PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) - 23 October 2025 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 24, page 246, line 27, after “government” insert —

“having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—

(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—

(i) economic zones,

(ii) physical geography,

(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and

(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.”

This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.

In an earlier sitting, the Committee discussed amendment 25, which would have required the Secretary of State, when preparing a proposal for a new combined authority—something we oppose—to follow such a proposal with a statement explaining how it would affect the physical geography, community identity and the boundaries of other public services. Amendment 5 focuses on the need, when we look at local government reorganisation into a single tier of local government or unitary council, to bring communities together by preserving or creating a sense of space.

It is our view that, when merging tiers of local government to create a new unitary council, as part of the strategic authority process, particular regard should be given to the size of the area covered by the new authority, which we have obviously debated in depth, as well as the merger’s impact on community identity, heritage, cohesion and pride. After the passionate intervention of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the need to focus on the socioeconomic requirements of the geographical landscape and the connection of communities within his constituency, perhaps he will support the amendment.

Obviously, from a central Government perspective, we accept that reorganising an area may improve clarity, but it is crucial that the Bill delivers clear devolution benefits for communities. To do so, areas merged or otherwise must remain responsive to their communities, and they must continue to engage with those communities by carrying forward a shared identity or a sense of place in some form. It goes to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said this morning about unifying communities in his area and reinforcing a sense of place. That is why the population figure of 500,000 must be just a benchmark—it must be flexible—and I know the Minister has already confirmed that.

We have already spoken about the existing boundaries of public service provision, including integrated care boards, local NHS areas and police and crime commissioner areas. To reiterate, however the reorganisation takes place, it must be responsive to the particularities of the area, not purely directive. It is that direction from Government that we oppose, and the amendment would mandate that, when deciding mergers, the Secretary of State considers these very important local characteristics that other Committee members have raised.

There is an intrinsic logic to the way in which those public service areas evolved to intersect and connect, and chopping them up just for the sake of numbers, without due regard to all these characteristics, is taking a significant risk with our public service delivery. For example, to narrow it down to one specific question, will our local NHS trusts and ICBs be brought along with plans to merge levels of local government, so that the staff in both the health services and the new unitary authority can keep effective working relationships and continue to provide high-quality services and care for their local populations? In conclusion, we think the amendment is important, especially in relation to the merger of authorities to form single-tier unitary councils, and we are minded to press it to a vote.

I rise in support of amendment 5, spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. This is where the Government should have started. The amendment seeks to put place at the very heart of local government reorganisation, which the Government have missed. In coming up with the arbitrary target of half a million people or thereabouts, they have not thought about place and how communities connect with shared identities.

I have spoken in Committee before about Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has a number of significant towns, all of relatively the same size and population, but there is very little interconnectivity between the towns, particularly on rail and road. Not many people move between those towns, and I fear the consequences of an arbitrary target of around half a million. I appreciate what the Minister has said about the flexibility of that target, but even setting a target of 300,000 people is not looking at what best serves communities; it is sitting in Whitehall, coming up with a figure, and saying, “This is what we want to push top-down throughout the country. This is what we need to do,” rather than saying to places, “We want to reorganise you. Please come up with appropriate examples of how you might best do that within your communities.” That is what the amendment speaks to.

We really need to think about place. If we want these new councils to be successful, they must have buy-in from local communities. Local communities must have a shared sense of identity and a shared sense of vision. We cannot lump places together that have hardly any connectivity—places that people do not travel between—because we would be setting up those councils to fail, and to have competing priorities for the towns they want and do not want to invest in. The amendment is logical, and it is disappointing that the Government did not start off in this place and give more flexibility to the top-down reorganisation they are forcing on large parts of England. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wishes to push the amendment to a vote, the official Opposition shall support it.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are already building in provisions to reflect the issues that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has raised.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already provides that a direction for local government reorganisation can be issued only if the Secretary of State deems the proposal to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Having regard, therefore, to size, geography, public services and local identity is fundamentally embedded in the decision-making process. That is demonstrated by the statutory guidance and criteria shared with areas currently preparing for reorganisation. The hon. Lady is right to highlight those factors that matter for the sense of place, and therefore the boundaries of councils, and we think that the statutory guidance and safeguards fundamentally lock them into the process that we are going into.

On whether this process is top down or bottom up, let us look at it: we have invited places to go through a process of reform, and those places are now having conversations among themselves to come up with proposals. Those are not Government proposals; they are proposals from local areas. We are already allowing conversations to be had about what makes sense for those areas and how we take into account the specifics of identity and other issues in those proposals. Whatever proposal is chosen must be consulted on before it is implemented, which, again, is an opportunity for local people to have a conversation, and to have some say and voice in the process.

Although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, we have legal provisions and, critically, have set out a process that fundamentally addresses the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

I would like to press the amendment to a vote, because it is important to mandate that the Secretary of State consider these criteria. They will have many proposals from the same area, so these criteria would give guidance on how we can keep the cohesion of communities that hon. Members have discussed before.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 24, page 247, line 38, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (3), insert—

‘3A The Secretary of State may not in any case make an order under subsection (1)(a) unless he has satisfied the conditions under Section 7A (Requirement for a public referendum).’”

This amendment is a preparatory amendment for Amendment 46.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak to these amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). These are simple amendments—the Minister has heard me say that before; any amendments that we have tabled are very simple and aim just to do the job adequately.

My hon. Friend has tabled these amendments because, as we have said, the Conservatives believe that this is a top-down reorganisation that has not been endorsed by the people we serve. As I said earlier, it was not in the Labour manifesto. Many local authorities do not want to go ahead with local government reform, and the Minister tacitly acknowledged earlier that any local authority that did not want to go forward with local government reform would be forced to do so anyway.

We believe that is wrong. The lack of democratic legitimacy and the democratic deficit in the decision to pursue this very expensive and needless local government reorganisation require the people who we serve—the people who councillors serve—to have their say. There must be democratic accountability to them, which means there should be a requirement for a public referendum when a new authority is proposed.

The Government should not fear that. In fact, the policy of the last Labour Government, from 1997 to 2010, was massively to advocate for local referendums. The Greater London Authority was created following a public referendum in 1998 in which the Government wilfully accepted that it needed to be created. It was their proposal, they sought the consent of Londoners, Londoners approved, and they went ahead and created the GLA. I think that is a very good thing; they had democratic accountability.

In the early 2000s, a north-east assembly was proposed by the late Lord Prescott and rejected by a referendum that the Government sought. It was rejected by the people who would have been affected by the proposal. The Government not only gave them a referendum, but listened and took away the proposal for that assembly because people did not want it.

The last Labour Government therefore had a history of listening and asking people for their democratic consent to reorganisations, so I do not understand what this Government have to fear. They have chosen to go forward with this reorganisation without any consent. These referendums would provide the consultation that the Government have so far lacked by asking and ascertaining, with certainty, whether people back it in local areas.

So far, the Minister is charging into a tunnel without any public say. I am sure that she will talk about local government consultations in her response, but most of the consultations that have happened have been very small and the democratic participation has been very low. In areas such as Gosport, which neighbours my constituency, people do not want this reorganisation and their council has refused to engage. They do not want it to happen, but the Government will force it to.

Under the Local Government Act 2003—passed by the previous Labour Government—an authority can hold a non-binding referendum on any local issue that it wishes. I do not believe that any local authority has undertaken that yet, but we certainly would encourage them to do so. The Government do not have to follow or respond to that referendum, but I wonder what weight the Minister and the Government would place on a referendum held by a local authority, given that the legislation was passed under a previous Labour Government.

The previous Labour Government had some quite radical thoughts on reorganisation that we opposed at the time, I think—I was at secondary school then; I know many people will not believe that, looking at me after more than six years in this place! That Labour Government believed in consulting the people who they served when implementing huge reorganisations of central, regional and local government.

That Labour Government had a proud history of listening to the people, but unfortunately, in many areas of policy, this Government have shied away from that. Instead, they have pushed ahead with policies that were not in their manifesto and do not have the democratic mandate of the British people. I have been clear from the beginning that they have a democratic mandate to govern, and a huge majority—although it was won with a very low proportion of the vote—but they do not have a democratic mandate for this local government reorganisation. They should not be afraid to ask people whether they want it or not.

The Government should take this amendment on board and make it part of this flagship legislation.

Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate.

To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment.

Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.

I will respond briefly. The Minister is entitled to say that she does not want to accept the amendment, but I ask her to look not at the logistical and legal arguments of the legislation, but at what is right and what is wrong in the practice of implementing local government reorganisation. As I say, we are all democrats—we are all elected to serve here—so she should not fear asking the people whether they endorse the local government reform that she is currently implementing without the consent of the public or many local authority leaders. We will not press these amendments to a vote, but notwithstanding what I have said before about other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, we will table amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it.

On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied.

The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Well, there we have it: the mask has slipped—

It hasn’t!

The Minister says it has not, but I will convince her that it has. All morning we on the Opposition side have been talking about the fact that the Government are forcing this to happen without consent. The mask has slipped because this clause disapplies the ability of a currently existing council to refuse consent for the creation of new authorities.

On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.

Fine. I thank the Minister for her intervention, but the point I am about to make still applies: the people who currently serve have a stake. The people who send those people to serve have a stake. The way in which this clause is being put forward shows again that the Government are forcing change on a number of organisations and predecessor authorities that currently exist and serve their local people—so the mask has slipped. We have been saying all day that this is a proposal and local government reform that is not in the manifesto and is being forced on local authority leaders who do not want it.

The Minister said last week that she had had lots of enthusiastic conversations about people who want to go forward with devolution. I put it to her again that many local authority members do not, and the only reason they are going forward with it is because she is going to force them to do it anyway. Now that those local authorities might want to refuse to give consent to the creation of strategic authorities—something that should be within their gift anyway—she is disapplying their right to say that they do not want them. The Government are invoking a top-down reorganisation and not listening to the views of local leaders or of the people they are elected to serve.

I say to the Minister once again on this clause: throughout the Bill, she has advocated for it being a bottom-up reorganisation, but this is the sledgehammer of central Government refusing local people the voice that they should have. The mask has slipped and the Minister has just admitted that it is a centrally imposed thing, which many people do not want. The clause should be removed from the legislation, and we will oppose it.

It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it.

It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.

Forgive me, Ms Vaz; as the Committee can see, I got rather carried away and I forgot to speak to new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Briefly, the new clause should be included in the legislation, because all in the House believe in transparency. In the process, subsection (1) of the new clause would require an impact assessment of the local government reorganisation to be published. Each report would be required to include things such as the cost of a reorganisation, something that the Minister has advocated will deliver more efficient services and will not be onerous.

A report will allow us to see not only whether that is true post the creation of the authority, but the impact on service delivery and development, as well as the number of homes delivered—we have seen mayors who are not able to deliver the number of homes required of them—and an assessment of the performance of individual commissioners. It would provide a clear link for the people who live in those areas where the reorganisation is to go ahead. We believe that would not be onerous on the new authorities and that new clause 24 would bring the right balance between transparency and accountability, so we ask the Minister to accept it.

I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie.

The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.

I genuinely hate to detain the Committee—I do not just say that out of politeness—but I believe that we should press new clause 24 to a Division, when we come to that point.

Clause 57 and schedule 25 will simplify and bring consistency to local authority governance arrangements. By abolishing the committee system, we will ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance, providing clearer, more easily understood governance structures at a local level and more efficient decision making.

We will accept the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones. This will ensure a more consistent approach to governance and avoid the potential confusion caused by the establishment of new regional mayors for strategic authorities and mayors for councils. It is at this strategic level that we think the single focal point of leadership for the area and direct electoral accountability and mandate works best, and we believe this provision delivers the right powers in the right places.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz.

I rise to speak against clause 57; I believe it is extreme control freakery and overreach from the Government and in no way essential to this Bill. Why impose a leader and cabinet model on all councils, even against their will, along with all these other changes? The Government can see only the benefits and, like a poorly run council, they ignore the critical risks.

Good governance benefits in many places from a deeply involved voice for principled opposition councillors to vote on policy, check the numbers, put forward good ideas and raise mission-critical questions about issues such as fire safety, service quality or big projects and contracts, even when that is uncomfortable for the administration. Places need the right to choose, democratically, a new model of governance when appropriate—especially when councils face problems and need a fresh start.

Changes of this sort are sometimes made after a crisis or a period of problems; I will talk in the next debate about changes made by referendums. I hear the claims of stagnation and indecision often levelled at committee systems, but I point out that under the current system people who see that happening have the right to change the model and try something else. A new administration can vote to switch to a leader and cabinet for a period, or to a mayor, if it wishes, or the people can make the change themselves by calling a referendum. The Government want to take away all that choice. That is very wrong and this clause is overreaching in the extreme.

Given the exceptions being made for mayors in the mandate for leader and cabinet, it seems that the committee system is the one most under attack from the Government in this Bill, so I want to provide some words and examples from cross-party local councillors about its benefits for their areas. In July 2025, Sheffield city council voted unanimously for a motion defending its democratically chosen model, stating that

“the benefits of the Committee System demonstrated in Sheffield include: greater collaboration across political groups in policy formulation and in decision making; overcoming party political tribalism and focussing on areas of agreement, not antagonism; improving the culture of the Council, with officers and Councillors focusing on what is best for the city; all Councillors being involved in the decision-making of the Council, and greater accountability to the electorate; and improved outcomes for the residents of Sheffield”.

That is a cross-party view.

I implore the hon. Member to listen to the rest of my speech and further points I shall make on other amendments. In Sheffield, at the same time, the council resolved unanimously that

“Sheffield benefits from fairer, more representative governance arrangements, and that people expect the Councillors they elect to have a vote on the decisions that affect them”.

Bristol also has a committee system, and Bristol Green councillors have told me how their cross-party committees have had a series of task and finish groups, where policy is developed with the input of councillors from all parties. They say that, while everyone does not always agree, this process allows for much more rounded development of policy ahead of implementation, not just scrutiny afterwards or divisive call-ins. There is rich debate, with more voices taking part in it.

Those councillors also say that the committee system also allows for back benchers to have more influence and input, with a positive effective on equalities as well, so that more councillors with a variety of different characteristics have space to input, and that, in turn, has a positive effect on policy development. New councillors also have more of a chance to develop their skills and interests than under a cabinet model, where only a handful of councillors have proper influence and are hand-picked by the leader or mayor in many cases. Sheffield councillors also say:

“The critical budget-setting process has worked better in Sheffield since the committee system was introduced, avoiding last minute wrangling and hasty deals between the parties. This is because the detail of the budget process is worked through each Committee in the months leading up to the budget, so all councillors are involved. This contrasts with the last budget brought under our Cabinet system where the budget proposal was voted down as the council meeting descended into chaos.”

I also urge the Committee to note that none of the councils that have issued section 114 notices in recent years have been run under a committee system. Worcester city council has had a committee system since 2017, implemented after a council motion that was proposed by Conservatives and seconded by Greens. Councillors there tell me that they see scrutiny within the committee system working really well to improve policy before any decisions are made, and it has improved cross-party working relationships and helped to build consensus.

The council has also been independently praised for its collaborative approach, and was commended in the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge in April, which said:

“The peer team found evidence of good governance across the organisation. The peer team found there was positive Member collaboration across political groups which makes the most of the opportunities in this type of governance and there was comprehensive coverage of council business at Policy Committees”.

I can speak on cabinet governance from my previous experience as a councillor in a Labour council, and it is currently the choice of the Labour administration in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency sits. Cabinets can obviously be quicker to act through a rapid decision-making process, but that has risks too. For good reason, the saying is not “Measure once, cut once”. I have noticed a disturbing trend of scrutiny committee time being squeezed by leaders and cabinets, with some councils having just one broad scrutiny committee—I did not experience that and I honestly cannot even imagine it working in agenda terms.

A single scrutiny committee has, by definition, only a limited time to examine a wide range of upcoming decisions in any detail, and surely has no space on the agenda for the kind of through pre-decision scrutiny or issue-based evidence gathering to generate ideas or feedback on services that good scrutiny committees also do, and which I have seen. There are further risks; along with maintaining first past the post, the leader and cabinet model preferred by the Government is a recipe for seeing purely one-party decision making in more places, overriding all opposition voices when key decisions have to be made. One-party states are not more efficient or effective.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the heart of the issue is actually choice? In this brave new world of unitary councils, local councils should have the ability to choose and shape their own future governance model.

I quite agree. We have heard a lot about the benefits of this new model, and this change is a sign from the Government that they are not even going to trust their new unitaries to choose their own governance systems. I find it a really strange addition to the Bill.

The Electoral Reform Society, in its 2015 report “The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and Public Procurement Corruption”, estimated the cost to the public purse of councils having weak opposition to be about £2.6 billion a year. Finally, in November 2017, the current Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, “In my experience in life, the best decisions are made with proper scrutiny, and the worst mistakes come from not having scrutiny.” The Government should listen to that man. This clause—of all the bad parts of the Bill—is the most exact opposite of community empowerment. If it stays, the Bill should be renamed the “Very Little Devolution and Too Much Centralised Control Bill”.

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.

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?

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.

I understand hon. Members’ sentiments, but 80% of councils currently operate a leader and cabinet model. My view is that that executive model allows for greater accountability and better decision making, and that is why we are proposing these changes.

My hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury eloquently set out the experience of that model and said that it leads to quicker, better decision making and efficiency. It is about spending less time in committees and meetings and more time delivering. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about things that make that consensual, collaborative way of governing work, but critically they are more to do with the culture in the council and the quality of the councillors, as my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury pointed out.

We think the model used by the majority of councils is working. Delivering for residents is at the heart of the entire Bill, and we think that that model can lead to much stronger governance and decision making, which will deliver for residents. That is why we are keen for this provision to remain in the Bill.

On the point about consistency, there is always a place for referendums. As the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said, the last Labour Government were a great fan of them and introduced provisions to lock them in, but there was always a balance around proportionality. My issue is not about the logic of having a referendum or not; there is a judgment to be made about what is proportionate, given what we are trying to do and the urgency of the reform agenda. Local government is under pressure, and there is a need to deliver services when resources are really tight. Our constituents rightly demand good-performing public services, and that is what is driving us. We think we have the balance right in the provisions and safeguards in the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to support the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 315, in schedule 25, page 251, line 1, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.

This amendment, alongside Amendments 316 to 325 makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.

Having spoken about clause 57 as a whole, I will now speak to amendment 315 and the other amendments in the group, which support its goals. As the Government will not listen and have not removed the clause, the amendment is essential. It is about fair play. While maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive, it would simply match the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems to that for legacy mayor and cabinet systems.

Allowing places that have chosen committee systems to choose for themselves whether to change their governance back is important. I will highlight briefly, for the record, the story of two places that have chosen by referendum, driven by the people, to move to committee systems, and their case for allowing their choice to stand, unless and until they decide to make a different choice. As the Local Government Association told us in its evidence, it is not right for these democratic decisions to be disregarded. Councils using the committee system should be allowed to retain their governance system until they or their communities choose to move to a leader and cabinet system.

My first example is Sheffield. This is from the Green councillors, and the full story is available in their written evidence. Sheffield is a good example of the committee system being a success and making things better for residents after a crisis. Over time, the people of Sheffield became very dissatisfied with how the council ran things under the cabinet model, and particularly its disastrous handling of the long-running street trees fiasco. That brought Sheffield into disrepute. The Lowcock report on the eventual independent inquiry into the street trees dispute found:

“While a Strong Leader cabinet model with fewer checks and balances arguably gives authority to get things done, it can also, as in this case, enable the wrong things to be done without serious challenge.”

The ruling administration of Sheffield city council never agreed to switch to a committee system; that was people power. More than 26,000 people signed a petition demanding a statutory referendum. On 6 May 2021, the people of Sheffield voted by 65% to 35% to require the council to change to a committee system. For Sheffield, the committee system works better. The Green councillors told us:

“We know from talking to our residents and our election campaigns that people wanted to see parties working together”

after all this strife. They continued:

“They wanted to see an end to secretive decision-making behind closed doors and they wanted to see all the councillors taking responsibility for making decisions, not just a select few...There has been a culture shift, making working conditions better for staff, as well as improving outcomes for residents of the city. Even amongst those who were doubtful of the benefits of the committee system, very few argue for a return to the Cabinet regime.”

As mentioned in my last speech, the council voted unanimously to defend the committee system against the changes in the Bill. In June 2025, the Labour leader of the council issued a statement, with cross-party support:

“Since its implementation, and the publication of the Lowcock Report in 2023, we have been on an improvement journey to listen, change and rebuild trust with the city, a journey which was recognised in our recent nomination for Most Improved Council at the LGC Awards.”

My second example is Bristol city council, which changed after a referendum in 2022 from mayor and cabinet to a committee system. The Liberal Democrats proposed the motion to Bristol city council to bring about the referendum. It was seconded by the Greens and supported by the Conservatives. The city was given the choice of continuing to have a mayor and cabinet or changing to a committee system. The referendum result was 59% in favour of the change.

The people of Bristol, by a sizeable majority, expressed their dissatisfaction with the mayoral model, and cited a desire for more transparency, less tribalism and less power concentrated in one person as reasons for moving to a committee system. Under the new system, the people of Bristol now expect all councillors to take part in making decisions that affect the city, and that all councillors and political parties should work within the committee system to the benefit of local residents.

There has been more public engagement too since the committee system came in. There have been more public questions and statements, with each committee having a public forum. There has been a marked improvement in the governance of the city with this refreshment of the governance model. That has been evidenced in council worker surveys and through feedback from residents. Far from the predicted slowing down of policymaking, policies have been developed in good time and delivered, and many people have commented on the overall improvement in the working culture of the council.

The people of Bristol have now twice rejected a leader and cabinet model via referenda, once in 2012 to vote for a mayoral model, and again in 2022 in favour of a committee system. Those were local decisions, and to overturn the most recent decision only three years after it was made, without another referendum, would directly overturn the clear democratic mandate of the people of Bristol. It is not in the spirit of devolution to not respect places that have chosen what kind of local governance suits the people of that area. If people vote for a committee system in a referendum, they think it will work for them. It is not about what members of the governing party think will work or would like to operate, and it is not up to them to impose that on places where they are not in power.

My amendment is constructive: it respects the way in which the Government want to create new authorities. However, where authorities that remain in place and have made a decision, the Government need to be consistent between legacy policies for mayoral authorities and legacy policies for committee systems. I hope the Government will act and make the schedule consistent in what legacy systems it respects. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

I want to support the hon. Lady. The national Government should not force structures of local governance on local councils. We saw written evidence from Councillor Martin Smith, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield city council, showing how the committee system has made the governance of the city council more transparent. Abolishing the committee system in Sheffield and Bristol, and in other areas where local people wanted a change from the leader and cabinet system, would go against the will of the people in those areas. For that reason, if the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion were to press amendments 326 and 327 to a vote, I would support them.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking us through some of the specifics, particularly in the context of Sheffield. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) have been very effective in explaining the specifics of Sheffield to the Government, including the history of how the council got there and how the democratic process has played out. We are very mindful of that, and we will reflect on that and on the question of legacy.

I would just like to give a counter. We have heard some very interesting evidence, but my own local authority has the misfortune to operate under the committee system, which was largely brought about in a deal that created a rainbow coalition with the Greens and some other local parties. Honestly, it is a dismal failure. Contrary to the evidence that has been presented, it has made the council more siloed, and fewer councillors feel that they can engage well with the council. Frankly, it is the whim of every individual committee chair as to how they operate, often constraining meetings to an extremely short duration. That has reduced the amount of scrutiny and gummed up the business of the council. I would like to present that as evidence from someone who actually lives within a council that has a committee system.

We made this proposal because we fundamentally believe that the cabinet and leader system provides more effective governance. There is a question about legacy and what the transition will look like, and we have heard representations on that from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Sheffield Hallam. We will reflect on how to get the balance right, because in the end we want stronger, better governance for residents and constituents across the country, and obviously we have to ensure that the transition is done in a way that minimises disruption and has local support. We will reflect carefully on how to get that balance right.

I am grateful for the Minister listening to those important points, which I stress again are cross-party points. I look forward to seeing further developments on the clause, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 336, in schedule 25, page 253, line 25, at end insert—

“Duty to introduce code of conduct, inductions and ongoing training (England)

4A (1) Every local authority must adopt and enforce a code of conduct for elected members that—

(a) includes provisions addressing harassment, discrimination and online abuse; and

(b) provides for independent investigation of alleged breaches, overseen by the monitoring officer.

(2) Every local authority must provide a structured induction programme for all newly elected members, which must include—

(a) professional standards and responsibilities;

(b) equality and diversity duties; and

(c) family-friendly and inclusive working practices.

(3) It is a duty for local authorities to provide further such training every two years following the election of new members to the authority.

(4) Local authorities must also make provision for continuing professional development for elected members.

4B (1) A monitoring officer’s functions shall include responsibility for—

(a) investigating breaches of the code of conduct in accordance with paragraph 4A of this schedule;

(b) promoting councillor welfare and wellbeing;

(c) ensuring compliance with equalities duties; and

(d) maintaining transparent procedures for the handling of complaints.

(2) Every local authority must publish an annual report on complaints received by the monitoring officer, including—

(a) the number of complaints received, and

(b) outcomes of those complaints.”

This amendment ensures that all local authorities are required to maintain clear and enforceable codes of conduct for councillors, tackling harassment, discrimination and online abuse and mandates induction and continuous training on equalities and conduct. It embeds and extends independent oversight by monitoring officers.

The amendment deals with a separate matter of inclusive practices. It is aimed at improving more diverse access to elected office and arises from work I have been doing with the organisation Elect Her, which aims to motivate, support and equip women in all their diversity to stand for political office in Britain, and to nurture an ecosystem of organisations reshaping the political system so that all women can thrive once elected. Its research found that weak codes of conduct, poor induction for new councillors and lack of financial recognition all deter women from entering and continuing in office. The amendment would help deal with that.

Elect Her’s report on Scotland by demonstrates how inclusion can improve when councils adopt stronger codes of conduct, structured induction and clear reporting mechanisms. The amendment would introduce a duty to have a code of conduct for elected members, which would include provisions against harassment, discrimination and online abuse. It would provide for independent investigation of alleged breaches overseen by the monitoring officer, and a structured induction programme for newly elected members.

Setting the stage for behaviour is crucial, particularly when new councillors are elected, before things start to go wrong. The programme would include important information and training on professional standards, equality and diversity duties, and family-friendly and inclusive working practices. It would also mandate that the training should be refreshed, particularly following the election of new members. Continued professional development is also covered by the amendment. It asks monitoring officers to investigate breaches of the code of conduct and gives them duties to promote councillor welfare and wellbeing, equalities duties and transparent procedures for complaints. It also asks for an annual report on complaints.

The provisions are sensible suggestions that I hope the Government will take up. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, it speaks to the fact that while we have discussed potential problems with workload that councillors in these new authorities may have, which are also inclusion issues in some cases, the Bill could more directly address some of the issues that we know affect people’s ability to carry on in the job. We have received disturbing evidence from Elect Her on the extent to which councillors report abuse. We know that women and minorities are disproportionately likely to experience abuse, and we have a duty to do what we can in the Bill to make being a local councillor a more inclusive job. My amendment addresses some of the systemic barriers that might stand in the way of local democracy truly representing all of our communities. I hope the Government will look again at the options.

The Government fully understand that greater devolution relies on local authority members embodying the highest standards of conduct, so we absolutely agree with the spirit of the amendment. We have consulted on proposals for comprehensive reform of the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. Our response to the consultation will be published shortly and will set out in detail the scale of our ambition for a whole-system reform of the standards and conduct framework.

Our ambitions go significantly further than the amendment in terms of introducing a clearer and consistently applied framework for standards and conduct, and ensuring misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly in every type and tier of local government. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 250, in schedule 25, page 254, leave out lines 3 to 12.

This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.

Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media.

In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access.

In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive.

Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area.

The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.

I am delighted to speak to amendments 250 and 251, and to new clause 55 and amendments 405 to 407, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I am sure that pleases everybody— I remind the hon. Member for Banbury that I have been seated for quite a while now, and I do not want him to miss out on my dulcet tones.

This is slightly complicated, but I will not spend too long on it. New clause 55 will require a consultation on the publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals. Amendments 405 to 407 would essentially act as a block to the regulations set out in the Bill until the proposal is consulted on and an assessment undertaken of the consultation responses on

“the economic viability of local newspapers…access to information for local authority residents, and…local democracy and accountability…. The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.”

We believe that it is crucial to consult on the different aspects and different geographical situations of our local newspapers. Local newspapers are essentially the beating heart of various sections of our society who are not online and who rely on or may be interested in such information. It is not a novel thing for people to be interested in what is going on in their local area. As we have seen, with the reduction in regional TV broadcast news and the restructuring of our national broadcaster and other local news providers on television and radio, local newspapers can be the only channel for local people to see what is going on in their local authority area.

I am sure that many people on this Committee have been lobbied by various trade bodies and organisations on behalf of local newspapers. With the advance of digital technology and the internet, the circulation of physical copies of local newspapers is declining. When I was a councillor in 2008, the amazing and historic Daily Echo, which covers Hampshire and Portsmouth news, had a circulation of around 200,000 hard copies sold; it has fallen to around 40,000 now. Local newspapers rely heavily on the income stream from statutory notices and local government notices; it is a lifeline for local newspapers.

Such notices allow people to read about what is going on with their planning applications and some of the changes that local authorities are putting forward. In my local authority, as in local authorities across the country, these statutory notices and planning notices sometimes act as a safeguard when—I hate to say this— a local authority does not act on its statutory duty to alert relevant people to a planning application or a statutory notice. I would hate to guess how many times we have had an email from a constituent that says, “I didn’t know that this planning application was going to go ahead, and I’ve missed the consultation and can’t do anything about it,” either because the postman did not deliver the letter, or the local authority did not deliver to everybody in a restricted cul-de-sac some information about a block of flats going up next door. If they miss that information, they lose their chance to be consulted.

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?

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.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and impassioned speech. Does he agree that all of us in this room should understand the importance of printed paper to get our message across, considering that during our election campaigns we deliver thousands of leaflets to get our messages out? Does he agree that we should support these amendments to make sure that councils still have the ability to connect with communities that are not digitally connected?

As you would expect, Ms Vaz, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s words. I suspect that if we took the motivation of this part of the Bill and told Labour Members that they could not put out any of their “Labour in touch” communications, or whatever they call them, they would be shouting from the barriers that they could not communicate with residents who are digitally challenged or not engaged in digital communications.

It is important that there are varied and diverse ways for our punters, if I can call them that, and our voters to find information and to engage in the process. I do not understand why the Minister is proposing to actively harm our local independent newspaper sector in a Bill that has admirable intentions and will radically change the face of local government, in some cases for the better, but in the majority of cases for the worse when it comes to accountability. We all see that press is becoming much more large scale and a lot less local through TV and media restructuring. I do not understand why the Government would put in such a retrograde step for independent local newspapers.

We support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. When the Committee comes to new clause 55, we will push it to a vote. I am not sure whether we are voting on the consequential amendments to new clause 55 today, but if we are, we will push those to a vote too.

I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy.

Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do.

In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach.

It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate.

In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

As we have debated amendments to the schedule, we can deal with it formally.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 25 accordingly agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 58, page 60, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).”

This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.

I will address these amendments as two separate groups. Amendments 14 and 15 are simple and, in combination, would ensure that the definition of a “neighbourhood area”, which is important in this clause, is decided by the effective local authority and not by the Secretary of State. In these amendments we are again trying to devolve powers to grassroots governance. For the sake of clarity, we drafted amendments 14 and 15 to grant that neighbourhood areas are defined in accordance with local perspectives, rather than with the view from Westminster.

Amendment 13 complements those changes. Within the locally agreed and defined neighbourhood area, the authority would be required to make appropriate arrangements to secure effective governance. This amendment specifies that those arrangements must not alter any function performed by a town or parish council, or result in the abolition of a town or parish council. As I have explained previously, it is really important to keep town and parish councils. The amendment would give important protections for our smallest and first tier of local governance. The Committee has already debated how town and parish councils perform a crucial role in effective governance and in providing services. They are to adopt many more services as well. We talked about them being consulted, and this amendment is about making sure that they do not get abolished in the definition of a “neighbourhood area” and “neighbourhood governance”.

The Liberal Democrats continue to be surprised by the lack of protection for, or even reference to, town and parish councils in the Bill. This is an excellent opportunity for the Minister to protect those tiers of governance, and put on record her support for hyper-local government, as we consider devolution more broadly.

Amendment 61 has a different purpose. Throughout the Committee debate, hon. Members have spoken about the need for authorities to be able to access support of all kinds, including financial and advisory support, while delivering local planning functions. The amendment is relevant in the light of the Government’s decision earlier this year to remove funding for localism and neighbourhood planning, which was an excellent initiative that put planning and growth plans in the hands of local people. That initiative saw more than 1,000 neighbourhood plans approved at referendum, and was a key way of securing other local involvement in planning proposals and decisions, giving the local community the power to shape their own future in development. Neighbourhood plans were also very much linked to local housing needs, such as locally how much social housing is needed in a village or town, so they were really important.

Removing funding from neighbourhood planning seems to run contrary to this Government’s aims of devolution and community-engaged house building. I urge the Minister to reinstate some form of funding. I would like to hear reassurances from her, especially in relation to the protection of town and parish council governance, which I set out in amendment 13.

The key thing to say in response to this group of amendment is that provisions in the Bill are not about central Government imposing a model of neighbourhood governance without the flexibility or consideration of local places and their requirements; they are about setting a standard for smarter, more responsive decision making for our communities and, critically, ensuring that there are no black spots or gaps across the country, so that every community has the ability to shape, and have a voice, say and power in the decisions that impact their neighbourhoods.

We are not designing the regulations in isolation; we are working closely with local government and the community sector—including the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the We’re Right Here campaign—to make sure that the provisions in this part of the Bill reflect how we get effective good community governance.

On amendment 13, throughout the debates in this Committee I have said consistently that we absolutely recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in our democracy and our community life. There is no intention to abolish parish and town councils in the Bill. It is not about duplicating them—in fact, I have consistently said that where we are building neighbourhood governance, we should rightly build on the civic institutions that are there anyway, to ensure that we have both depth and proper coverage across the country. The regulation-making powers in the clause therefore cannot be used to make regulations that amend primary legislation, which protects town and parish councils already, and there is no intent to do that.

I thank the Minister for her reassurance, but would she put what she has said about the protection of town and parish councils in writing to us?

I am happy to put that in writing, but I will state again that there is already primary legislation in place that protects town and parish councils and means they cannot be abolished. There is nothing in the clause that undermines that. I will absolutely put that in writing. Again, the intention of the clause is to recognise that town and parish councils exist in some parts of the country, but not others. We want every community across the country to have effective neighbourhood governance structures, so that people can have power, agency and a voice to shape their locality and their direct neighbourhood.

Finally, on amendment 61, again, I agree that we should protect the important functions of neighbourhood planning. That is why my Department has already committed to ensuring that local planning authorities continue to be appropriately funded for their neighbourhood planning functions, including for plan examinations and referendums. Funding for those costs is provided through a claims-based system. We will make an announcement on the claims for this financial year in due course. As I said, there is nothing in the clause that undermines effective neighbourhood planning; it is quite the contrary. We think there is an opportunity, as we strengthen neighbourhood governance structures across the country, for that to enhance and build on the work that has been done through neighbourhood planning. I ask that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon withdraw the amendments.

In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) requiring that local engagement activities under paragraph (d) meet minimum standards to ensure meaningful community participation, including—

(i) the use of deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations;

(ii) the active inclusion of communities most likely to be impacted by the policy measures, and communities underrepresented in policy making; and

(iii) reporting, and publication of resulting reports, on how community input has influenced local plans and decisions;

(f) providing existing local democratic bodies, including parish and town councils, with appropriate powers, funding and infrastructure to support and facilitate such participation.”

This amendment requires regulations on neighbourhood governance to set minimum standards for involvement, including deliberative processes, inclusion of underrepresented groups and transparency.

This is a really important amendment. It proposes a minimum standard for meaningful community involvement be added to this part of Bill on neighbourhood governance. It aims to put people at the heart of the new local decision-making structures by setting minimum standards so that community involvement is inclusive, uses deliberative methods and clearly shows how people’s views have shaped decisions. It would also give local councils the powers and funding that they need to make that happen effectively. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that “appropriate arrangements” is left undefined. That risks weak or inconsistent community participation. The amendment would ensure that the arrangements meet minimum standards and would make engagement consistent, inclusive and transparent.

The Bill’s success depends on whether it achieves what the Minister has been assuring us of throughout these proceedings: a shifting of democratic power. It needs to ensure that decisions are made with people rather than consulting them or imposing on them. I am sure we are all aware of the ladder of engagement, where final decisions are simply waved in front of people for consultation. That is the bare minimum and, in many ways, the worst form of engagement with the public. People will often look at a big proposal and respond in great detail, only to then see that nothing has changed. That really undermines trust. We need to make sure that people can see how their voices are shaping outcomes at a local level. This amendment would enable us to rebuild public trust through the Bill.

We need to ensure that we actively facilitate and enable community participation, and it is important that it is properly funded. Doing a consultation is a very separate thing to participation. We do know that people want participation. Demos polling from 2024 found that 63% of the public would very likely accept an invitation to take part in participation exercises of this kind, but 41% said that they would be less likely to take part if they believed that the Government would not listen to what they had to say. I recognise that the Bill presents the opportunity for secondary legislation to fill these gaps, but if the Government cannot support the amendment, it would be helpful for the Minister to put clearly on the record that those regulations would include deliberative processes, real involvement and reporting back on the ways in which decisions are changed, as the amendment would require.

I am pleased to see the focus on community engagement in this amendment. However, we already have powers to set standards for local engagement through regulations, and that is what we will do. We are currently working with local government and the community sector to understand what best practice looks like and what is already happening on the ground. My view is that it is right and appropriate that different principal authorities work out the best way to engage their communities, which can be very diverse and will need different approaches.

We are clear that principal authorities can and should already be working to support their communities through meaningful and robust community engagement and coproduction. The very best councils already do that, and we have examples of that across the country. It does not always happen in the way that it does with the very best, so we will work with and support councils to have meaningful community engagement. At the heart of this is giving communities and residents—people in our localities—proper voice, agency and ability to drive decision. We will ensure that we design this in a way that enables and supports that.

I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister is giving me, but I would like some further reassurance that poorly performing councils will face some sort of redress under the system that she is talking about.

As I said, for this to work, we need councils to enable it. We will introduce a set of measures including peer-to-peer support—so, where we have great practice, sharing it with other councils—as well as capacity building and training, in order to make sure there is meaningful community engagement, because we believe it is fundamental. If we get this right, it is fundamentally about empowering our communities and residents. Every tier of government, from national Government through to strategic authorities and local authorities, will all have to play their part to ensure we do that well.

I am content with the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 58, page 60, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—

“‘local authority’ means—

(a) a county council,

(b) a district council,

(c) a London borough council;”.

This narrows the types of local authority in England that are bound by the requirement to make arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance.

The Bill sets out our clear ambition to embed communities at the heart of local decision making. This is about ensuring that decisions are shaped by those who know their communities best. Our ambition is that this will result in visible improvements in every neighbourhood across the country. Neighbourhood governance moves decision making closer to residents. It empowers communities to hold leaders accountable for their decisions and ensures that local priorities are understood and considered in the decision-making process. This will improve public trust in our councils, enhance our local democracy and ensure that our governance arrangements are rooted and working in the interest of our communities.

Turning to amendment 222, the policy intention is that only county councils, district councils and London borough councils will be subject to the duty to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. As currently drafted, the Bill also includes parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London within scope of the provision. That is not the policy intention, and our amendment seeks to rectify it. We do not consider that town and parish councils should be subject to the duty, as it would be disproportionately burdensome.

Does the Minister include metropolitans and unitary councils in what she has just said?

Yes. This is purely putting in exemption for parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London corporation. That is because, in the instance of town and parish and councils and the Isles of Scilly, it would be disproportionate and extremely burdensome. Town and parish councils are already doing effective community engagement, and we will continue to support them to do that. At the heart of this is empowering our communities and creating structures that enable effective neighbourhood governance.

Amendment 222 agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: supplementary vote system

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I will speak to clause 59 and schedule 26 now, and I will then respond to hon. Members on their amendments.

The Government recognise that the voting system used to elect our representatives sits at the heart of our democracy and is of fundamental importance. Given the large population that each regional mayor and police and crime commissioner represents, far exceeding that of Members of Parliament, the Government believe they should have a broad base of support among the electorate. We believe that a supplementary voting system, a preferential voting system, will achieve that and is appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors and police and crime commissioners. The supplementary voting system will help to increase the local electorate’s voice, as voters may choose their first-choice and second-choice candidates, and it will require the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted.

I thank the Minister for begrudgingly giving way. She has just outlined that she believes a winning candidate should win a majority of the vote. We entirely agree with her, which is why we support first past the post. Why does she not seem to think that the supplementary vote should also be used to elect MPs, who are single executive politicians but do not necessarily always receive a majority of the vote?

MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making.

Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.

I will speak to new clause 7. I commend the Government for their decision to do away with the first-past-the-post system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. As has been said, the decision to move mayoral elections to first past the post was a complete disaster, and this improvement will ensure better local voter representation. The Mayor of the West of England, for example, was elected with only 25% of the vote. Supplementary voting is a significant improvement, but the Liberal Democrats believe we should introduce the alternative vote system as a further advance on that.

We all want to see genuinely representative local elections to ensure that local people know that every vote counts, and so that the councils they elect are truly representative. Where the supplementary vote system allows people to vote for their first and second choices, the alternative vote system allows for a more comprehensive ranking by each voter. For example, under first past the post, a candidate with no majority backing can still win because of vote splitting. We believe that an alternative vote system will increase engagement and deliver fairer outcomes. Our new clause has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, which strongly recommends that it is incorporated into the legislation. I await the Minister’s response.

Amendments 312 to 314 aim to achieve the same thing: formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system, which is already being legislated for, at next year’s local mayoral elections, including the newly established combined authority areas of Greater Essex; Hampshire and the Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton, in which my constituency lies.

The Government have clearly admitted, accepted and legislated for the need to return mayoral elections to a more proportional system—in this case, supplementary vote, which achieves a majority vote for whoever wins. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Second Reading:

“We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]

I will give a few examples of the election outcomes we might expect if we go ahead with next year’s elections under first past the post. I remind the Committee that the results will be baked in for four years in each case and have serious implications.

We have established a principle in this country of changing our electoral system via referendum. We had a referendum on the alternative vote system during the coalition era. The Bill is going to switch the system back to single transferable vote as it was when it was originally envisaged, so I believe that it is fair enough to go ahead without a referendum. But what the hon. Lady is proposing would be to change to an entirely different system without any democratic mandate to do so.

I want to clarify that I am talking about the supplementary vote for mayoral elections in clause 59.

To return to some examples of mayoral elections under first past the post with results that are not optimal for democracy or public confidence: the 2025 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election saw Paul Bristow elected on 28.4% of the vote, with a turnout of 32.9%. That gave 9.3% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.

In none of my examples am I saying that the result was wrong, but they are not results that clearly command the confidence of a majority of the people in the area —that may well have been the case had a second vote been counted, but no second vote was allowed. I do not think that is a good way to conduct things. The 2025 West of England mayoral election saw Helen Godwin elected on 25% of the vote. With turnout at 30%, that gave 7.5% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. The 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election saw Luke Campbell elected on 35.8% of the vote. With turnout at 29.8%, that gave 10.7% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result.

In contrast, the last election held under the supplementary vote system in 2022 for South Yorkshire saw Oliver Coppard elected with 71.4% in the second round, up from a first round vote of 43.1%. That is a sea change in confidence and mandate compared with some of those marginal wins on a small turnout that we have seen in other areas.

The hon. Lady says that Oliver Coppard got 71% of the vote in the second round, but her quote leads me to believe that the number of people who voted was no different from what it would have been under first past the post. Is that correct?

I stopped reading out turnout results, but turnout was 42.8%—much higher than in previous examples. To be honest, I would prefer a ranking of all candidates down the ballot paper, but I believe that when people are able to use their votes to express both their first and second preferences they are not discouraged from turning out. When parties are not forced to put out leaflets all about who might win but leaflets are instead about the actual issues that might affect people’s lives, turnout goes up. It is really important that this change is made.

On consistency, I want to raise an issue from Sussex. A motion passed by East Sussex county council makes a really good point:

“When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue”.

That is the problem: the areas that have stepped forward sooner are being forced to accept a substandard election system. I recognise that the motion at East Sussex county council was to delay the elections, and that is not my wish either. I absolutely recognise that there is a timetable challenge: if the amendments were accepted today, they would need to wait until the Bill was enacted to come into force. We cannot make changes to an imminent election, so I do not intend the press the amendments to a vote today.

However, I call on the Government to fix the situation. I would like the Minister to go away and talk to colleagues about how she might be able to fairly resource all the areas holding mayoral elections, including those that have chosen to go first and should face no penalty, so that they can conduct next year’s elections under the supplementary vote in the way that other areas will benefit from later.

I have to speak to this group of amendments because only one party has consistency when it comes to a “one vote, one election” philosophy: the Conservative party. It is lovely to see the weird and wonderful array of views on electoral systems from parties that want to gerrymander political systems to try to suit their own ends. That is what we have seen this afternoon.

At the mayoral elections, the first-past-the-post system worked because it clearly showed that when the people entitled to vote have one vote, the candidate who gets the most votes wins. We would always argue that that is the simplest and fairest system for the election of a single politician. I do not often compliment the Government, but they have always been consistent on this issue when it comes to mayoral elections. But we cannot keep asking the same person to be subject to two votes and claim that in the second round they have 71% and therefore an overwhelming mandate, when the turnouts under AV or SV are not markedly different from first past the post. Actually, the 41% turnout cited by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion still means that fewer than half the total electorate voted for that winning candidate so the hon. Lady’s argument against first past the post is exactly the same as that in favour of the gerrymandering political voting mechanism that she wants to bring in.

I would not claim that a turnout of nearly 43% is a triumph, but the hon. Member has to admit that it is a good turnout compared with that of most local government elections.

I would argue that it is up to us as politicians and candidates in the election to advertise the position and generate excitement among the electorate, so that people vote for them. It was still 41%, I think, in the election that the hon. Lady cited; it was below half the total electorate, so this is not a panacea for improving electoral participation.

Also, I know that the hon. Lady was advocating for SV, but the Liberal Democrats have always been vehement in their approach to AV, despite the fact that they lost the national referendum that they managed to get on the AV voting system. [Hon. Members: “You gave it to them.”] We gave it to them because that is coalition, but they lost and we won, so I am quite happy with the outcome. They lost a test on the national system.

AV was used in mayoral elections and PCC elections when these positions were created, and turnouts were demonstrably low and very low in some cases—12% to 18%. They are now massively higher. Okay, they are not high enough, but they are higher now because they have become a constant and well-established institution in our voting system. That is not because of the voting system. It is because the system has been allowed to bed in and people have the choice of whether to elect a PCC or mayor or not. That is one of the bedrocks of our political systems today.

I thought I was triggered on the amendment where I saw the words “citizens’ panels”, but now I am even more triggered; we have a long history of speaking about citizens’ panels and citizens’ assemblies. As I said at the beginning, there is a clear need for local people to have a straightforward system that does what it says on the tin. The Conservative party will always believe that first past the post is the system that does that. Other parties want to gerrymander a system to try to suit their own preferred political outcomes.

The Minister said that directly elected people need to have the widest possible mandate and number of people voting for them. Her Prime Minister secured 32% of the vote in a national election and won a majority of the size that he did. [Interruption.] It is not a reason to support another system at all. I do not think that the Minister can advocate for a different voting system in one case, but then—the Government’s position is confused on voting systems—accept that a 32% vote share got well over 60% of the seats on a turnout, I think, in the high 60s. That is not exactly representative, either. The Government need to have a solid position on all kinds of elections, not just ones that suit their potential candidates.

Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to.

Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place.

On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Many Members will have pubs or community centres in their constituencies that are at risk of loss or closure, despite being the heart of their community and playing a crucial role in local lives. Too many valued community spaces are being lost because communities do not have the powers they need to protect them. That has a massive impact on the vibrancy and identity of local areas. Clause 60 and the associated schedule 27 will put control back into the hands of communities, giving them real power to take ownership of cherished local assets and protect them for future community use.

The clause will strengthen the existing assets of community value scheme in England, which since its introduction in 2012 has seen only 15 in every 1,000 listed assets come into community ownership, and create a new, far more effective and far more powerful, community right to buy. This will give communities a right of first refusal on the purchase of valued community assets. It will give an extended 12-month period to raise funding to purchase the asset, as we recognise that the current six months is not long enough. It will also introduce an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price for everyone.

We know that village shops and bank branches are a lifeline to our communities. The clause will therefore extend the definition of an asset of community value to include those with an economic value and assets of historical importance, so that communities can protect and make use of them.

Finally, the clause will address the historically low uptake of sporting assets under the current regime by establishing a new sporting asset of community value designation. Sports grounds across England will be automatically and indefinitely designated as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that these cherished facilities, vital to our communities, are protected for generations to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 27

Assets of community value

I beg to move amendment 349, in schedule 27, page 265, leave out lines 1 to 8.

This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.

Amendments 349 to 351 concern the rules around assets of community value. The designation of a building such as a pub, community shop or village hall, or even a piece of land like a community orchard, as an asset of community value allows local people to protect the places that play an important role in their community. They are often linked to wellbeing and social cohesion. The intent behind the original legislation was to give communities a real say on places that matter deeply to them, particularly when they are at risk of being sold or redeveloped.

There is, however, a flaw in the current system. Under existing law, once an asset is listed on the register by a local authority, it automatically drops off the register after five years. This creates a huge burden not only on the local community, including local community groups and parish and town councils—as they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to resubmit the application to the local authority—but on the local authority itself, as the application has to go through its legal department and be scrutinised once again. In the time it takes for that to happen, a cherished community asset might be sold off.

Like sporting assets of community value, these important buildings and sites must remain on the list of community assets. Amendment 349 would remove the automatic five-year expiry for assets of community value for all buildings and places on that list. It would mean that, once an asset is listed as being of community value, it will stay on the register indefinitely, unless there is a clear reason for it to be removed.

The amendment would shift the burden from communities to maintain protection for something that is still vital to local life. I had an experience in my constituency where one of the village pubs, which had been put on the register of assets of community value, dropped off the list during covid. Obviously, we were all preoccupied with the pandemic, and we only realised later that it was not protected any more.

Amendments 350 and 351 are consequential to amendment 349. In a way, these amendments would also take away the burden on local authorities that have to assess the application once again. This change matters because reapplying is not a simple process; it takes time, organisation and paperwork, and it is handled by volunteers who may have limited capacity and resources. Removing the time limit for all assets of community value would mean that we provide continuity of protection and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for both communities and local councils. It would also recognise that community value does not just disappear after a few years. A local pub or post office that was vital to a community in 2019 is still vital in 2025.

In our view, these amendments sit entirely within the spirit of the Bill by giving communities more tools to strengthen local decision making, and not limiting them with arbitrary timeframes. I urge the Minister and the Committee to cut the red tape and strengthen local power, and I ask her to consider reviewing the time limit.

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. We absolutely want to ensure strong protections for assets of community value, and the five-year listing period recognises the need of the community in that period of time. We also recognise that the need and desire of the community may change over time. Something that is an asset of community value in year one might not be an asset of community value in year six or seven. This allows a review process to happen.

We are also trying to balance the protections that we absolutely want to give to communities with those of the asset owners, and to ensure it is proportionate. We think that five years is a fair balance between both parties. I am also mindful of the risk that if we designate assets of community value permanently, local authorities may be incentivised to take tougher judgments on requests from communities to list assets of community value. On balance, when we think about the incentives to create more assets of community value, protections that we need to give to communities and protections for the asset owners, five years feels like the right amount of time to allow the system to operate in a way that is fair for all parties. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her amendment.

Would the Minister consider looking at extending that five years to give a bit more time to the community to—

Okay. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 27, page 265, line 41, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.

This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.

These amendments are interlinked. First, I would like to speak in support of the Bill’s provisions to protect assets of community value under the new sporting category. Those are important, and we are all delighted to see them in the Bill. These are key community hubs, including for our grassroots sports clubs and particularly for our young people. They play a fundamental role in building local pride, building engagement and developing young people’s skills. I thank the Government for these welcome provisions.

In that context, the Bill’s exclusion of environmental assets of community value seems stark. Social, economic and environmental impacts are often grouped together in legislation, and yet although sporting assets have been added to the group of possible categories for an asset of community value, environmental assets have not. The environmental impact is absent. We can only assume that exclusion is a protection against environmental considerations being used as a mechanism to prevent development. Perhaps the Minister can explain that in her response. This seems needlessly reductive, because the positives outweigh the negatives, and the negatives can be mitigated if there is a concern.

There is widespread support for these amendments. We worked on them with Locality and the Community Land Trust Network, in conversation with them I heard about sites all across the country that could be protected. I am sure that Members can think of many examples in their constituencies. Given the value of environmental conservation—the value of nature for its own sake, as well as its benefits for public health and mental health—we ask the Minister to consider including provision for considering environmental impact in assets of community value. It would be of huge value to my constituents to be able to ensure that measures are in place to protect the environmental value of, for example, Meon Vale woods, which they fought to save and which has become a local nature reserve. Depending on the Minister’s response, I will press amendment 34 and consequential amendments 35 to 37 to a vote.

The Government absolutely want to ensure that the community right to buy can be used to protect a wide range of assets. That already includes a wide range of environmental assets where communities can demonstrate an existing historical, social or economic purpose, including allotments, woodlands, parks and other green spaces. We know that many of those can already be found on local lists of assets of community value.

I beg to move amendment 373, in schedule 27, page 266, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) it is land of on which there are buildings of historical significance.”

This amendment would expand the criteria for a local authority classifying land as of community value to include land on which there are buildings of historical significance.

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.

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.

I will speak briefly on new clause 51. It is really encouraging that there is a cross-party effort to reinvigorate community ownership funding, which has lapsed. Although I am excited about the pride in place funding, which is quite extensive and goes into local areas in quite an intensive way, I think the community ownership angle of that is limited to the geographic area covered. Things such as sporting assets or community assets that serve a whole town may not be within that area. I would like to hear from the Minister that, if she will not accept new clause 51, something will be done for other parts of the country to ensure a fund to support community ownership.

I will try to work through all the amendments. Let me start with amendment 373. I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to protecting historical assets. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate heritage buildings and assets, and there are already protections in place for them to do that. Historical buildings that are valued by local communities, but do not meet the criteria to be nationally listed, can be listed by local authorities as non-designated heritage assets. That protects them through the national planning policy framework, so the protection is already there.

On amendment 40, I reassure the Committee that we already have established processes in place to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to deliver new policies, and this is no exception. The new burdens doctrine requires that all new responsibilities placed on local authorities are properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant Department. We are assessing the cost of the process for local authorities and will provide new burdens funding accordingly.

On amendment 41, I can confirm that we are assessing the costs of independent valuation to local authorities. Where the owner and community buyer cannot agree a purchase price for an asset through negotiation, the local authority must appoint an independent valuer. We will provide new burdens funding to meet those costs accordingly, once assessments have been finalised and tested with local government. I hope that that provides some assurance.

On amendment 374, we know that some community groups may not come forward as they do not have the capability or capacity to put together a bid for an asset. The intention of the 12-month sale period is to give communities time to organise and to raise the funding required. We will continue to work with community organisations to ensure that they have the support to do so. Requiring local authorities to step in to purchase assets where there is no community buyer would put too much of a burden on local authorities, and we could end up with local authorities taking over and having to run theatres and pubs. Although those assets might have value for the community, that does not feel appropriate for a local authority.

We think we have the balance right and that this measure is proportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said eloquently, however much we might want a particular asset to stay in its original form, sometimes that may not be viable. We do not want buildings becoming dilapidated when they could be retained in a different way.

On amendment 42, we are already putting requirements on local authorities to enable and facilitate this process. For example, they must arrange that joint meeting between the asset owner and the community buyer at the start of the process and enable that process of negotiation and, as I have said, local authorities again need to step in to provide the independent valuer if negotiations fail. We think that is the right role for the local authority, not least because it has to be an arbiter in the process.

However, we want there to be enough capability across all our communities, irrespective of the level of social capital, to be able to take on these powers. There is a range of community organisations with the expertise and experience to provide this kind of support to communities, such as Plunkett, Power to Change and Locality, and we are working with those organisations on the additional support that they can provide to communities across the country.

Amendment 249 would restrict what an asset owner can do with their property once listed. We think that it is ultimately up to local planning authorities to consider planning applications in accordance with their development plans and other material considerations. That could include the listing of an asset of community value. The weight afforded to material considerations in making the decision will be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we think it is right that that is left to the local planning authority.

Critically, the national planning policy framework already includes important safeguards to protect against the unnecessary loss of social, recreational and cultural facilities that serve an important value for the community. We think that the balance between what already exists in the planning system and the protections that we are providing through the community right to buy is right and appropriate.

Finally, on new clause 51, let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to empowering our communities. We are giving communities everywhere the power to take ownership. Our pride in place programme, which the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about, is providing £5 billion over 10 years to support 244 places, to enable and support them to take on such community assets of value.

We will continue to review this area, because we are committed to communities having a stake in and ownership of their assets, and we are committed to doing our part as a Government to enable them to do that. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her many amendments.

I will not press the amendments to a vote, although my hon. Friends might table them again on Report, but I will press new clause 51 to a vote later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 236, in schedule 27, page 275, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—

“(b) the relevant local authority has determined that the preferred community buyer does not meet the progress requirements after any of the review periods (see section 86U), or”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

This group of amendments introduces and defines the new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. This will permit landowners to request evidence from the preferred community buyer no less than two weeks before the end of the new 16-week review period. The period begins on the date when a notice of intent to enter into a relevant disposal is given. At the end of the 16-week review period, the local authority will decide whether the community has met the progress requirements and will give written notice of its decision to both the owner and the buyer.

While I remain committed to empowering communities to take ownership of larger sports grounds, I also recognise the importance of ensuring that they have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively. That means putting in place processes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of those assets, ensuring that community buyers are well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of permanent ownership for an asset that will be critical to their community.

Amendment 236 agreed to.

Amendments made: 234, in schedule 27, page 281, line 39, leave out “that” and insert “the notice”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 223, in schedule 27, page 281, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the land that the notice relates to is a sporting asset of community value which can accommodate over 10,000 people, and the owner makes a request in writing, the relevant local authority must—

(a) determine whether at the end of the 16 week review period the preferred community buyer has met the progress requirements, and

(b) as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of the determination to the owner and the buyer.”

This provides that where requested by the owner a preferred community buyer of a sporting asset of community value which is a large venue must show additional evidence of progress of their proposed purchase at an earlier stage in the process.

Amendment 224, in schedule 27, page 281, line 13, leave out “first” and insert “6 month”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 225, in schedule 27, page 281, line 18, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 226, in schedule 27, page 281, line 19, leave out “first review period” and insert

“review period that it relates to”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 227, in schedule 27, page 281, line 21, leave out “second” and insert “12 month”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 228, in schedule 27, page 281, line 28, leave out

“the first and second review periods”

and insert “each review period”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 229, in schedule 27, page 281, line 34, at end insert—

“‘the 16 week review period’ is the period of 16 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of a wish to enter into a relevant disposal was given under section 86M(1) (‘the notice date’);”.

Amendment 230, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “first” and insert “the 6 month”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 231, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “six” and insert “6”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 232, in schedule 27, page 281, line 36, leave out from “with the” to the end of line 37 and insert “notice date”.

Amendment 233, in schedule 27, page 281, line 38, leave out “second” and insert “the 12 month”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Amendment 235, in schedule 27, page 281, at end of line 39 insert—

“‘review period’ means the 16 week review period, the 6 month review period or the 12 month review period.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)