced. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to delivering on all the reforms in this Bill, so I ask that he does not move his amendment.
Amendments 257, 258 and 259 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Taken together, they would introduce definitions of the terms “community”, “local” and “neighbourhood” into Clause 86. The Bill already provides definitions where they are needed to interpret provisions effectively. Through regulations, we will define what a neighbourhood area is and set out the criteria for these arrangements. However, we recognise that there are differences between places and communities across England and we want to ensure that regulations include an element of local choice. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord not to move these amendments.
Turning to the government amendments, Amendments 261 and 262 remove the subsections on the publication of councillors’ addresses and the extension of the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority from Clause 92(4), which would commence them upon Royal Assent, and insert them into Clause 92(6), so they will commence two months after Royal Assent, as was the original intention for these measures.
Amendments 265 and 267 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment 265 changes a reference from “regulations” to “secondary legislation” to ensure that order-making powers are also covered by the commencement provision and to be consistent with references elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 267 changes the Long Title of the Bill to replace reference to “local councils” with “local authorities”. This reflects the Bill’s application to authorities other than just “local councils” following an amendment made in the other place to extend the general power of competence to English national park authorities and the Broads Authority. I am sure that will be a great comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that respect.
I will move the government amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated in Committee. We have had some great discussions, and I have really appreciated the contributions that have been made.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but extraordinarily worrying. It suggests that the Government do not know what they are committed to. All I am seeking is to put in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do anyway. By the sound of it, the Minister is reflecting a view that does not fully understand what the Government have themselves agreed to do. It sounds as if departments are acting in silos, because the response today is very different from the response of the Minister in Tuesday’s debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was very constructive and welcome. I was simply replicating more or less the provision that the Government accepted to that other Bill. As I say, the Minister’s response is not just disappointing but very worrying in what it conveys. It reflects very badly on the department and is therefore something I shall most certainly come back to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have to take issue with what the noble Lord is saying. I pointed out quite clearly that we already produce an annual report on devolution. Most of this Bill relates to the provisions that we are putting in place for the devolution agenda, so they will be covered in the annual report on devolution. It is not that the department thinks that we do not need to report on what is being done; it is that we already have a provision to report on an annual basis on the devolution agenda.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, there is a difference between reporting what is happening and actually reviewing an Act in its totality and—as my noble friend mentioned when we started this Bill, and as she referred to today—identifying what it is designed to achieve, its objectives, and therefore something against which it can be measured. That is why I think it is so important, and certainly something to which we will return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment of clause 92(6) which would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.
“(z1) section 62 (publication of addresses of members etc in authority registers);(z2) section 73 (and Schedule 30) (extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for sections 62 and 73 and Schedule 30 to come into force two months after royal assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make subsection (8) consistent with subsection (1)(c) (so that they both refer to the wider concept of “secondary legislation”).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would change the long title of the Bill to refer to “local authorities” instead of “local councils”. This would reflect the inclusion of clause 73 and Schedule 30 in the House of Commons (which relate to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority).