English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is talking about localism and the importance of things being done with communities, not to them. I was a Cherwell district councillor when we were involved in joint working with South Northamptonshire. I remember clearly that the leaders of South Northants district council were distinctly unimpressed by the level of consent that they were given when the Conservative Government told them that Northamptonshire county council, which the Conservatives bankrupted, was being disbanded and that joint unitary authorities were to be created in Northamptonshire. Was he so exercised about local consent at that point?

[David Simmonds]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. I have spent a good deal of my time in local government. One of the key issues that we learned from the process, and one of the reasons why former Secretary of State Eric Pickles said that he had a pearl-handled revolver in his desk—for anyone who came to him to suggest forcing local government reorganisation on England—was the need to get things right with local consent.

There are times, which I think we can all see in the local government landscape at the moment, when, because of geography or failure of leadership, we know it is necessary for Government to intervene, and Governments of all parties have done so. Northamptonshire was an example of such a place. Individual local authorities within it had not failed, but there had been a collective failure of the public service in that area. The Government therefore felt compelled to intervene to remedy that, as opposed to imposing an alternative vision for how they thought the local area should be governed.

New clause 23 stands in my name. It seeks to enshrine in the legislation the principle of consent. We have the very opposite of what we have been told as a Committee, that this is all locally led. Clearly, the Government are already using the levers in their power to compel local authorities down a certain route. Under the force of such compulsion, local authorities feel that that is what they have to do, because it is the only way to address some of their reasonable and justifiable concerns. The timetable, the process and all those things come at the same time as a wholesale reorganisation of planning and infrastructure, which is stripping away the local powers and voices that are so critical to ensuring that the infrastructure and new housing that we all want are delivered.

The view of the Opposition, therefore, is that we need to enshrine in this legislation not powers for Whitehall but powers for people—powers for people to shape through their local leaders the community structures of service that deliver for them and the taxes that they pay. People are represented to exercise such powers. Enshrining the consent of local authorities is a small step in that direction.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella]

We have not looked at the costs, but we need to understand that the Bill devolves significant powers, possibly to one person. My local authority is a three-tier one at the moment, and we are very happy with that, but now the district councils will be abolished and possibly the county council, and we will have to be part of a unitary authority and then a strategic authority. It is important that we as MPs are here to stand up for our communities and residents. We need to ensure that anyone who gains more powers comes to them through Parliament.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady and her party seem to be proposing that every single potential devolution should come before this House for scrutiny. That would take up a considerable amount of the time of the House, as well as incur the costs picked up on by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. Is her amendment just about kicking devolution into the long grass, rather than being serious?

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, the amendment is not kicking anything into the long grass. We have to get the Bill—this devolution—right. It is all about accountability, as I said when we were discussing the commissioners. This is a big change. Some of the Committee will already have unitary authorities and I will talk later about devolved Administrations, but for my constituency, that will be new. We need to get it right. Going back to the cost, that will be smaller compared with the cost of what could go wrong.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. New clause 42 would make it a legal duty for mayors to hold regular meetings with local councils in their area; with service providers such as the NHS, police or transport bodies; and with town and parish councils. The power to convene would become a mandatory duty to convene. In particular, parish and town councils are included on the list of bodies that local mayors are required to convene meetings with.

I used to be a parish councillor, so I know the important role that these rural councils play and the many services that they deliver. They also stepped up socially during the covid pandemic, including setting up food-share schemes and referring people to food banks if they lost their job. Town councils are also important. For example, a town council in my constituency has been fostering important community projects. One of the initiatives is working with local businesses to make Alcester a neurodivergent-friendly town—a town for all.

These councils are invaluable partners for combined authorities and mayors in the shires. Engaging with such bodies means that the combined authority and the mayor have direct insight into local issues. Put simply, the new clause would ensure that mayors regularly bring together local authorities and public services to co-ordinate on shared priorities and improve co-operation across the region.

In rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, parish and town councils, as we have already discussed, are the first tier of local government. Mayors should include these important councils as partners and consult them on a range of issues. We must create a regular, structured forum for dialogue between all the key players in local government and public services.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

To clarify, the suggestion in the new clause is that town and parish councils will meet the mayor once every 12 months. My constituency, which has 80 parish councils, would be part of a Thames valley mayoralty—let us call it that—that would have even more constituencies. How many days of not meeting parish councils will there be for the mayor?

[Manuela Perteghella]

These councils need to have a voice at the table of decision makers. The hon. Member has also been a parish councillor, if I remember properly from our last debate, so he knows how important they are as stakeholders in their local communities. There is a way of making this convening duty less cumbersome on the mayor. To be fair, though, if someone stands to be the mayor of 1.2 million people, they have a responsibility towards all of their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

When I was a local councillor, we spent tens of thousands of pounds on a citizens assembly—again, that was to look at climate measures and issues around reducing traffic and air pollution. I believe it is good value.

[Sean Woodcock]

As a Cherwell district councillor I was very keen on promoting citizens assemblies for the purpose of discussing climate change, but that is not the only thing that people might want to gather to talk about. Is the assumption that the subject would be prescribed by the mayor, or would it be okay for a citizens assembly to get together to discuss the death penalty, immigration or whatever? Could the hon. Lady clarify that?

[Siân Berry]

The new clause specifies that an assembly would consider “relevant local matters” and that those are matters that would be agreed between the mayor and the assembly. Any sensible body would want to be considering issues that are soon to be the subject of decisions by the mayor—that would make perfect sense.

I will cite some polling to show that the public do not have much of a problem understanding this concept. When asked by YouGov in 2023, 55% of people said they would trust a citizens assembly to make policy recommendations in their “best interest”. That compares with 14% of people trusting MPs. In May 2024, YouGov asked the public if they would trust a citizens assembly “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to tell them the truth. Fifty-nine per cent said they would, compared with 17% of people who would trust MPs. Hon. Members can see that this is something that the public respond positively to.

Certainly a mayor who is governing a very large area and seeking to win consent for a policy would do well to have put in place a process of consideration by a citizens assembly. I hope that good mayors out there would use the process to engage citizens as part of wider consultation measures, to get comments on their proposals from people directly affected and a representative sample of the local public.

The proposal is supported by Compass, which I worked with in drafting it. In its “From Whitehall to Townhall: What the English Devolution Bill Needs” report published in August, Dr Jess Garland wrote:

“Across the country, councils have used citizens assemblies to understand local priorities on issues from climate to neighbourhood policing. These practices engage a randomly selected and representative group of residents in the decision-making process, learning about the challenges and trade-offs, and coming to decisions collectively. Such measures aim not to replace representative political structures but to support and add credibility to them, helping tackle difficult issues and improve understanding of local priorities, but they have a wider benefit, helping to build the trust and connection that underpins a thriving democracy.”

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Manuela Perteghella]

I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I do not think it was suggested that the mayor could or should not engage; the question is about putting mandatory engagement in the Bill. Does she accept that is very different from what she has just stated?

[Manuela Perteghella]

No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities.

Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it. It is not that the leader of the county has to meet all 200 parish councils individually.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome amendment 359, moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. She outlined a number of issues that she faces in her rural constituency—the land of Shakespeare—where many people retire. I also represent a constituency that Shakespeare regularly visited. He stayed with the Earl of Southampton in the village of Titchfield, where his creative juices flowed.

We are going through exactly the same issues, in that both our areas are diverse in their make-up and population. If I take the proposed mayoral authority that is being created for Hampshire and the Solent, that region consists of two large working-class cities on the south coast, which probably look like old industrial northern working-class cities, in what is otherwise quite an affluent area. As well as those cities of Southampton and Portsmouth, we have many affluent and also deprived coastal communities, and the farming communities in Hampshire.

Without undermining the candidates of all political parties who will be standing—I will talk about Hampshire in this case, because it adequately illustrates the problems of the current legislation—it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because the future mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, like many others, is being asked to represent 2.2 million people, those diverse areas and what the mayor needs to look at in the growth plan need to be codified.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is great to see the coalition back in action. To use the hon. Member’s phrase, does he not agree that any mayor worth their salt would naturally have consideration for remote coastal and rural areas in those growth plans, considering that those are the people they are meant to represent? If they do not, they will find out at the ballot box what people in those areas think about it.

[Paul Holmes]

I have the scars on my back from fighting Liberal Democrats in my political career, but pragmatic policies are being proposed to improve the legislation that—let us face it—could very much be improved. That is the point of the Bill Committee. I in particular have many disagreements with the Liberal Democrats, but the amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon could absolutely improve the legislation.

The hon. Member for Banbury said that a mayor worth their salt should be able to do that anyway, but he just spoke against an amendment that would have enabled a mayor to speak to town and parish councils and do their job better. He cannot have it both ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way many times on all her amendments. I understand the spirit in which she has tabled them—to make sure that parish and town councils are acknowledged for their work—but one of my concerns about this amendment, as with many of her others, is the amount of work that it would put not just on the strategic authority, but potentially on the parish and town councils. They will be given a blitz of things and asked to respond to them, but many will not have the capacity to do so. Does she not accept that that is a potential challenge to this being done properly?

[Manuela Perteghella]

As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

No, not at the moment. I know that anything about town and parish councils exercises the hon. Members for Mid Cheshire and for Banbury. They may want to speak shortly, but I will first answer the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. I do not think he is an analogue politician in a digital age, but consulting downwards could merely mean that an email is sent to a mailing list. I am sure he has a huge mailing list, given the number of constituents who admire his work. That is one click—it does not mean his constituents have to respond to it, and it would not mean that his councils had to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It could also be stipulated in secondary legislation, if the Government wanted to go ahead with this. A council could literally advertise to town and parish councils that a consultation was going on. There could also be a mailing list where a strategic authority could send an email to the 300 parish councils. Those town and parish councils do not have to respond. That is devolution to town and parish councils, which the Government seemingly want to achieve.

[Sean Woodcock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. He has been very generous, as always, with his time. Does he accept that the danger with inserting the consultations that have been proposed in so many Opposition amendments is that the only growth we will see is in the number of officers in the strategic authorities sending out consultations, and the number of people in parish councils responding to them?

[Paul Holmes]

I am sure the hon. Member uses surveys when he communicates with his constituents. When he sends them out, I am sure he is not worried about overburdening his constituents in their lives, whether they want to respond or not. The same principle applies. There are many perfectly good programmes that could be used now to send out a consultation to people who are already programmed into a mailing list. If they want to respond, they can, and if they do not, good on them—that means that they are perfectly happy with what is going on.

I do not understand the constant fear about consulting town and parish councils. That is particularly the case—I say this with all due respect and with realism about the situation out there in the country—given the stated aims of the Government and the situation in local government, where, without a manifesto promise, districts and county councils are being abolished and there is a rush to transfer assets to town and parish councils. They are taking on mainstream responsibilities because of what the Bill will do. Whether we are talking about local growth plans or attracting visitors, many will miss out on having a visitor strategy that is worth the paper it is written on.

We are now discussing several authorities that already have the responsibilities. This legislation was drafted at a point from which we have moved on, and it puts unintended consequences before local authorities. I ask the Minister, in the spirit of constructive debate, to go away and properly look at how town and parish councils can be consulted. They are doing a lot more than the Minister or the Government Back Benchers who have spoken this afternoon realise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. As I have said before, she has the best interests of Stratford-on-Avon at heart. From her experience in local government, she knows the expertise held by district councillors who know the areas they serve.

In my local area, two new unitary authorities are proposed —one that looks eastward and one that looks westward. What happens to the semi-rural areas of my constituency, now having new unitary councils headquartered in Southampton and Portsmouth? Those unique connections that district councils have, which suit their smaller areas, will not be served as well by a larger unitary authority. That view is endorsed by the District Councils’ Network, which suggested in its briefing note that focusing on authority scale and population size during local government reorganisation would not lead to optimal outcomes. It stated:

“it will be tempting to pursue approaches to LGR that make it as easy as possible to implement—focusing only on scale and minimising disruption.”

The Government say they want to deliver growth and get the public finances in good order, but there are no concrete suggestions for how their proposals will save money. Just going bigger and larger, and having one tier across the whole UK, does not necessarily mean that services will be better. As I have said consistently, many district, town and parish councils do not want this to happen. Many Members across the House may say, “That is the vested interest of elected people who are going to be got rid of,” but that is not the case.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will finish this point, and then I will give way, because I am a fan of the hon. Gentleman. Smaller district, town and parish councils know their local areas. This is not an efficient way of delivering reform. We will have councillors on a larger scale who do not take into account the unique structures and environments in which we serve our constituents.

[Sean Woodcock]

It is great to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I refer the hon. Member to a point I made to his colleague in Committee a couple of weeks ago. Ten years ago, the district councils of Northamptonshire were dismantled by his party and forcibly put into unitary authorities. Where was his umbrage then? If district councils are so good, why did his Government not reform them, give them more money and reconstitute them? Clearly, his Government felt there was a reason why they worked better as unitary authorities. So what is the problem?

[Paul Holmes]

There was a unique circumstance there—

[Sean Woodcock]

They were going bankrupt.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is great to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I also wish to speak against this clause and against the Government suddenly pushing through local government reorganisation in this form. Of course, local government reorganisation does happen. Councils can, by consent, currently make such changes. The Government’s imposition of these changes, in a process that seems rushed and top-down to many people across the country, is against the spirit of devolution and against the spirit of the title of the Bill.

I do not believe that the introduction of new strategic authorities demands a quid pro quo of abolishing all remaining two-tier authorities in such a dismaying hurry, and I do not believe that one size fits all. I have served in unitary authorities, and I understand that they can work well. I am not a huge fan of county councils, but nevertheless, it should be up to local areas to do this by consent.

One point that is important to make is that there is no strong case for this change on cost or service delivery grounds. There is no consistent or conclusive evidence to justify a belief that the much larger councils that the Government want will result in services that are cheaper to run. Why even force attempts at savings of this sort now, when local government is still struggling so badly? Research from Unison has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of £4 billion by the financial year of 2026-27, and a cumulative funding gap of £7.4 billion by 2027-28. Let us please fix austerity first.

There are other problems, and I draw on the experience and expertise of the Association of Green Councillors in making these points. With this process, we are likely to see the destructive marginalisation of community identity in many places. There is no serious evidence to back up the choice of target for councils to serve 500,000 people, which Ministers have been asking for in their correspondence to councils. Many people in localities already affected are struggling to see how this will not result in arbitrarily drawn, essentially meaningless sub-county unitary councils with no identifiable sense of place.

Many very substantial towns, with history and a strong identity, often associated with strong values of independence of thought as well as governance, community spirit, welcome, inclusion and mutual support—places that people love—are currently or imminently in danger of being wiped off the local government map. They too are saying we should fix austerity first. The Committee has heard strong evidence of a clear and dramatic reduction in community representation from these changes, and we are already an under-represented population. Look anywhere in Europe or North America and people have far more peers, elected from their community, to represent them in decision making.

Unlike in so many other countries—unlike so many city council members or state representatives—our councillors, although they work hard, do not work as full-time representatives. I see no plans to make these new councillors with extra duties full time. Many existing councillors put in time way over what their allowances might cover, given the poor support and resources they often receive. They are overworked, and the job of councillors in these new super-unitaries is set to become harder if they are to maintain the strong community connections they currently have.

Hard-working local representatives also take on so much casework, helping people directly when public and private services drop the ball and helping them to navigate complex systems. We must not forget the value of a friendly face from the community who just listens and takes someone’s case up in a crisis. Have Ministers considered that the loss of thousands of people doing casework, advice and support work of this kind could have an impact on the caseloads of the hard working and hard-pressed staff and MPs taking up casework in local areas already? Have Ministers considered the impact on local advice services?

[Sean Woodcock]

Like the hon. Lady and councillors in my area, I too get casework, and one of the frustrations that people have in areas where there are two levels of local government—district and town councils—is that they sometimes go to one council and are told, “Sorry, we can’t do it. You need to go to the other one.” The priority for residents is surely getting things fixed and sorted. Does she not see benefit in having all services under one roof, so that the councillor knows that he can go straight to his officers and get it fixed, without having to say, “Sorry, it’s not my department”?

[Siân Berry]

I do not disagree with the essence of that point, but the Government are seeking to impose reorganisation, which could abolish a whole tier of councillors overnight and cause a spike in casework and the need for advice services. I do not believe they have really considered the impact of the transition.

This week, I met AdviceUK, whose survey of member groups found that the average advice service in the country has lost three staff members or volunteers in the past year, and needs three more advisers just to meet current demand. Have the Government considered that such services might face a spike in demand as a consequence of this reorganisation and the loss of community representation that is being imposed?

There are surely consequences for democracy. In contrast to the cost-saving argument, there is clear evidence that size matters when it comes to democracy and accountability, even with unitary authorities that work well—my constituency is in a well-established unitary. The proposed increase in population and geographic scale is likely to have a damaging effect on a range of democratic criteria, including electoral turnout, public trust in councillors and officers, and levels of participative engagement.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

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

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Sean Woodcock]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sean Woodcock]

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

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

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

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

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