My Lords, I support Amendment 247. My noble friend Lady Bennett supported the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this amendment. I will speak also to Amendments 255 and 257. I am grateful to the Minister for the time she took to meet me following Committee; that was very generous. However, I am much less grateful about the fact that what I asked for is still missing from the Government’s Bill. I had hoped that that discussion might lead to some movement on the issue of environmental interests, but they are still missing from the legal definition of assets of community value.

In Committee and again at our meeting, the Minister expressed a concern that including environmental assets could turn this scheme into something of a proxy part of the planning system. I want to address that directly, because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of what these amendments would do. Assets of community value give communities a fair chance to come together and buy a valued asset if it comes up for sale. They are not a backdoor planning system, they do not grant a right to veto development and they do not override local plans. That is already true for social and economic interests. No one suggests that allowing a community to buy a pub, shop or community centre turns this scheme into a proxy for regulating the economy or blocking development, so why is the environment treated differently?

This is where the Government’s position gets very difficult to follow. On the one hand, Ministers say that environmental assets—woodlands, allotments, green spaces—can already be nominated where they further social or economic well-being; on the other hand, they stop allowing communities to refer explicitly to environmental interests in the same way. I do not think that communities think like that. They do not say, “We value this woodland only for its social benefit”, or, “We want to retrofit this community building only for economic reasons”. In practice, we pursue social, economic and environmental goals together, just as every part of our planning system already recognises. However, as the Bill stands, a community could nominate a woodland but would not be able to properly articulate the environmental outcomes that they want to protect or enhance; they could seek to acquire a community centre but could not refer to plans to improve energy efficiency or biodiversity as part of their case. That weakens their chance to make a credible case.

The Government’s answer remains that this may be addressed in statutory guidance, but guidance is not law: it can be changed and it carries less weight. As the Committee debate showed, this risks embedding the very confusion that we are trying to resolve—the confusion between the asset itself and the interests it serves.

Finally, I return to the broader principle. Everywhere else in policy—planning law, national frameworks and sustainable development—we recognise that social, economic and environmental goals belong together. The Bill, in many respects, seeks to devolve power and to trust communities, but in this one area it holds back. Leaving environmental interests out of statute is not being neutral; it is a signal that they matter less, which does not surprise me coming from this Government, because that is what we have seen again and again on environmental issues. It risks missed opportunities and poorer outcomes for communities.

I thank my colleagues on the other Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, for supporting these two amendments. I hope that they will say something in support. I reserve the right to ask the House to vote on this, because, quite honestly, it is a principle that the Government have missed completely. As a Green, that distresses me hugely.

Hansard record here