Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, development corporations have been widely welcomed—with one exception—because they have an important function in enabling development decisions that cover a wide area. So, the question for us is not the about principle of development corporations, but whether the Greater Cambridge devco is the most effective vehicle for achieving the purposes set out in the order.

I have a number of criticisms, and the first is about geography, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out. Decisions on local government reorganisation have, so far, specifically excluded a decision on the Cambridge area, yet here is a proposal with boundaries that may not conform to those decisions. This particular order is, therefore, in that regard, premature. Further, the boundaries proposed may actually constrain provision of the much-needed infrastructure.

The next criticism is the locally shared diagnosis that development in the Cambridge area is hampered by inadequate transport, as we have just heard, water resources, which is well known, energy and the affordability of housing. Despite the scale of the proposed development corporation, the solutions to the fundamental infrastructure problems lie with private companies, such as Cambridge Water, and central government to enable the development of much-needed improved transport structures. The Minister said that there will be another £400 million to do all this good work. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required in terms of essential infrastructure before all this development can take place. I would like to know whether the Department for Transport, the relevant water company and National Grid have been provided with the funding, either directly or via the regulators, to deliver this essential infrastructure in a timely way.

The third major criticism is that there is no clear rationale or evidence base for removing local plan-making powers from democratically elected councils serving the area. The problem that this creates is enabling development without the consensus of residents or those elected to represent them. The councils involved have a strong record, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to, of successfully making the arguments for growth: 77,000 homes are included in the emerging local plan. Local plans are the bedrock for encouraging agreed change in an area. They consult residents, provide criteria for change and develop a coherent plan, and then councillors debate and agree an outcome. That process is essential if those affected by development are to believe they have had a chance to influence it. To remove plan-making powers and then, disgracefully, planning decisions for all but small developments is democratic vandalism.

All these issues were raised during the consultation, which resulted in 68% of individuals opposing the devco, as well as nearly half of local government organisations. A significant concern of all those who were consulted was the protection of the natural environment. The Government’s response is to commit to establishing what they have described as structured forums to allow direct engagement with residents. The question the Minister must answer is what influence the views from those forums will have on decision-making. If these forums become no more than talking shops, they will rightly be derided.

What is not clear is why the Government have not chosen to use a different model, such as the regional development agency model. The one in Yorkshire with which I was involved enabled significant development across the region by negotiating a strategic plan and providing funding that enabled the private sector to implement it—but, importantly, without bypassing local planning authorities. Can the Minister agree that plan-making powers will be deferred until the draft local plan being developed is adopted, and then only following evidence-based reasons being provided? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to table this regret amendment, with which the Liberal Democrats totally agree.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. On these Benches, several of us have run unitary councils. We recognise the potential for improved efficiencies and better delivery for residents. However, that must be done on the basis of genuine communities and geographies, at a scale capable of delivering meaningful efficiencies and with the true consent of residents.

The Government set out clear principles at the beginning of this process: a scale of around half a million people, respect for existing boundaries and local consent. Yet looking at the proposals before us today, it is difficult to conclude that those principles have been applied in practice, with populations ranging from nearly 700,000 down to 170,000, the breaking up of existing district councils, and a lack of local support and consent.

Rather, the common thread that seems to run through the proposals is a focus on the needs of largely Labour-run city councils to the detriment of the rest of those counties. The Government have accepted the proposals of Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth and Exeter, among others, despite unanimous opposition from the remaining councils in those areas. Is this just about rescuing badly run Labour councils and facilitating cities shifting their housebuilding to the neighbouring green fields?

I highlight Devon, where the expansion of Exeter and Plymouth is necessitating the break-up of several district councils and will leave what can best be described as an orphan Devon coast and countryside council. This will be a unitary for a population of only 260,000 but spread over a vast rural area, stretching from Kingsbridge on the north coast to Sidmouth on the south coast—a journey of two hours or so by car, and a similar journey from east to west. This is setting up a council to fail. The situation is similar in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire. As my honourable friend in the other place, the shadow Secretary of State, said, this appears to be gerrymandering for political benefit, not delivering for residents.

Ministers have repeatedly stated that councils should meet the standards of transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision-making. Yet many communities and councils are asking themselves, have the Government applied those standards to themselves in reaching these decisions?

Having run a unitary council with a population of just under 300,000, I know that scale truly matters in key services such as adults’ and children’s social care and services such as highways, which will represent nearly 80% of the expenditure of these new unitary councils. We succeeded because we were well-run, but it was a struggle. No doubt my noble friend Lady Scott will tell Members here about the success of Wiltshire Council, which had the benefit of being substantially larger.

Breaking up counties into smaller units of 300,000 or less will cause significant dis-synergies, particularly following government funding cuts for many councils. How many more councils does the Minister expect will require exceptional financial support as a result of these changes? And that is before the impact of the disruption, as councillors and officers focus on the uphill of reorganisation, exacerbated by the break-up of district councils, rather than doing the day job of focusing on delivering for their residents.

It is particularly striking that these concerns are not confined to this side of the House. In the other place, Liberal Democrat Members have complained about things being “done to” and not “done with”. Even Labour Members themselves have objected to decisions affecting their own areas. Others have questioned why coherent communities were being split, why some selected proposals appeared not to meet the Government’s own criteria and why areas with such strong local identities are being carved up to fit the new structures.

Devolution should be about empowering local communities, not imposing structures from Whitehall. Reorganisation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. If local government reform is to command public confidence, at the very least it should be transparent, consistent and demonstrably fair.

Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government departed from their original principles on population size, retaining boundaries and financial sustainability? What objective criteria were applied when choosing between competing local proposals? Why were proposals that split established communities or transferred areas into expanded city authorities preferred over alternatives? Have the Government truly examined the impact on the delivery and viability of those essential social care services that support some of the most vulnerable in our communities? What steps will the Government now take to reassure communities that these decisions have been taken in the interests of effective local government rather than political convenience? Can the Minister assure the House that these proposals are financially viable and will not result in the need for more exceptional financial support? Lastly, what will be the impact of the almost inevitable issuance of JRs?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are some deeply worrying elements in the Statement. First, it was issued on the final day before the Commons Recess. A momentous decision of that purport should be the subject of detailed scrutiny but that has been deliberately avoided. Secondly, the announcement has been made by a Minister who then resigned from the Government—it was his final throw of the dice. So this announcement is discredited before the details are even considered.

I trust that the new Minister for Local Government will make it her first task to reconsider the implications of these decisions. It is imperative that Angela Rayner does so, because the decisions that have been announced fail to meet the test of enhancing devolution and democracy or of creating new local authorities that will be financially sustainable. The claim is that creating unitary authorities will put an end to two-tier councils, but, at the same time, the Government intend to create an additional tier of local governance in the shape of mayoral authorities, so two tiers will remain.

The decisions that the Minister made about the boundaries are controversial. Some have described them as gerrymandering, and there seems to be no other explanation in some instances. For example, Devon, which has already been referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has been divided into four authorities—three are relatively small councils in geographical terms, based on Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, each with a population of around 300,000, and the fourth is the rest of rural Devon, with a scattered rural population with no obvious centre—but Gloucestershire is to have one council serving a population of 670,000 people. Can the Minister explain how this huge range of population sizes is consistent with the parameters that were set by the Government or with creating genuine local democracy?

The argument made in the Minister’s Statement is that there will be 3,000 fewer councillors. From my perspective, it is shameful to be proud of reducing the number of elected representatives. Democracy has to enable electors to feel that they have access to local decision-makers and can influence local decisions. Reducing the number of councillors means increasing the size of wards and making councillors more remote from the people they represent, so, on the test of enhancing democracy and enhancing devolution, these decisions have failed.

Then there is the claim that there will be cost savings by having fewer councillors and fewer council officers. That is a claim that government always makes, but it is not supported by facts. For example, in Devon, the previously single social care model for the whole country will be required to divide into four units, and financial benefits of the model will drop sharply. Very large councils of over 400,000 population see costs per head rise and the financial benefits lost, yet the Government have created several councils way above the 400,000-population size.

The Minister may be able to explain the financial argument with details omitted from the Statement, and I look forward to that if she has those details. In the Statement, the Government have admitted that they have failed in the task of making decisions on Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex. When will those decisions be made? Meanwhile, the timetable for electing councillors for the new unitaries is set for May next year, while in some cases ward boundaries will have to be reviewed because of the way the boundaries for the new unitaries have been drawn.

Democratic representation is vital for communities. In England, each councillor will on average represent 3,000 electors. In France, that number is nearer 200 and in Germany it is 400. This Statement represents a retrograde step and a lost opportunity to revitalise local democracy.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their questions and comments on the local government reorganisation Statement.

I will begin with the timeline that has led us to the decisions announced on 16 July, because it is important that we understand how we have arrived at the place we are now. On 5 February 2025, the Government invited councils in 21 two-tier areas, together with neighbouring small unitary authorities, to develop proposals for local government reorganisation. That is not imposing a model from Whitehall; it is asking councils to come forward with their own proposals. Those proposals were received from councils on 26 September and 28 November 2025. The Government subsequently launched statutory consultations on them on 19 November 2025 and 5 February 2026, which closed on 11 January and 26 March 2026 respectively.

Between May and June 2026, the Government undertook further consultation in East Sussex, Brighton & Hove, and West Sussex to inform the consideration of potential modifications to proposals in those areas. Then, on 26 March 2026, the Secretary of State announced the first tranche of decisions, on Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; and Norfolk and Suffolk.

I will now set out the decisions announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July. These were subject to parliamentary approval. They were announced in Parliament on 16 July. There was another debate on the Monday of that week on the same subject. A Written Ministerial Statement was laid, and of course we are debating the decisions now in this House.

The Government will implement, subject to parliamentary approval, proposals for new unitary councils including: two unitary authorities in Derbyshire and Derby, put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove, the two- unitary proposal, including boundary changes requested by Brighton & Hove City Council, except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester City Council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by City of Lincoln Council, including boundary changes and leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham City Council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford, Cannock Chase and Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire.

In Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex, the Secretary of State has concluded that further time is required before decisions are reached. It is very important that we take the time to make the right decisions for those areas. To respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about when those will be made, it will be as soon as possible and no later than October. They will be worked on and decided as soon as possible.

I recognise that not all noble Lords, or all councils, will agree with every decision we have made. These are significant changes and they matter deeply to places. Each proposal has been considered carefully against the published criteria, consultation responses and all other relevant information, including consultation with other government departments. The Government’s responsibility is to take decisions that are sustainable, coherent and in the long-term interests of residents.

The reason for reform is clear. In too many places, two-tier local government is confusing for residents. It divides responsibility, slows decisions, duplicates costs and blurs accountability. Boundaries drawn for a different era too often no longer reflect how people live, work, travel and access services, or how they see their own area. That does not serve residents well, nor does it equip leaders for the future. That is why local government reorganisation is necessary: to create stronger councils with the scale and capacity to deliver better services, support economic growth and provide clearer accountability.

Across these areas, 134 councils will be replaced by 38 new unitary authorities. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. This will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about savings, the councils themselves have identified significant potential savings of around £1 billion by the end of 2032. These savings can be reinvested in the front-line services that people rely on.

Of course, local government reorganisation is not without its challenges. Transition has to be handled carefully, particularly where vulnerable residents depend on services such as children’s services, adult care and public health. That is why we are providing over £1 million in funding for every new unitary council, including £900,000 in capacity funding and up to £150,000 of additional funding to support children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Pace also matters. Council staff and residents need certainty, so moving forward now allows areas to prepare for elections in May 2027 and for the new councils to take on their responsibilities in 2028.

To respond to some of the other questions—I see that I do not have much time, but I will be as quick as I can—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to gerrymandering. That is absolutely not the case. I do not know if Members listened to the debate in the other House, but if this was gerrymandering, it did not work, according to some of our Labour Members at that end of the building. The decisions were based absolutely on the merits of the proposals against the six published criteria, consultation responses and other relevant information, and the proposals selected have backing from a range of political parties, not just Labour. Previous decisions did not set a precedent, and I stress that every decision we took was on the basis of the information. All local areas are different, as we often say in this House, and we had to take decisions based on the local circumstances, so they were taken individually and judged on their own merits.

The department ran an independent consultation to assess the proposals against the criteria set out, and the responses were an important factor in the decision-making process. The process is locally led, with councils having been invited to develop proposals for their own areas.

On the size of the local authorities, the 500,000 population figure has always been a guiding principle, not a fixed threshold. Ministers set this out publicly on at least five occasions. Our messaging has been consistent: there may need to be exceptions to ensure that new structures make sense for an area, including to support devolution, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

I make no apologies for the growth focus in some of these decisions. We need to harness the growth that we know can come from every part of our country. We have made our decisions according to the criteria, and some of those are focused on growth. We need to continue with that so that we can get the potential that this country has out to every postcode in the land.

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council. In my view, this is a developers’ charter. The Government have been hoodwinked into believing that around 5% of all planning applications that currently go to a planning committee for a decision are the basic cause of the lack of housebuilding. There are already over 1 million homes with full planning permission sufficient for the housing needs for at least the next three years. Where are the measures from the Government to stop the delay in building those homes? That is why this is a developers’ charter.

These regulations also fail a devolution test. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, plus the next Prime Minister’s strong support for greater devolution, all point in a direction diametrically opposed to the centralising zeal in these regulations. This is “Whitehall knows best” personified. There will be a national scheme of delegation which treats every part of the country as if it were the same. Planning situations in London are not the same as those in the hills of Yorkshire, but that is what these regulations state and impose on local people. The inadequacies of a centralised diktat are clear when considering Schedule 1 applications, which must be determined by planning officers. These include housing developments of up to nine units, as the Minister has said, but they are often the very applications that can affect neighbouring properties the most. Often these are infill sites, the development of large gardens, or small unallocated sites in the local plan.

That approach has consequences. Officers will be heavily lobbied by both councillors and residents, without there being recourse to an open forum to air the problems and the solutions. Schedule 2 includes all major residential applications and presumably, although it does not say so, big developments like data centres or incinerators. By default, those will be decided by planning officers, as the overriding presumption is that the functions listed in Schedule 2 will be delegated to officers. Public decision-making provides the antidote to allegations of corruption. Currently, the planning committee provides that essential transparency. How will officers’ integrity be protected in this not so very brave new world?

The gateway proposals are a mere sop to democracy. This is the only way to get open and democratic planning decisions made. The gateway consists, as we have heard, of a senior planning officer and a senior councillor deciding—presumably, behind closed doors—whether an application should go to planning committee. They have to consider the strict test in the regulations of whether there are one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area or whether the proposal raises one or more significant planning matters. As we have heard, if the planning officer and senior councillor disagree, by regulation the officer must refuse to take it to committee but decide it instead in the closed confines of the planning office. Further, councillor call-ins of applications are banned. Even though we are in a democracy, “banned” is the word that is used. The weight of residents’ objections is no longer of any consequence as to whether an application is considered in a democratic way.

In a nutshell, these regulations promote secret decision-making and are anti-democratic and centralising in nature. Accusations of nimbyism were thrown at my colleague, Gideon Amos MP, by the Secretary of State. It simply illustrates the paucity of the Government’s proposals when they have to resort to bullying slogans.

Liberal Democrats will support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, if he decides to call a vote. A fatal Motion to stop these dreadful regulations is the Liberal Democrat preference, but we are aware that the Conservative Benches have a policy of not supporting such Motions, which significantly reduces the chance of success. However, we urge creative thinking by Liberal Democrats on councils to find workable ways within the regulations for transparent and democratic decision-making.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and strongly expressed contributions to this debate. I understand why those points have been made.

I shall pick out some of the issues that have been raised. I think all noble Lords who spoke raised the issue of why the reform of planning committees is necessary. I know that that was done in a way that understands that we could not completely avoid changing planning; I picked up that nuance from noble Lords’ comments. Of course we recognise the important role that planning committees have in ensuring local democratic oversight, and we continue to believe that they will play a crucial role in planning decision-making in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, rightly pointed out, about 4% of applications actually go to committee now.

We have seen across the country an uneven postcode lottery, such that applicants do not get consistency in their decision-making. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to planning, including introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker; we have consulted on a new, more rules-based national planning policy framework; and we are ensuring that councils have the resources they need to run a good planning service. It is vital that, in exercising democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible. They should not revisit the same decisions but focus on those applications that really require member input.

The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, both referred to allegations of corruption in the planning process. I know that chairs of planning do get accused of this, but I never saw a brown envelope in 30 years of being in local government. I understand why those accusations are made, usually by people after a decision goes against them. The Government want to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment, allowing them to resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses.

Most noble Lords who spoke also referred to the loss of local democracy. The Government really believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their area is through the local plan process. I know that all those in this Chamber who have been local councillors will understand that that is the real way to influence the planning that goes ahead in your local area.

The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. They ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, not revisiting decisions already considered through the local plan process and instead focusing on applications that require that vital member input. Where controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will, of course, still play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. Importantly, we are not changing consultation rules—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am really sorry to interrupt. It was not clear when I read the regulations, but is the Minister suggesting that any allocated site within the local plan will, per se, be an officer’s decision, not in principle but in detail as well?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

They are subject to the gateway test, as I set out at the beginning of the debate. Local people will still be able to make representations. Regardless of who the decision-maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits, they must be taken into account. As Members will know, planning officers have to set out their reasons for either approving or not approving a planning recommendation.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked in particular about reserved matters. We recognise that in some cases reserved matters approval applications can relate to large-scale phased development taking place over many years: 20 or 30 years in some cases. While the principle of development will have been agreed at outline planning permission in these cases, each reserved matters application could still represent substantial major development in its own right—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was asking me—and in some cases that might mean that committee scrutiny is appropriate.

We have therefore categorised reserved matters applications in terms of the size of the related outline permission. Where they relate to a large outline planning permission—over 500 dwellings or 50,000 square metres of floorspace—they will fall into Schedule 2. This means that, where councils think it is necessary, they could be subject to the gateway test and be referred to committee. Where the outline permission does not meet that threshold, the reserved matters application will be in Schedule 1 and always delegated to an officer.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked whether every Schedule 2 application needs to be considered for referral. Regulations do not require every Schedule 2 application to go through the gateway test. It will be open to local planning authorities to triage their Schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them, so that only certain Schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. For example, they may want to provide guidance on what is likely—this was a question the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked—to be considered a significant economic, social or environmental issue in their area. Local authorities can do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked specifically about the size of committees. We consulted initially on setting the cap on the size of a planning committee at 11 members. Having listened to feedback, we have now raised the limit to 13 members, recognising that some councils may be represented by members from multiple political parties. Where that is the case, we want to ensure that committees can accommodate this. However, that is a maximum and we continue to encourage councils to have a smaller number where appropriate. We have seen examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates that do not get anywhere, where decisions get delayed and, in some cases, are not taken at all. The intention behind introducing a cap is to allow for a more focused debate, which I believe will result in quicker and more robust decisions.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, all raised the issue of call-in powers. I understand the concerns about that but, under Schedule 2, local planning authorities can make their own rules on how they triage these applications. This could include, if they deemed it appropriate, a route for ward members to refer Schedule 2 applications to the gateway test. But ultimately, they can be taken to committee only if they pass the gateway test.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to my right honourable friend the Member for Makerfield, who is indeed a great champion of devolution. I look forward to working with him on that. He is also a great champion of growth and housing, and the infrastructure that supports them. I am sure that in his role in Manchester, he will have felt as frustrated as I did, as a council leader, with unnecessary delays in the planning system, so I am sure he will be working to ensure that we can make our planning system more efficient and speedier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me how much difference these changes will make to the delivery of housing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this as well. Streamlining the planning committee process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications under Schedule 1. It will therefore speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up that important officer time to focus on larger applications, which will have a real impact on our goal to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but does the Minister accept that, often, delays in planning applications are caused by the developer when they do not provide all the evidence they are required to provide, say on highways? I will give her an example. There was an application where I live for 300 homes on an allocated site, so that was acceptable, but the highways submission referred to a site that the developer was undertaking 50 miles away. It referenced roads and supermarkets that did not exist, so the delay was caused by the developer. That is not unusual in my experience, so when are the Government going to tackle the delays caused by developers’ inadequate applications?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I suggest to the noble Baroness that freeing up some of the time of our experienced planners will give them the opportunity to go back to developers and challenge information like that when it is not adequate. The fact that there can be dialogue between the planning officers and the developers will definitely speed the process up.

In conclusion, I remind noble Lords what the regulations are seeking to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision-making, so that the housing and growth which local communities want and need can be delivered more quickly.

Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.

However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?

Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.

I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.

None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.

I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.

The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.

Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.

To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?

I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.

I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?

I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.

On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.

My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.

I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.

My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?

My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?

The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.

Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.

Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.

At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.

We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, methinks the previous speakers on the Conservative Benches do protest too much. First, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it was the Conservative Government, I believe, who introduced the supplementary vote in the first place. So that puts that argument to one side. Secondly, his argument was that first past the post gives us good, clear results. Well, it may do, but on very much of a minority of the electorate. We share this wonderful system with just one country in the world: Belarus. Maybe that is not the sort of companion we would really prefer. I certainly would rather have a system that reflects people’s voting preferences than something that is, as the noble Lord said, easy to count.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, pointed out, the timing of this statutory instrument is interesting, and very helpful to the Government. There is a by-election on Thursday, which may result in a vacancy for the Mayor of Greater Manchester. So here we are with an SI. The voting system for the combined authority mayors was, as I said just now, initially by the supplementary vote. That was abandoned by the Conservative Government, in 2022, I think, in favour of the first past the post model.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said that Governments do this cynically: they choose a voting system saying, “This will be better and reflect the needs of the electorate more”, while looking over their shoulders at how the voters are actually going to choose who they vote for. I suggest to him that maybe that is what happened in 2022. The outcome was not what the Conservative Government hoped for, because in the mayoral elections that followed that change last year, the average turnout was 30%. Two of those mayors who were elected got less than 30% of that 30%—in other words, with less than 10% of the electorate supporting them. I do maths; I am right.

That illustrates the degree of voter apathy about whichever system is used. At least with the supplementary vote there is a bit of a better reflection of voter preferences. But the system is by no means perfect in matching what voters want. It is at best a halfway house towards true electoral fairness, because voters are restricted, as we have heard, to two preferences—column A and column B.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who said that voters get confused by different voting systems. I am going to ask him to go to Scotland to enjoy its voting system. Local government is elected by single transferable vote. Votes for the Scottish Parliament are by two systems, one for regional and one first past the post—the regional is to make it more proportional. The third, of course, is first past the post for the Westminster election. The people of Scotland have no trouble with that, and the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland have no trouble with STV, so I am not sure why the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, thinks people in England will be confused.

The argument against SV is that you limit voters’ preferences to just two. If you do not like what is on offer, and if your second choice is not of one of the top two candidates, you have no say because your vote is just discarded. In that sense, those voters are left out completely.

I have a question for the Minister. I had assumed that the supplementary vote would be counted and if there was no majority on the first count the top two would be taken forward to second preferences and all other candidates would be eliminated. However, I could not find that in the SI. It refers to

“the candidates remaining in the contest”

without identifying that that will be, as I assume, the top two. Perhaps the Minister can help me understand what is meant and why it is worded rather vaguely.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, does not like the alternative vote. Actually, neither do I, because although it is more proportional than either first past the post or supplementary vote, it is not the best system to reflect what people want, but it would be a bit better than using either first past the post or SV.

We support the order reluctantly because it moves us a bit further forward and gets rid of first past the post for at least one election. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who suggested that we are now in a multi-party situation. In elections, there are going to be candidates from at least five parties. In the recent local elections where I live, in several wards there were seven candidates. In those instances, people could be elected on 20% or less of the vote. That makes it more of a lottery than it ought to be. It does not reflect what voters really want and is not good for democracy—the Government Whip is giving me the eye just because I have gone 13 seconds over the time.

Democracy depends on the electorate trusting and having faith in the system. If we do not have trust and faith in the system, that is when democracy is in peril. A big change to the electoral system would be good, but I will go with this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, this instrument does not cover London, and there is no price to put on democracy. We should always be aiming for democracy first. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I will do my best to find out if there is any financial impact of this instrument.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked me about the sector being able to cope with the late change. SV has been used in the past extensively and recently and will be deeply familiar to returning officers and their teams. My department has been working closely with the sector as it prepares for the changes arising from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, and we will continue to support it in managing any changes once this instrument is made. As I said, we consulted with the Electoral Commission, which did not have any concerns about this, so we are confident that the change is straightforward and the sector will have no issues in implementing it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for very different reasons, I think—asked how the public will be informed of these changes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, had some concerns in that area too. Electors will receive information on the voting system used via a number of methods, including guidance on postal voting statements and in polling stations that they will read prior to voting. More importantly, where there are three or more candidates at an election, the ballot paper itself will be clear that electors have the option to select a second preference. I am confident that electors will be informed of the change and understand their options when casting their vote, especially given that this is a voting system that has been used extensively in the past and will be well understood, and indeed familiar, to many voters. Greater Manchester used SV for almost all its elections, with the exception of one in 2024, reflecting its status as an established voting system.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—again, I expect, for very different reasons —asked me why we were using SV, not a different system. The Government have no plans at present to introduce the single transferable vote to mayoral and PCC elections. The Government acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, and we take the view that SV is the right system to use for selecting single-person executive positions. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, and that ensures that they have broad support across the area and a broader mandate from the people they are representing. A key advantage of the SV system over other preferential voting systems is that, as I said, it was widely used before for mayors and PCCs, so people are familiar with it.

The other question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was about how the supplementary vote is counted. With a supplementary vote, if no candidate gets over 50% of the vote, the top two candidates continue to a run-off and all other candidates are eliminated. When casting their ballot, voters can put a second choice of who they would vote for in a run-off on the original ballot paper. If your favourite candidate gets through then your vote is counted for them in the run-off, but if they did not and your second choice did, then your vote goes to them. The run-off candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but that is not the question I asked. The order does not say “the top two”; it just says “the candidates remaining” without defining what that should mean. I assumed, as has the Minister, that that means the top two, but I could not find that in the order. Perhaps she could write to me.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that point.

In conclusion, the instrument is necessary to allow the SV system to be implemented for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections. This was a commitment made in primary legislation, and it will ensure that those elected to these positions have a broad base of support from their electorates, which we believe is of particular importance for these single-person executive offices. I hope the House will welcome these regulations, and I beg to move.

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give my noble friend an answer to the specific question he asks, but the storage of water when it is available is critical. It was shocking to realise that we had not built a reservoir in the country for 30 years; we are now planning new reservoirs to store water. Also, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act we talked about on-farm storage, for example; it is perfectly possible for farmers to develop storage on their own land so that they can keep water when it is plentiful for the times when it is not.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, to continue from the previous question, large underground attenuation tanks are often used in residential developments as their answer to sustainable drainage. Can the Minister tell us what consideration has been given for the water that is stored in these tanks to be used as grey water for local people to use during times of drought?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that my colleagues in Defra are giving a great deal of thought to the provision of water—both clean water and water for other purposes—and they have established the Water Delivery Taskforce to make sure that water companies deliver on their planned investments to provide water and wastewater capacity. The Government have worked hard to secure £104 billion of private sector investment into the water sector over the next five years so that we can upgrade ageing pipes, sewage treatment works and so on, and in partnership with water companies, investors and communities we will introduce a new water reform Bill to modernise the entire system. The issues that the noble Baroness raises are really important. We need to be using all the water that we have access to, particularly in dry areas of the country—I live in the east of England, one of the driest areas in our country—and we need to make sure that we are making the best use of any rainfall we have. The Government are working closely with the industry to make sure we do just that.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, my Lords, that has started the debate on this important Bill in a rather polarised way. I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who used some of the rhetoric of pointing fingers of blame at minorities, when we should be talking about people in need of decent housing. I hope that we can do the reverse and think about people who need social housing rather than who they might be.

I have both a practical and a direct interest in this Bill, as a councillor serving on Kirklees council, dare I say? I concur with much of what the Minister said in her introduction to this Second Reading; I too spent all my childhood benefiting from the dignity, stability and quality of a council home.

Liberal Democrats largely welcome this Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. That is not to give it a complete stamp of approval but rather to acknowledge that fundamental reform of the provision of housing—at social rents, I emphasise—is long overdue. The provision of good-quality housing at a rent that is affordable—not affordable rents—is a basic human right that has been sorely neglected over the past 40 years. There is a direct link between quality of housing, educational outcomes and long-term health needs. It is in the interests of society as well as of individual families to provide good-quality housing that is available at a cost that everyone can afford.

The Liberal Democrats’ solution is the building of 150,000 homes for social rent every year to meet the needs of the 1.34 million households in England on local housing registers. That is likely to equate to over 4 million adults and children hoping and wishing to be allocated a property at a social rent.

The Government’s estimate is that, for larger family homes of four bedrooms, the wait to be rehoused can be as much as 18 years and that 28% of new lets are for families who are statutorily homeless. In my council, there are 19,000 households on the housing register and the number of new lets each year is around 1,700. Some 2.4 million council houses have been sold under right to buy. In Kirklees, there were 46,000 council houses in 1980; now, there are fewer than 22,000, with 19,000 households on the housing register. That alone puts into stark relief the acute problem of social housing provision. The fundamental failure of right to buy was that it was never accompanied by a right to build using the income from sales. The result is the scandalous lack of genuinely affordable housing for so many families.

The Bill begins to address the lack of supply of social housing. First, it introduces a 35-year exemption for new builds, which provides certainty that a council investing in building new homes is financially sustainable, as the capital borrowed to build can be paid back from rental income over that period. Increasing the qualifying period for the right to buy to 10 years will further protect the much-reduced stock that remains. Those are positive changes in our view, but what the Bill fails to do is substantially increase the supply of social housing.

The Government will point to the £39 billion allocated for the construction of houses in the social rent and mixed tenure sector. However, the aim is for just 180,000 new homes for social rent in a decade, when the need is so great. Measured against the scale of the challenge, that is a paltry response. Increasing the supply of housing at social rents benefits families who are in receipt of housing benefit. Their low income can then be spent on essentials for their family. The lack of social housing has resulted in many families entering the private rented sector, where rents are not equivalent to housing benefit. For example, in my own town a two-bedroom back-to-back house for rent in a Victorian terrace will cost around £750 a month—I know noble Lords who live in London think that that is peanuts, but where I live it is a lot of money—whereas the local housing allowance for claimants for a two-bed property is under £650 a month. There is a gap of £100 a month for a family claiming benefits, which makes a huge impact on their being able to afford basics.

There is also an impact on the cost to government, which the Minister pointed to. This year, spending on support for housing will reach £37 billion. The provision of housing at a social rent would reduce that revenue demand on government. It makes good sense to invest in more provision of social housing.

The other good thing in the Bill is the indefinite right of first refusal to purchase a former council house, in Clause 6, which provides a new route to increasing the supply of social housing. An additional benefit of this clause will be to provide greater stability in some council housing estates where private landlords have taken over houses that were formerly for social rent, having been bought under the right to buy and then sold on to private landlords. Often, these private landlords are distant—with some living in South Africa, in my experience—and in these situations do not provide the same support and management as that provided by council housing providers and registered social landlords.

There are other important changes in the Bill—for instance, on responding to domestic violence, as well as the proposal to streamline housing consents. There is therefore much to support. However, the gaping hole in the Bill is a more ambitious plan to meet the need for genuinely affordable housing at a social rent—not affordable housing, which is very different and often not affordable. Doing so would transform the immediate lives and future prospects of so many of our fellow citizens. Against the magnitude of the need, the Bill provides important first steps but falls mightily short of the real challenge, which is a greater supply of social housing.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but, as we embark on the Back-Bench speeches, I invite noble Lords to note the advisory speaking time of seven minutes. If we can stick to that, all speakers will get a fair crack of the whip, especially the later ones, and we can achieve a reasonable finish time. I would be grateful for your Lordships’ co-operation.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving debate; in particular, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who shared his practical experience at some personal cost, I think. The noble Lord has helped us all to understand the context in which we debate this Bill today; I thank him.

Every Member who has spoken fully supports the proposal in the Bill to fund the memorial to the 72 lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy—or scandal, as I sometimes call it—and we on these Benches associate ourselves absolutely with those sentiments. The very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, brings home again the depth of feeling—both positive and that of distrust—that has developed within the community affected by the fire, and how we all have a huge responsibility to do what many Members have said: ensure that there is action as a consequence. The memorial is very important, and I will speak a little bit about that, but part of the memorial has to be how we put right the wrongs that the community has suffered. That will be the lasting legacy, the lasting memorial, as well as the physical one that the Bill will enable.

Remembering Grenfell is a very powerful read. It captures the emotions, memories and reflections of those who survived, and it is their contributions that must be faithfully followed. The memorial is primarily for the families and community affected by that terrible night, but it is my hope that it will also stand as a lesson to our generation, and future generations, of the dreadful consequences of disregarding people.

All the evidence from the tragedy indicates that the views of those who lived in Grenfell Tower were dismissed by those in authority simply because the people who lived there were often poorer economically and from many different cultures and backgrounds. Those differences were sufficient for neglectful as well as criminal decisions to be taken. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said—rightly, I fully support what he said—corporate failures of this scale, which end in loss of life or harm to individuals, have to be addressed. The route is through legislation, and that is what we do.

I hope that the Minister has listened carefully— I am sure she has, because she always does—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and takes that back to the department. What he talked about will not be easy, but it may be one of the ways in which we remember and act upon what happened that dreadful night.

Members across the House have reflected on what should be done. A memorial is very important, as is using the site of the tower, because it is where 72 people’s lives ended. That is what this Bill is about. But surely, as I think all Members have said, it should also be about what lessons we learned and how we can act on those lessons.

One of them has to be that listening carefully to people affected, whoever they are, is vitally important. We often talk in legislation about consultation—and I am beginning to hate that word. Consultation has to be a two-way process; it has to be about asking for views and listening to those views, and then acting together on them, otherwise there is no point at all.

Another lesson has to be that those in authority, including us, must be constantly mindful that cutting corners can cut lives. That is what happened—bodge jobs covered up cost lives. Some people call regulations red tape because they want to dismiss them; they want to say, “We can cut red tape”. We had regulations in place for the building and construction industries when the Grenfell Tower fire occurred, but those regulations were not enforced. Nobody likes all the regulations—they regard them as constraining what they can do—but regulations are there for a purpose. If the regulations had been properly followed at Grenfell, lives would not have been lost. Whenever anybody talks about cutting red tape, let us remember Grenfell.

Another lesson is that perverting regulatory requirements to improve profit margins must never be acceptable in any circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has reminded us of the deliberate acts of perverting regulatory requirements that caused Grenfell.

All institutions provided for the public benefit have hard lessons to learn, which I hope can be reflected in any exhibition element of the memorial. The individuals of the London Fire Brigade were heroic in their efforts, but the institution had not learned from previous incidents. The local authority had demonstrably failed the community it purported to serve. Have fundamental changes been made to the culture and purpose of the local authority and council? The latest reports indicate that that is yet to happen.

Criminal charges must follow what has occurred; if they do not then there is never to be justice for the 72, their families and that community, and the rest of us who are looking for justice. If we do not put that right, it will happen again. I hope that elements of the memorial will include those lessons and how we must not forget them.

Even now, nine years on, 15 buildings more than 18 metres high have not had the work done. Those are the ones most at risk. The department reckons that, of more than 4,000 buildings of 11 metres or more, only 1,500 have been fully remediated. There is work to be done and it should be done. It has been nearly nine years and the people paying the price are those who live in those properties. If they are leaseholders, they are paying sky-high insurance and inflated service charges. But the people and organisations that caused the tragedy are yet to pay, and that has to follow.

There is much to remember and to learn from the appalling and dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Above all, the memorial must form a fitting remembrance to those who perished.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

195: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to review parish and town councils(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils in England to assess their number, functions, and effectiveness in local governance.(2) In carrying out that duty, the Secretary of State must, in particular, take steps to ensure maximal geographical coverage of parish and town councils as a form of local democratic representation. (3) The Secretary of State must, annually, lay a report before each House of Parliament on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), including any action taken or proposed to achieve the purpose in subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review parish and town councils and take steps to maximise their geographical coverage, with an annual report to Parliament.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments neatly follows the previous group as it concerns further empowerment to be strengthened for the most local tier of our democracy. Amendment 195 in my name would ensure that Governments had a responsibility to maximise geographical coverage of town and parish councils, and would require an annual report to Parliament on the progress made in expanding that democratic footprint.

The creation of large unitary authorities by the Government, as we have just heard, resulted in making local government more remote and, crucially, more focused on the narrow remit of being the service delivery arm of national government—for instance, the delivery of adult and children’s social care, which constitutes three-quarters of a budget of a unitary council. The focus on key service delivery is at the expense of understanding the differences within large council areas and the attention to very local detail that only a parish or town council can provide.

My own experience as a councillor in a metropolitan authority that serves 450,000 people supports that view, hence the importance of encouraging and supporting the creation of an effective local voice for a village, a small town or even a suburb of a large town. A failure to do so will result in people being disfranchised and more remote from decision-making at a large local level. They will feel that their voice does not count, and that is a danger for our democratic institutions.

Those of us who care about local democracy care that people’s voices are heard. Amendment 196 follows that, because it would create a statutory duty to consult. Where parish and town councils have been created or exist, under this amendment the local authorities would have to consult relevant town or parish councils on matters that directly affect them, such as planning applications, parks and open spaces and other very local services and amenities.

Amendment 196 says that a local authority must—I stress the word “must”—have regard to the representations from those councils before a final decision is reached. Consultation has become rather a dirty word in local areas. Anybody who is a councillor, as I am, will know that consultation is regarded as a way in which a tick can be put against the box indicating that local people have had a say, and then it is disregarded. This amendment would make it statutory. People would have to listen and take note of representations.

In supporting these amendments we would ensure that the promise of community empowerment in the Bill is a reality. So I look forward to the Minister’s response, so that we can give our smallest democratic units the standing they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 216 and 318 in this group, which relate to parish and town councils. Amendment 216 makes provision for unparished electors in the unsatisfactory neighbourhood governance arrangements contemplated by Clause 60 to petition to incorporate into properly constituted and sovereign precept-raising parish councils. Separately, my Amendment 318 applies to the largest town councils, most of which have been wholly or in part district billing authorities before, but which henceforth will be unconstrained in their ability to raise council tax.

I turn first to Amendment 216. In Committee the penny dropped for the first time that those parts of England that were former county boroughs—20% of the land mass, so much greater by population—such as Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Great Yarmouth, or new towns like Stevenage, which is home to the Minister, would be for the most part unparished, and thus second-class citizens in the new arrangements. That is recognised by Amendment 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Shipley, which I endorse entirely. I have no problem with it. But I think we need to go further and move beyond the simple promotion of parish councils to the right for unparished areas to become parishes if the measures in Clause 60 are found to be unsatisfactory.

The Government tell us that community or neighbourhood governance will be provided by councillors from the parent unitary authority in unparished areas. Those of us who have been around for a while have heard that duck quack before. We know that these structures are just talking shops, with no resources, capacity or status. This is what we discovered in Committee. People literally from out of town will try to sweep up the crumbs left over, once social care has feasted on the precept, to find what money is left to sweep the pavements, cut the grass, breathe life into the theatre and heat the swimming baths. But with social care consuming two-thirds of the precept, what resources will those toothless talking shops have? These are the things that the larger parishes do, with the consent of their parishioners to raise a precept.

I make no apologies for talking about Norfolk. There are 900 parishes there, and some 10,000 nationally. But when Labour gets its way, 20% of England will be disfranchised and have no parish at all—no money or say, for the most part, in how England is run. That includes the whole of Ipswich, for example, or Oxford. The so-called strategic authorities and the mayor are not going to be interested in the carnival floats, the local antique street market, the food festival or those local culture groups that town and parish councils spawn. The civic life of town mayors will evaporate altogether, with their soft convening and ribbon-cutting powers. No, they will go the way of the local pub, the park café and the high streets, in the vandalisation of high-street Britain.

Do not talk to us about Pride in Place when they disband that whole panoply of civic life, with the sheriff and the burgesses, that illuminates our nation’s story. No, under the dismal and undemocratic Clause 60, the unitary and its councillors will hold all the cards—the budget, the representation and the staff—to hold everyone else over a barrel, because there is no parish council. Of course, they will have no incentive to cede powers either, and all the incentive, on the other hand, to hoard powers and pet projects.

My amendment offers hope to these places: to reject the way in which the Bill creates sock-puppet sinecures for out-of-town councillors from miles away. Where an appointed community council is established, those residents can petition to incorporate—creating the empowerment that the Bill purports to foster and encourage—to create a town or parish council with proper elections, a proper budget and a precept that local people can vote on and endorse, so as not to rely on cast-offs after the social care monster, LGR costs, the recast debts and pension fund liabilities have eaten the rest. I want to help people make their part of England better: more local, more responsive and more accountable. My amendments give hope for democracy for these places, including the cathedral cities, coastal communities and new towns—places such as Stevenage and, for the other part, Gorleston, from where I take my territorial designation, within the historic county borough of Great Yarmouth.

I will listen closely to the rest of the debate and may signal my intention to divide the House on this. The requirement and the ability for local people to force incorporation of their neighbourhood arrangements is important.

Moving on to council tax for our largest town councils, I will be brief. Many of the former principal authorities and districts may become parishes under the new arrangements—or perhaps not, if my Amendment 216 is carried. By charging council tax where they have been districts, they have been able to benefit from formula grant, redistributed business rates and whatever the local government finance system has delivered. But there is a real risk that the parishes will be suckered into taking many of the expensive cast-offs from the home authority in a deliberate cost-shunt. Parks, playgrounds, theatres, moorings, cemeteries and all manner of public buildings will be flipped on to these parishes. They will need to find space in their precept to pay for them, but they will be on their own because they will have no central support and will be living hand to mouth.

My noble friend Lady Scott hates me using this example, but the facts speak for themselves. Council tax under Salisbury City Council is up 44% in just four years and its band D is £383. In my own district, South Norfolk, where I am a councillor, we collect the bins, clean the streets, house the homeless and have built a new generation of housing for just 180 quid—less than half of the parish. The problem with the Bill is that it lumps tiny little Howe, a hamlet of 50 souls in my own ward, in with the village of Hempnall, where next week we will welcome a new vicar, the Reverend Austin Uzoigwe—gosh, I should have practised this—and which has perhaps 1,000 people, together with Horsham, a district of 146,000. In law, all places of 50 to 150,000 will be equivalent. That is crazy, because there is no equivalence between Howe and Horsham, but the people of Horsham need to be spared what has been visited on the residents of Salisbury.

My amendment would create a new sub-class of third-tier authority where there is a population of 50,000 or where the precept exceeds £1 million, so that they fall under the same budgetary constraints as the larger principal authorities. I do not want your Lordships to think that this is anti-town or anti-parish. In fact, it is quite the reverse. The wholesale reconditioning of local government is already going to cost a bomb and create those perverse incentives to pass off the expensive stuff to the parishes. My amendments would strengthen parishes’ hand in the negotiations, as part of LGR, so that they will be able to push back and say no. If they think they cannot afford these gift horses, having looked them in the mouth, they would not have to take them on.

I am seeking to strengthen local democracy and accountability by putting the largest parishes on a proper financial footing, so that they can do the work they do at a price residents can afford. This is not a dig at parishes; they do a lot of valuable work at the level closest to the people. With this amendment, I have their back, as it would stop those councils with the broadest shoulders imposing liabilities and cast-offs on those with the most limited means.

--- Later in debate ---

For all the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments in this group. I ask noble Lords not to press them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am pleased that we have had this debate on this group of amendments about parish and town councils, but I am very disappointed in her response. She cited the community governance review as an example of how more parish or town councils can be created, but this depends on the local authority wanting town and parish councils to be created. If—as in my own council, currently doing a community governance review—they do it in a lowest possible key, then, guess what, there is not much of a response. This is why it is important that the national Government take responsibility for all our local democracy by encouraging it rather than doing it diminuendo. Town and parish councils are important, and they become more important as large unitaries are created.

We will not be dividing on Amendment 195 or Amendment 196. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, there is agreement in principle between us that this layer of very local councils is important. The noble Baroness has indicated that she is likely to divide the House on Amendment 214, and if she does, we on these Benches will support her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

247: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority acquisition of dormant assets(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 16 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A (inserted by Schedule 29 of this Act) for five years continuously,(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 16 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, earlier we discussed the words “community empowerment” in the title of the Bill. We have not had sufficient discussion about what that will mean and how it will be included in the Bill and made a reality for communities. The word “empowerment” in the Bill is without meaning if communities are left powerless to save the very assets they value the most.

Amendment 247, in my name, addresses the critical issue of dormant assets of community value. That could be, for example, a local village pub that is no longer in use, or a village shop or community centre that is listed by the local authority as an asset of community value. That means that the local community has already made the effort to gather the necessary names to support making that building, that particular asset, one of community value. A dormant asset of community value, to which this amendment refers, arises when a fair offer is made on a professionally determined value price, but the owner rejects it and proceeds to let the building sit empty and decaying, and therefore dormant, for years, refusing to sell to the community or anybody else.

This amendment seeks to provide a necessary backstop for those situations. It would empower a local authority to use compulsory acquisition powers to purchase land or a building that has been, in effect, abandoned by its owner to the detriment of the public. That would not happen immediately, as the amendment sets out stringent qualifying conditions to ensure it is used only as a last resort. The land has to have been on the list of assets of community value for five continuous years. A notice of disposal must have been issued, with the owner having rejected a fair market offer. The owner must have failed to sell the land to any other buyer during that sale period.

When those conditions are met, the land is, by any reasonable definition, dormant. It is serving no economic purpose, providing no social value and is often becoming a physical eyesore that holds back local regeneration. By allowing local authorities to step in under these specific circumstances, the amendment would ensure that the right to buy is more than just a right to wait in vain. The amendment would give communities a path to reclaim and revitalise the spaces that define them—the pride in place that we have heard about throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope the Minister will welcome the amendment and ensure that community empowerment becomes a tangible reality for those seeking to protect their local heritage, their pride in place and their future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 251, 263ZA and 263ZB in this group. I start by giving my general support to Amendment 247, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, just set out. Councils already have quite a lot of compulsory purchase powers, but in my experience they are very reluctant to use them, so I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from.

On Amendment 251, it may seem like Groundhog Day. I am grateful to noble Lords who voted for this in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. At the time, there was a concession from the Planning Minister in the Commons who said that they would look to consult on this. I reminded the Minister then that I would bring the amendment back if necessary, because we had not heard anything about what was going on with this. The issue, as addressed in Amendment 251, is that, at the moment, only a handful of asset types are protected from demolition. In my experience as an MP in a local community, when owners of places with an asset of community value designation decided to demolish them rather than allow anything further to happen, I felt that was unjustifiable.

I hope the Minister will say something somewhat more encouraging than what she said in Committee, when we were told that apparently the consultation would happen “in due course”. For those of us who have served in government, we know that that is basically speak for “never”. That is not encouraging. That is why I want to hear what the Minister has to say today in response to whether any further consideration has been given of when there might be a timely consultation and, ideally, legislation. On that, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House subject to the answer of the Minister.

Amendment 263ZA may seem familiar. It was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I had tabled something similar, but it was not as good an amendment as that tabled by the noble Lord. Currently, the greater protection given to sporting assets of community value is, in effect, available only to sports grounds that have spectator accommodation. It has been designed for non-league and league football clubs where, as we have seen in the past, things suddenly have gone wrong after the owner has gone bankrupt or similar. I felt, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this should go further, and take the approach of considering for protection community and playing fields. Such protection is available today in the same way, but not with the same proactivity from the local authority as is currently required under what is proposed for sporting assets of community value.

In Amendment 263ZB, I decided that this is important enough to go further again. We already know that the role of Sport England as a statutory consultee is under threat. It is an expressed view of the Government that they wish to no longer have Sport England be a consultee when it comes to planning applications covering existing playing fields. That went out to consultation, but that was the preferred view of the Government. Amendments 263ZB and 263ZA would, in effect, marry, and bring Sport England back into an important role to help local authorities consider and designate particular areas as sporting assets of community value.

The Government have been surprised at how communities right across the country have, and rightly so, stood up and supported Sport England in its response to the consultation. I am conscious that there are relevant aspects in the NPPF, but the reason I am seeking to put this here is to make sure that we continue to have, for the playing fields and sports grounds that we have today, the statutory role of Sport England recognised in legislation. That could be done in a proactive way.

I am interested to hear further from the Minister about why “sporting ground” has been so narrowly defined, even at this stage on Report, because we have not covered that, and where she considers the role of Sport England to be in making sure that we have playing fields for generations to come. That is why I will press my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot really add anything to what I have said already. The valuation process would take all matters into account. It will be for both parties to make representations from their perspective about what they consider to be the market value, and the independent valuer will make the judgment between the two of them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had nearly an hour of debate on this very important group of amendments, which is at the heart of the community empowerment part of the Bill. The various issues that have been raised—cultural issues, playing fields, community buildings, assets of environmental value, assets of social value—encapsulate what communities believe to be the value of the place where they live: their pride in place, which they hope the Government will endorse and support.

I welcome the two government amendments in this group that enhance the assets of community value, but there is still much more to do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. My friend and colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson, has written and urged me to speak on this in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It is a good example of what can go wrong and how communities can lose what they value most. When we come to the next group, that will be reiterated.

Although we have had a good debate, we are not making any progress with the Minister. I will read her detailed answer in Hansard and maybe follow up some points at the next stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have had three—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I say something before the Front Benches? I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Banner and the noble Lords, Lord Grabiner and Lord Pannick, but I support Amendment 248 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner. We heard in the debate that this has all come at the last minute but, by my reckoning, this is the fourth time I have sat through this debate. If I were to go back in Hansard, it might actually be the sixth, as I have not looked at whether it was mentioned at the Second Reading of both the Planning and Infrastructure Act and the Bill before us.

I have listened very carefully. The Supreme Court, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, has told us to sort it out. There clearly have to be safeguards and we have quite a shopping list of those in this amendment. In the age of social media, there is no chance of pulling the wool over people’s eyes or trying to hide an advert in small print at the bottom of page 78 of the local newspaper.

The wider issue is that we cannot orphan land or blight places in perpetuity. It would be perverse to do that just for want of being able to find an advert in a 100 year-old copy of a newspaper, in a publication that does not exist anymore. That is the prejudice before us. Sometimes you have to look forward and offer a remedy—which is not only in the public interest but in the interest of natural justice too.

This is not just about Wimbledon—that has been sorted—but we have heard in this debate that the shadow exists elsewhere. The matter is not resolved and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, told us to get it sorted. If we do not, nobody can. It seems to me that the proposals before us are fair, transparent and have a very strong public interest test. Now is the time and opportunity—a chance for certainty on all sides, including the protagonists in this issue. Now is the moment.

We have heard so much about how difficult it is to get stuff done in this country. We have a Government in a hurry and sites that are stalled, with people hanging about and waiting. Now is the time to stop the procrastination. Let us get on with it and make a decision. Let us pick up the baton laid in front of us by the Supreme Court and get behind Amendment 248. It is time that we got it done.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I shall start again. We have an amendment signed by three noble Lords who have, in their usual lawyerly way, made a powerful case for one side of the argument. Here I am, however, to speak up for the community in a debate on a Bill labelled in part the “community empowerment” Bill. I have two fundamental issues of concern with this amendment. The first is an issue of parliamentary process and the second a matter of principle.

As to the first—the issue of parliamentary process—one of the difficulties I have with this amendment is that it has not been, and if it is passed this evening, will never be, put before the elected Chamber of Parliament. The amendment has been introduced on Report in this House, and we are the second House to consider this Bill—

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

With great respect, I suggest to the noble Baroness that that cannot be right. If we approve this amendment today, the Bill goes back to the other place, and it is a matter for the Commons whether they agree with us or not. If they do not agree, they will say so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

They are likely not to have the power to agree to have a debate on the amendment as an entity. Considering that the Government are supporting this amendment, it is likely to be included within the Bill as a whole. The amendment as an entity will not be debated by the other place. That, it seems to me, is of huge regret, when it has very serious and extensive repercussions for public open space throughout the country. That is something that we should be very much concerned with, as we think about whether or not this amendment should be passed.

The second bit of the process that concerns me is that it is being introduced as a remedy for an issue with which all of us should be concerned—namely, that there is a problem with no obvious route to put it right, except the one that is being proposed. But it is being done not as a specific remedy for a specific case, but as a general proposal for any such issue without knowing what the implications of that will be. It is unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others have not referenced any specific cases, apart from the well-known Wimbledon Park case and the Day v Shropshire case. Apart from those, it is not known what the consequence of this amendment will be if it is passed. What of other areas of public land held in statutory trust by local authorities for the people they represent in their local area? It is not clear; we do not know. The evidence is not there. That is the problem. That is why, I presume, the Minister made the pledge in earlier stages of the discussion on this issue to do a review. Unfortunately, we await the review, which should have come before any such wide-ranging amendment is put into law.

The second fundamental issue is that of the principle of the amendment. What we are being asked to agree to concerns what is believed to be held in statutory trust by a local authority. The word “trust” is really important at a time when the public are losing trust in how those of us who are elected—or, in the case of this House, not elected—make decisions on their behalf.

If it is set aside and held by the local authority in public trust for the benefit of local people, we need a remedy for the failure of that local bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Banner, that this is what we must do. However, it is not acceptable to do that using the same—or extended—process that is being proposed by the amendment, which is to have four weeks of notice in a public newspaper, a local newspaper, the circulation of which is plummeting. If we are to do this effectively, we have to have a different way of notifying local people that somebody wants to breach that trust and have the land for development, so that they can have a voice in opposing or supporting that change in the land that has been held in trust for generations.

In the example of Wimbledon Park, which we ought to reference, it is said the freehold was purchased in 1993 by the All England Club, with an express condition, I am told, that the area would not be developed and the freehold would eventually return to Wimbledon Park. As we have heard, that challenge is subject to the courts. The High Court has made a decision in favour of the All England Club, but it is going to appeal, so it has not yet been resolved, and we wait to see what the arguments are. Certainly, the community that benefits from Wimbledon Park is very unhappy at the situation that has become apparent. While I understand both sides of the argument, at the heart of it is that Wimbledon Park is held in trust, and the local community should have a very powerful voice in deciding its outcome.

I also have huge concerns of principle about the retrospective nature of the amendment. The amendment, which, if accepted, will become law, proposes to go back to 1980—nearly 50 years—so anything where there is a question mark over the land held in trust. It is only a question mark, because often, due to local government reorganisation, who knows what the situation is, when papers have gone astray during transfer from one local authority to another. It is going to be retrospective, and retrospective law is nearly always bad law. So let us not do it. Let us at least remove that element of the amendment.

Finally—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Well, it depends whether noble Lords regard land held in public trust for public benefit as important. If noble Lords do not, then they are probably lucky in having land to enjoy—whereas many people living in the communities represented by those in the other place rely on public open land to provide them with access to green open space, which is why this amendment is so important.

One of the other elements of the proposal in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is that it would give the Secretary of State the final say. As someone who advocates for local democracy, that is the final straw for me. This is a devolution and community empowerment Bill, and the last thing we should do is take power from the community and local democracy and give it to the Secretary of State—that will not do. Amendment 249, in my name, would restore the balance by ensuring that the Secretary of State cannot make a decision on a statutory trust without the express written consent of the local authority, and by confirming that the termination of the trust is in the public interest following full and wholesome public consultation.