Malvern Hills Bill [HL] Committee: Special report

Approximate read time: 21 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 29 October 2026:

Baroness Coffey (Conservative) to move that the Grand Committee takes note of the special report from the Select Committee on the Malvern Hills Bill.

1.  Key points

• The Malvern Hills Bill [HL] is a private bill promoted by the Malvern Hills Conservators, who are also known as the Malvern Hills Trust. The bill seeks to consolidate the existing legislation governing the trust. It would also introduce some changes, for instance reforming the composition of the board and the way trustees are appointed and giving the trust some new powers.
• Those who are specially and directly affected by a private bill can petition against it. Fifty petitions against the bill were submitted. The select committee appointed to consider the bill said this was unprecedented in recent times.
• The select committee considered arguments from the promoters and from petitioners and published its conclusions in a special report in April 2026. The committee agreed the legislation governing the Malvern Hills Trust should be updated but said it could not overlook the opposition to the bill. It concluded “the balance of argument […] lies in favour of a suitably amended bill”.
• The committee made amendments to the bill including rejecting proposed changes to the wording of the definition of the trust’s charitable objects, changing the balance between elected and appointed members on the newly composed board of trustees and increasing the list of bodies the trust would have to consult before exercising certain powers. The special report explains the reasoning behind the committee’s amendments, and where the committee decided not to amend the bill despite objections from the petitioners.
• The bill had completed report stage in the House of Lords by the end of the 2024–26 parliamentary session. The House of Lords agreed a motion to carry the bill over to the current parliamentary session, but an equivalent motion was objected to in the House of Commons. The bill cannot progress any further this session unless both Houses agree a motion to revive it. The debate on 29 October 2026 is to take note of the committee’s special report. A separate decision would have to be taken on whether to revive the bill.

2.  What is the Malvern Hills Bill [HL]?

The Malvern Hills Bill [HL] is a private bill promoted by the Malvern Hills Conservators.^[1] The conservators are seeking to consolidate and update the legislation that governs them, including seeking some new powers.

The Malvern Hills Conservators were established as a body corporate by the Malvern Hills Act 1884 to protect and manage the Malvern Hills and the adjacent commons.^[2] The conservators adopted the working name of Malvern Hills Trust in 2017.^[3] They have around 3,000 acres of open grassland, woodland and scrub within their jurisdiction, including the Malvern Hills, which are designated as a national landscape (formerly called an area of outstanding natural beauty) and parcels of land that have been brought under the conservators’ jurisdiction since the 1884 act.^[4] The conservators are under a statutory duty to prevent encroachments on to the land under their jurisdiction, to preserve the land as open spaces free from enclosure and building for the enjoyment and recreation of the public and to preserve the natural aspect of the Malvern Hills.

Four further pieces of legislation were passed to address matters not covered in the original 1884 act: the Malvern Hills Act 1909, the Malvern Hills Act 1924, the Malvern Hills Act 1930 and the Malvern Hills Act 1995.^[5] The trust argues that this piecemeal approach makes the legislation difficult to follow and that some provisions are now out of date.^[6] The trust is also seeking to make governance changes, such as changing the way that trustees are appointed, and to take some new powers, such as the ability to issue fixed penalty notices for breaches of byelaws.

More detailed explanations of the provisions in the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum published at the start of the bill document and in the Malvern Hills Bill [HL] Committee’s ‘Special report of session 2024–26: Malvern Hills Bill[HL]’, published in April 2026.^[7]

3.  Parliamentary progress of the bill

The bill was deposited in Parliament in November 2024 and had its first reading in the House of Lords in January 2025. Individuals, groups, organisations and businesses “directly and specially affected by the bill” had until 6 February 2025 to petition against the bill, outlining how it would affect them and how they believed it should be altered.^[8] The bill had its first reading in the House of Lords (a formal stage with no debate) on 22 January 2025.

Second reading took place on 4 June 2025.^[9] Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour) presented the bill on behalf of the Malvern Hills Trust and several other members spoke in support of the bill. However, several members highlighted concerns raised by petitioners against the bill. These centred around issues such as:

• the definition of the trust’s charitable objects
• the obligation for residents in some parishes to pay a levy to fund the trust while residents in other parts of the Malvern Hills Trust area do not have to pay
• changes to the arrangements for electing and appointing members of the trust and what these might mean for accountability and representation
• public access to the Malvern Hills

There was also discussion about the constitutional status of the trust and whether it is a charity or a public body. Lord Faulkner of Worcester drew attention to the fact that the Malvern Hills Trust is a charity and as such must comply with charity law and take heed of the Charity Commission.^[10] However, other members raised the point that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had recently classified the trust as a public body.^[11] Baroness Twycross, minister for heritage at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, explained that it is possible for an organisation to be both a public body and a charity.^[12] She said the ONS classification did not automatically mean that the Malvern Hills Trust had become subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Baroness Twycross said the government was not adopting a position on the bill, as for private bills it only did so if they contained provisions contrary to public policy.^[13]

As the bill was opposed (in other words, as petitions had been lodged against it), it was committed to a select committee. Following second reading, Earl Attlee (Conservative) and Baroness Coffey (Conservative), two of the members who had highlighted concerns during the debate, both moved instructions about what the committee should consider. The House agreed both motions.^[14] Earl Attlee’s instruction directed the committee to consider the levy paying area, the composition of the board and the arrangements for electing and appointing trustees. Baroness Coffey’s instruction directed the committee to consider the extent of the powers to manage the land and public access.

The Malvern Hills Bill [HL] Committee sat between January and March 2026 to hear evidence from the promoters and petitioners.

Fifty petitions were deposited against the bill, several of which were in the names of more than one individual.^[15] Thirteen petitions were withdrawn and three petitioners chose not to attend or did not respond to invitations to appear before the committee. Petitioners have a right to be heard if their interests are specially and directly affected by a private bill.^[16] If the promoter of the bill challenges a petitioner’s right to be heard, it is up to the committee to determine whether they should be heard.

The committee decided to consider the petitions from Malvern Hills District Council, Malvern Town Council, Guarlford Parish Council and West Malvern Parish Council and from three individuals who exercise rights of common over the Malvern Hills.^[17] The promoter did not challenge their right to be heard. The committee also decided to consider petitions from the elected deputy leader of Malvern Hills District Council, five current trustees of the Malvern Hills Trust (one of whom was elected to the trust on an undertaking that he would oppose the bill) and two individual levy payers who were concerned about the possible impacts of a licensing system provided for in clause 63 of the bill on access to the Malvern Hills on charitable activities and on disabled people.^[18] The committee disallowed other petitions as the petitioners were not able to show they were specially and directly affected by the bill.^[19]

The committee concluded its work on 22 April 2026.^[20] The bill was then reported from the committee with amendments.^[21] No report stage is held in the House for private bills.^[22] The committee’s special report on the bill and an amended version of the bill were both printed on 28 April 2026. The special report set out the committee’s summary of arguments from the promoters and the petitioners about the bill and explained the committee’s reasoning behind the amendments it had made—see section 4.2 below.

The House of Lords approved a motion on 23 April 2026 to suspend proceedings on the bill at the end of the 2024–26 parliamentary session so that it could be carried over to the next session.^[23] However, an equivalent motion in the House of Commons was objected to.^[24]

For the bill to continue in this session both Houses would need to agree a revival motion. The House of Lords was due to consider a revival motion on 9 June 2026.^[25] However, the senior deputy speaker withdrew the motion. This was because Baroness Coffey had given notice that she wished to speak on it. The senior deputy speaker said he would re-table the revival motion so it could be discussed on another occasion when there was time for a debate. The House is now due to debate Baroness Coffey’s motion to take note of the select committee’s report on the bill on 29 October 2026. A debate on a revival motion in the House of Lords is expected to be scheduled in due course.^[26]

If both Houses agreed to revive the bill, its next stage would be third reading in the House of Lords. If passed by the House of Lords, it would then have its House of Commons stages to go through.

4.  What did the special report say?

The committee’s special report summarised the bill clause by clause, setting out in turn the promoter’s arguments for each provision in the bill and the petitioners’ arguments against the clauses they opposed. The committee then set out its opinion on the bill and explained the decisions it had made about where to amend the bill, and where not to do so.

4.1 Committee’s opinion

The committee said there was “no doubt that the time has come” for consolidating and updating the provisions of the existing pieces of legislation into a single statute and “for thinking about modernising and conferring further powers on the trustees”.^[27] The committee noted that the promoters of the bill had the support of the Charity Commission in presenting the bill to Parliament.^[28] However, the committee also said it could “not overlook the fact that there is a substantial body of opposition to the bill by people who feel that there has been no effective consultation and that their grounds for objecting to it have been ignored”.

The committee pointed to the fact that over 50 people had petitioned against the bill, a number it believed to be “unprecedented in recent times in the case of a private bill”. Moreover, six of the current conservators had petitioned against the bill, as had a longstanding former conservator who told the committee she had resigned from the trust because of how she had been treated when she made her views known. In relation to this, the committee said:

We are conscious that the nature of these proceedings means that we have heard only one side of the story. The promoter decided not to cross-examine those petitioners who mentioned those complaints, and it did not offer any evidence to dispute what they said. We regret that we have not heard from the chairman or any other member of the board who supports the bill. We accept that there was no obligation for them to appear, and that the promoter was entitled to adopt the position which it did. But the way the proceedings appear to have been handled has created a sense of mistrust which we find it difficult to set aside.^[29]

In light of these difficulties, the committee concluded that “the balance of argument […] lies in favour of a suitably amended bill”. It said that with amendments tabled by the promoters to deal with corrections needed to the text of the bill, and with the amendments required by the committee, “the clauses in the bill are expedient and necessary and that the House may properly give the bill a third reading”.

4.2 How did the committee amend the bill?

The committee made a number of amendments to the bill. The committee’s reasoning is set out on pages 33 to 43 of the special report. Appendix 1 of the special report gives a detailed list of the textual amendments to the bill and its explanatory memorandum. The committee’s amendments included:

• Objects: Clause 6 makes provision about the charitable objects of the trust. The promoters of the bill proposed two changes to the wording of the objects in the existing law. The 1924 act requires the conservators to preserve “the natural aspect of the Malvern Hills at all times”. The promoters of the bill proposed changing this to “natural appearance of the Malvern Hills”. The 1930 act requires the conservators to “keep the Malvern Hills unenclosed and unbuilt on” at all times. The promoters of the bill proposed to leave out “unenclosed”. The committee was not persuaded that these changes were necessary or expedient, and did not agree with the Charity Commission Scheme Working Group’s reasons for proposing them.^[30] The committee said that “aspect” was a better word to use than “appearance”, and it therefore amended this in clause 6. It said removing the word “unenclosed” suggested the bill would allow the trustees to do something that they cannot currently do. The committee therefore amended clause 6 so the trust’s objects would continue to be to “keep the Malvern Hills unenclosed and unbuilt on”.
• Constitution: At present there are 29 trustees, of whom 11 are directly elected by those on the electoral roll for the surrounding parishes, 17 are appointed by the local authorities and one is appointed by the Church Commissioners.^[31] The bill proposed transitioning to a board of 12 trustees. Six would be elected by the electors of the whole of the trust’s electoral area (rather than individual parishes or wards each electing one trustee, as at present). The other six would be appointed by the trustees. The committee said it was satisfied a case had been made for reforming the composition of the board of the trust as at present it was “too large, vacancies are not always filled and attendances are not all as they should be”.^[32] It said 12 members was an appropriate size, noting that this also had the approval of the Charity Commission. While the committee agreed that having appointed trustees would bring special knowledge, experience or ability in relevant fields to the board, it was not convinced that there needed to be as many as six appointed trustees to make these skills available.^[33] The committee amended clause 8 and related clauses so that the board would instead be made up of eight elected trustees and four appointed trustees. It also inserted a requirement that six trustees would be required for a quorum for a meeting at a meeting of trustees, of whom at least two must be appointed trustees save in exceptional circumstances.^[34]
• Public access and management: The committee said that part 4 of the bill, which deals with public access and management of the land, mostly replicates existing provisions in the current legislation.^[35] The committee noted that Baroness Coffey’s instruction required it to consider to what extent the trust’s powers go beyond what is necessary for the trustees properly to manage the land within their jurisdiction, and to pay particular attention to the provisions that would impede or restrict public access. The committee said that the objections to the public access provisions concentrate on the regulation of commoners’ rights. The committee described the commoners’ objections as “understandable”. However, the committee concluded “they do not give rise to serious concerns about the way these provisions will be exercised in practice”. The committee was satisfied that the public access provisions were required and appropriate.^[36] However, it did amend clauses 46 and 49 to insert new requirements about whom the trust must consult (for example, those exercising rights of common or a body representing the interests of people with disabilities) before exercising certain powers. In relation to the management provisions in part 4, the committee said it was concerned about clause 63, which provides that licences may be issued for specified purposes according to a policy published and made available by the trust.^[37] The committee amended this clause to prevent the power being used to issue licences in respect of the grazing of animals; to prevent licences being issued under this power unless the relevant policy governing the licences had been approved by a special resolution of the trustees; and to require the trust to consult a body or bodies representing the interests of people with disabilities and anyone else the trust thinks fit before the policy can be approved.^[38]
• Byelaws: Clause 65 confers on the trust a power to make and enforce byelaws. The committee said this power was “enlarged” compared to the trust’s current powers, encompassing 18 different purposes for which byelaws can be made.^[39] Clause 68 contains a new power to issue fixed penalty notices to any person whom an authorised officer has reason to believe has committed an offence against any byelaw.^[40] The committee said it was not persuaded that the provisions about fixed penalty notices were unreasonable, given the need to have a means of enforcing the byelaws. However, it found the requirement for consultation before byelaws were made “inadequate”.^[41] It therefore amended the bill to require the trust to consult a body or bodies representing the interests of people with disabilities, any person whom the trust believes is exercising a right to graze livestock on the Malvern Hills and such other persons as the trust thinks fit. This is in addition to the requirement already in the bill to consult the Sport and Recreation Alliance.

There were also a number of areas where the committee decided against amending the bill, despite objections the petitioners had raised. These included:

• Name: Clause 5 provides that the Malvern Hills Conservators are to be renamed as the Malvern Hills Trust, which has been the conservators’ working name since April 2017. Several petitioners objected to this, but the committee said “trust” was more in keeping with the modern use of language.^[42] It also noted that for the purposes of the Charities Act 2011, the body that manages and administers the Malvern Hills is described as a trust. The committee said that using this term would help avoid confusion.
• Status of the trust: Some petitioners suggested that the trust could not be both a charity and, at the same time, a body with statutory power to require local residents to pay a levy.^[43] The committee said that there was no incompatibility and that clause 5 sets out the facts as they are.
• Levy: The committee recognised that it is a matter of concern that some residents within the area of the Malvern Hills Trust pay the levy while others do not.^[44] The committee believed there was “much to be said for taking a fresh look at the statutory provisions relating to the levy-paying area”.^[45] It noted that it was required to do so by Earl Attlee’s instruction. However, this instruction also acknowledged that the promoter is under a restriction that prevents it from promoting provisions in the bill which would have the effect of changing the existing levy arrangements materially. This is because the trust had to seek consent from the Charity Commission under section 74 of the Charities Act 2011 to use some of its funds to promote the bill.^[46] This consent did not allow the trust to spend the money on incurring any costs relating to the bill which would extend or materially change the power to levy. The committee said if it made any amendments to the bill that had the effect of enlarging the levy-paying area, residents and local authorities in the area of enlargement would have to be given the right to petition against, and the Charity Commission would have to consent before any money could be spent promoting such amendments.^[47] For these reasons, the committee decided not to alter the bill in relation to the levy. However, the committee expressed the hope that the trust and the Charity Commission would keep the levy under review, because the anomaly that means only some residents within the trust’s area must pay the levy would not go away.
• General power: Clause 83 gives the trust a general power to do any lawful thing to further the objects of the trust. Several petitioners objected to the breadth of this power.^[48] However, the committee decided it was reasonable and appropriate for the trust to have this power.^[49] It found that the power was “not an unrestricted power with no safeguards”, as it could only be used to further the objects of the trust, and could not be used if the trust could do the lawful thing by exercising a different power in the bill or in another enactment. Nor could the trust use it to acquire, dispose of or grant any interest in land, to borrow or raise money or to erect any building, fencing or other type of enclosure on the Malvern Hills. The committee said the power would enable the trust to deal with unforeseen circumstances without having to return to Parliament in future for new powers to be granted.
• Trust as public body: The committee noted that several petitioners had asked it to add a new clause to be bill stating that the trust is a public body.^[50] However, the committee did not believe that this would serve any useful purpose, as “that expression has no universal meaning”.^[51] It said the ONS classification of the trust as a public body was “undertaken purely for the purpose of compiling statistics” and “reflects no more than the fact that it is a formally established and publicly funded organisation whose function is to serve the general interest of the area”.^[52] It said that questions as to whether the trust was a public authority for the purposes of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Human Rights Act 1998 were questions of law for a court, not for the committee.^[53]

---

Photo by Christopher Eden on Unsplash