I can inform the House that Lords amendment 39 engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will ensure that the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege is entered into the Journal.

Clause 2

Areas of competence

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 4, 13 and 26, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 36 and 37, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendments 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 155, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40.

Lords amendment 42, motion to disagree, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 42.

Lords amendments 43 to 55.

Lords amendment 56, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 56.

Lords amendments 57 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.

The Minister will be aware that the election campaigns for the Surrey West and Surrey East unitaries are ongoing as a consequence of this legislation, but we still have not had an announcement on whether we will get a mayor for Surrey. That will be critical for protecting our green belt if the Conservatives do not retain power after the elections. Can she update the House on the importance of protecting our green belt and getting a mayor for Surrey who can do so?

The question of unitarisation is being dealt with. Applications have been made and the Government are going through the process and looking at the objective criteria. No doubt the hon. Member has had many conversations with the Minister for Housing and Planning on these matters. I will, however, try to focus the hon. Member’s mind and attention on the key premise of this Bill, which is community empowerment and devolution, and on the Lords amendments we are discussing.

Before speaking to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friend Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation to all peers who contributed to its scrutiny. I will begin with the Government amendments that were made in the other place. Following the insightful contribution of peers, Lords amendment 1 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause 2 of the Bill. By doing so, the Government are sending a clear signal on the role that strategic authorities can and should continue to play in supporting cultural initiatives, as well as recognising the important role that culture in its many forms plays in enriching quality of life and supporting local economic growth.

We are also improving the operational flexibility of the commissioner model introduced by the Bill. Lords amendments 3 and 5 increase the potential number of commissioners to 10, and Lords amendments 125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135 allow more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence.

The next group of important changes that the Government made in the other place concerns local accountability and scrutiny. The Government committed to exploring a local Public Accounts Committee model in the English devolution White Paper. We recognised that greater powers of local scrutiny are needed to reflect the increased scale of responsibility that will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities through the Bill. To that end, Lords amendments 7, 137 and 138 introduce local scrutiny committees, which replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities. Local scrutiny committees will provide an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight, a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities and greater teeth to hold mayors to account.

On Report, the Government introduced amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and created a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. That included an amendment to create a new duty on the Mayor of London to determine and publish a new strategic licensing policy.

I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns about strategic licensing that I and colleagues in London have shared with her. May I confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for an application to be treated as being of potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within a London plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, and that instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is of potential strategic importance, the Government intend for regard to be given to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local licensing authority?

I thank my hon. Friend for asking an important question, and for his ongoing engagement in this area. Let me take his question in the context of what we are trying to do through the Bill. The Government are really clear, and Baroness Taylor made it very clear in the other place, that we recognise that licensing authorities are often best placed to make licensing decisions, based on their local knowledge. In that context, the evidence provided by licensing authorities will have a significant role in both the design of the policy and the determination of potential strategic importance.

One area that has been talked about is the ability of scrutiny bodies to take decisions, and the challenge in London is that there has to be a two-thirds majority to make a decision. The suggestion was made that this could be changed and be brought in line with other authorities, so that we have simple majority voting. Does the Minister agree that we have missed an opportunity to do that?

I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing.

My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment.

The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment.

We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right.

On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.

Given that the new powers are being handed to local transport authorities, will there be funding to enforce the new measures and the obligations that councils are getting?

We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.

Any progress on banning pavement parking is progress, so I absolutely welcome that. Will guidance be given to local authorities on how that could work? We have a ban in Edinburgh, which has been transformative, so hopefully we can look there for examples of how it could work. The Minister mentioned exemptions. Will the Government mandate any exemptions centrally, or is it entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?

We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.

I think the Minister has slightly brushed over Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. This is an excellent Bill, but I do think it is disappointing that the Government are rejecting Lords amendment 41. If we want to properly protect our beloved music venues, pubs and cultural institutions, we need measures with teeth. The agent of change principle works in Scotland, where it is in statute, but such measures do not really work in England at the moment.

I had hoped that the Government would table an amendment in lieu on this issue, and I guess there is still time, but if not—and I know the Minister will say that the Government are looking at the national planning policy framework—could I encourage the strongest possible protections in that for the venues I have mentioned?

As my hon. Friend says, Lord amendment 41, with Lords amendment 95, would place the agent of change principle on a statutory footing in the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regimes. While I and the Government respect the concerns raised in the other place and those he has raised about how in some cases new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity, we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary, given the changes to the planning system already in progress.

The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance frameworks give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. Furthermore, we are already considering changes to strengthen this duty, because we recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend has made.

As the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework that would strengthen this policy and ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses while building the houses the country desperately needs. Today, I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change principle, following the publication of the final national planning policy framework. This guidance will ensure consistent application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. I hope that will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 41.

Lords amendment 42, moved by Lord Banner, fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trusts was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in difficult and protracted legal wranglings. While this will apply in only a very small number of cases, the Government do not believe that historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk is preventing the delivery of environmental improvements, or improvements to community facilities.

The amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in a statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not—it does not—weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidenced-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations. By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law, the amendment ensures decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interests of the public. For those reasons, the Government support the amendment.

With respect, may I correct the Minister? There is a process by which the gap can be corrected. The land could be re-conveyed to the local authority and then the correct process carried out. Does she agree that the weakness of Lord Banner’s amendment is that the local authority has no role to play? In the process that should have been used, the local authority has a role to play. This is moving from localism back to centralised Government making decisions. Is that not wrong?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is still the responsibility of the local authority. The amendment is trying to get to those specific cases where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land and then we are in limbo; it creates a mechanism by which to resolve that. There is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land, or maintain it in statutory trusts. That is not affected by this amendment. This is trying to get to those situations where it has not been discharged properly. There is currently a gap in the legislation, which we hope this amendment responds to.

Then there are two remedies: to re-convey the land to the local authority to do it correctly, or to bring an amendment that gives the local authority a role to play. The local authority has no role to play in this amendment; that is why it is moving from localism to ministerial fiat. That is what is wrong with the amendment.

Whether it is in the planning system or in other systems, in instances where we have a contentious situation and disagreement because a local authority has not discharged its responsibilities in disposing of statutory trusts, at the moment we are in limbo. The amendment creates a mechanism by which that can be resolved. We are very clear that strict criteria and safeguards are put in place. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will opine and come to a decision based on what is in the public interest. The ability of the community to make representations is very clear and very firmly built into the way we are designing the policy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to make progress. I move on to amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill. For that reason, we cannot accept them. Let me be clear about precisely why, starting with Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to include rural affairs as a stand-alone area of competence for strategic authorities. Peers in the other place highlighted the distinct challenges facing our rural communities, from public transport through to employment opportunities and affordable housing. The Government recognise those challenges and agree with many of the points made in the other place. However, we cannot accept the amendment because we consider it unnecessary.

The areas of competence have been deliberately framed in broad terms, allowing a wide range of activities to fall within scope, including matters relating to rural affairs. From transport through to local infrastructure and housing, the existing areas of competence already allow for strategic authorities to address rural needs where relevant. Crucially, this is now being borne out; York and North Yorkshire combined authority, for instance, is already piloting affordable rural housing. There is no disagreement on policy; the Government recognise the role that strategic authorities can play in supporting our rural communities. Given that, I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given.

Lords amendment 4 seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process. On this, we agree. That is why the Government have published statutory guidance that sets out the selection, appointment and remuneration process. We hope that doing so satisfies the points raised in the other House.

Lords amendments 13 and 87 seek to reduce the threshold needed for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority, which was the point the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) was making. It is the Government’s intention to simplify and ensure consistency in voting arrangements across all our strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority. For most decisions, the default will become a simple majority, but that does not apply for mayoral budgets, which will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend.

Given that mayors and combined authorities may have their budgets amended only by a two-thirds majority, the Government believe that these amendments would bring scrutiny of London’s mayoral budget out of line with other strategic authorities. We therefore do not support the amendments and urge the House to reject them.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make progress, if I may.

Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make a little more progress first.

We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March.

The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.

I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.

Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make progress.

For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary.

Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.

Will the Minister give way?

I will have to make progress in case I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.

Finally, Lords amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120 and 121 and 123 collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government have been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We have also been clear that we will always seek to make sure that partnerships are locally driven. I hope that the new combined authorities we established in recent weeks and our invitation to all areas to form foundational strategic authorities serve as evidence that we are taking a local-first and locally driven approach.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make progress.

I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members.

To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.

The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.

Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.

Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the west midlands under the leadership of Andy Street, it was proven that we can regenerate brownfield sites—we have done it in the Walsall borough. The Government must be prepared, as we were when we were in government, to put in some funding to unlock those sites. It can be a win-win as we develop brownfield sites, regenerate our towns and cities, create the housing wanted by young people and old people, and protect the green belt and our green spaces for as long as we possibly can, allowing communities such as those I represent—600 people came out last weekend to protest against the Government’s measures—to enjoy the amenities of life that they currently do.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall.

The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards.

On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it.

While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

I will, because I have a thing to say about the hon. Gentleman’s party.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Tories’ amendment (a) would do nothing and that it is actually just a tick-box exercise that would allow Lords amendment 42 to pass with the Minister just having to have regard to a report? Why did the Tory party not vote against the amendment? There are many that did not pass. Why did they not vote against this amendment from Lord Banner?

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job.

The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.

The implications of this legislation will be significant for communities across the country. It is therefore crucial that we get it right.

I pay tribute to Eamonn Boylan, who sadly passed away earlier this month—a pivotal figure for Greater Manchester’s devolution journey. During his time as chief executive of the combined authority, he understood that the more power we obtain, both regionally and locally, the more we can deliver. Eamonn certainly helped Greater Manchester to deliver, following the progress made by the likes of Sir Howard Bernstein and Sir Richard Leese.

We in Greater Manchester have been at the forefront of progress in this area and we have been focused on one thing: making tangible improvements to the lives of those who elect us. This Labour Government must be radical in their approach to devolution, bringing power closer to people and not hoarding it in this place, and we must future-proof this Government’s achievements from those who would seek to undermine and unravel our progress.

We need to ensure that the transfer of power to our communities is permanent. From adding culture as a devolved competence to strengthening restrictions on gambling premises, there is much to welcome in the amendments. Today I will cover the amendments related to private hire vehicles, both in terms of national standards and Lords amendments 55 to 62 on enforcement powers for drivers operating in other areas. I previously tabled an amendment on this matter, which I believe would have empowered mayoral strategic authorities to require private hire vehicle drivers to licence within their region. That would have brought licensing, enforcement and monitoring closer to home and forged stronger ties between drivers and the communities they serve.

I acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Pidgeon, who sought, as I did, to phase out out-of-area operations. I welcome the steps that the Government, in the form of Lords amendments, have taken towards enabling licensing authorities to take enforcement action against a PHV licensed out of area and to temporarily suspend licences.

I especially welcome the steps that these amendments take to improve information sharing between licensing authorities on the conduct of individual drivers. Although I support this step and the Government’s work on national standards, we must acknowledge that the system at large will still be characterised by out-of- area operations. I commend what the Government are seeking to do, but if we are to bring about better enforcement processes, we need to incentivise or perhaps mandate drivers to license locally and therefore disincentivise drivers from taking shortcuts to obtaining a licence hundreds of miles away from where they wish to operate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.

What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution.

Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought.

We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law.

Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account.

We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.

The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.

When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.

Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.

Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.

Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.

I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance.

However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally.

One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues.

I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that.

I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.

Order. I am imposing a five-minute time limit.

My area of Sussex is on the fast-track devolution programme. Although that brings challenges and inevitably means that we are still building parts of the plane while learning to fly, for my constituents and all Sussex residents, the devolution of power and resources has the potential to transform our area in health, education, housing, transport and sustainable economic development.

Given the short time available to me, I will concentrate my remarks on Lords amendment 80, which would strengthen the ability of licensing authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to issue cumulative impact assessments or gambling impact assessments. The amendment would give councils a clear, evidence-based tool to assess the cumulative impact of adult gaming centres and to identify areas in which further gambling premises would undermine local licensing objectives, including vulnerability and clustering.

Crewe in my constituency currently faces proposals for yet another adult gaming centre, which I have personally objected to. Does my hon. Friend agree that the strengthening of gambling impact assessments, as well as the wider proposals in the Pride in Place strategy, will allow areas like Crewe to actively shape our high streets and that it is incumbent on local authorities to proactively take up those powers?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I am an officer of the APPG on gambling reform, and we have been doing significant work to gather evidence on this issue over the past 18 months. The sad truth is that the highest numbers of adult gaming centres are predominantly found in our poorest areas. Areas of deprivation need investment, employment and development, not a drain on resources and an open door to the black hole of addiction.

However, Lords amendment 80 is only the start of what we need to do in this area to create environments where our populations can thrive. The “aim to permit” rule remains, and there will be a tension with gambling impact assessments, as it means that councils must still start from a presumption of granting licences, which limits their ability to respond to community opposition, high street saturation and local priorities, even in areas where there are clear concerns about overconcentration of gambling venues. The licensing committee of Worthing borough council recently turned down yet another request for a gambling premises on our high street, but that has now gone to appeal, and the presumption of “aim to permit” means that the balance of evidence is more difficult to hold, even with sound public health and local economic development arguments.

We must therefore continue to develop our legislative approach in this area. Once the impact of gambling impact assessments has been evaluated, we should make a decision on bringing forward legislation to remove “aim to permit” to give councils the right powers to protect and develop our local areas. Alongside that, as the impact assessments and “aim to permit” refer only to the opening of new centres, we must ensure that current licences are not being abused and that licensing codes are upheld.

Lords amendment 80 speaks to the desire of national and local government to enact legislation that lets people thrive in the places where we live. Creating a healthy democracy that has clear objectives and is properly resourced, alongside legislation that allows local government to protect populations from harm and to create healthy environments, is an integral part of this devolution Bill, and I very much welcome it for my area of Sussex and our country.

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.

Urban sprawl is exactly why the green belt was put in place. Its purpose was to protect areas such as mine, my hon. Friend’s and many others that are on the periphery of some of the biggest conurbations and urban areas from urban sprawl. Does he agree that this Labour Government do not care about our communities? All they care about is an arbitrary housing target.

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London.

The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.

I thank my fellow member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for giving way, and I agree with his criticism of the Labour Government. Does he agree that the Conservatives also have an appalling record on defending our green belt and environment? In my Woking constituency, the Conservative Government’s planning policy forced the release of green belt in West Hall in West Byfleet so that there was the urban sprawl that the hon. Member is now speaking so strongly against.

I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him.

It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not.

As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important.

As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission.

I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s actions to give local authorities powers to ban pavement parking. Does he agree that, particularly for those with disabilities or who are blind, this issue is a real problem?

I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.

Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.

These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.

In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), my former colleague on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This Bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time I will speak about just one measure: my support for Government amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments.

Many hon. Members will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country. What used to be a rarity is now all too common: slot machine casinos, often open 24/7, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses, despite often vociferous local opposition. When residents and councils try to resist, it is often futile. The companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, withdraw them and then reapply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. That grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose, so we can see why the incentives have been to give up and grant permission.

In Crystal Palace in my constituency, I am campaigning against a 24-hour gambling casino. The community do not want it and the company that applied for the casino was fined £1 million in January for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the “aim to permit” rule and placing a presumption to reject in specific areas would force my Conservative-run council and others to listen to residents and to make themselves clear?

I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.

To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.

As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?

My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.

I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.

For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.

As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency neighbours his. In my constituency, the North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone and has been identified as such by the council. It borders the Clem Attlee and West Kensington estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and income. That is no coincidence. The council is doing what it can in the current legal framework, but does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and that this Bill will help?

I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.

In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.

We now have a three-minute speaking limit.

I am pleased that the Government support the principle of banning pavement parking and giving local authorities new powers, assuming that they come with new burdens funding. However, Lords amendment 40, which will give powers without a national framework, risks confusion, with inconsistent enforcement, frustrated residents and unfair pressure on frontline staff.

We need a ban across the country, with embedded changes to the highway code and a public information campaign. Shifting the responsibility to councils that decide to go ahead of the curve means that drivers could be caught out, particularly in areas of high tourism like mine in Dorset, where many drivers come from elsewhere. We need the law to be clear about exemptions for postal workers, emergency vehicles and where roads are too narrow for parking. Where such issues exist, we need the time to put down yellow lines and parking restrictions to prevent one problem from being replaced by another.

I recognise that as Lords amendment 40 is a Government amendment, there will be no vote on it, but I urge the Government to consider the potential pitfalls of the amendment and whether it answers the question that people have been asking for so many years. I think the answer is that it does not, and I urge the Government to bring forward a proper road safety Bill in the King’s Speech to properly ban pavement parking.

Let me turn to community asset transfer. I recently worked with Corfe Mullen town council to prepare an application for a transfer but it was no longer needed, thanks to the community raising nearly £600,000. I am now working with Holt football club to help it to protect its club from sale; the club was started 60 years ago by Terry Bradford with a lawnmower and a hosepipe for a shower, I am told. Since then, local residents and businesses from Gaunt’s Common and Holt have invested for all those decades to build a fabulous clubhouse and develop talent that has represented their country.

However, these projects fail because communities cannot compete with private buyers looking to make a profit and sellers knowing that they can squeeze every penny from local people by setting a price beyond their ability to fundraise. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to extend both the time that communities have to delay a sale and the independent valuation, but I seek clarity on whether the change will take effect on Royal Assent and be retrospective for applications already in train. I also strongly support the Lords amendments to extend the time on the register so that Holt football club, which has previously been threatened with eviction, can protect itself into the next generation.

I will speak to Lords amendment 41, regarding putting the agent of change principle on a statutory basis, particularly ensuring that new developments have a noise impact assessment when they are near grassroots music venues. I support the Government’s plans to increase house building, and I recognise that genuine care has to be taken to not increase red tape to the detriment of that goal. However, at the moment, the agent of change regime is preventing elements of house building and residential use in my constituency, as I will come on to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), I am slightly disappointed that that a Government amendment in lieu to Lords amendment 41 has not been tabled.

Sunderland is a music city, and venues such as Pop Recs, Independent and The Bunker are core to our identity. If we are about empowering our community, we need to empower it to protect those venues culturally important to us, which of course are also crucially economically important. As has been said, many grassroots music venues have closed over recent years, with the number declining from 1,150 venues nationally to 800 today. Those closures are due to not just economic factors, but planning issues.

The Minister referenced that there will be guidance around the agent of change principle, but the reality is that there have been forms of guidance since 2014 or 2015, and the Music Venue Trust reports that there has been no let-up in inappropriate planning applications near music venues. For those reasons, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s 2024 report recommended that

“the agent of change principles are put on a statutory footing at the earliest opportunity.”

This Bill is an opportunity to do so—if not through Lords amendment 41, then potentially through alternative means, which I hope the Minister will say something about. I repeat the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), about whether the guidance will be statutory or general.

In my constituency, the Music Venue Trust had to intervene in a planning application to convert a unit of flats near Independent on Holmeside because the plans did not contain sufficient noise protection. That process took too long, incurred cost and risk to the venue, and ultimately meant that the flats were not built, so we actually have housing that is not being built due to a lack of clarity on the agent of change principle. That shows why that principle needs to be strengthened; currently, given that the guidance is not statutory, developers are incentivised to try to get away with proposals.

Will the Minister meet me, other members of the APPG on music, and the Music Venue Trust to discuss strengthening the guidance? Will she also make sure that the statutory guidance in the NPPF that she refers to specifically refers to noise abatement in relation to grassroots music venues?

I wish to speak to Lords amendment 42. Where a local authority provides land for public recreation, it can be held on the basis of a statutory trust that protects it. Parliament has set out a process that must be followed if that trust is to be ended. It is not a brilliant process by any means, but at least it gives a central role to local authorities.

In Day v. Shropshire, the Supreme Court recently held that where those requirements are not followed, the trust—quite reasonably—remains in place. However, amendment 42, first tabled in the other place by the Conservative peer Lord Banner, cuts across that principle. It would allow the Secretary of State to set aside those protections where the proper process has not been followed, even where the current local authority might not now support terminating the trust. It replaces localism with centralism.

Lord Banner sought to justify his amendment on a number of questionable grounds, including the assertion that the Supreme Court decision is

“causing considerable uncertainty in relation to land purchased in good faith from local authorities”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2026; Vol. 863, c. GC527.]

The only example I am aware of is a controversial issue in my constituency of Wimbledon. In that case, the All England Lawn Tennis Club bought the freehold to a portion of Wimbledon Park in 1993 at an appropriately reduced price, having expressly agreed both to never build on the land and to restore full rights of public recreation after the expiry of a pre-existing leasehold interest. There seems little doubt that the primary motivation behind the tabling of Lord Banner’s amendment relates to the Wimbledon Park controversy.

Unfortunately, despite previous assurances that they would leave the law unchanged until a proper consultation could take place, the Government rowed in behind the Banner amendment. That amendment would, however, still have been defeated had the Tories joined my Lib Dem colleagues in the No Lobby. Sadly, despite many assurances to the people of Wimbledon, every Tory peer either abstained or voted for the amendment tabled by their Conservative colleague, Lord Banner.

As we have heard, the Tories tabled an amendment—now re-tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—that would require the Secretary of State to write a report, lay it before Parliament and consider it. That is simply a tick-box exercise that would do nothing to stop Lord Banner’s amendment from coming into force. It is a parliamentary sleight of hand to pretend to the people of Wimbledon that the Tories have not abandoned them—and the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has the cheek to ask me why the Lib Dems refuse to join the Tories in this deception.

My constituents in Wimbledon expect the legal protections of land to be upheld in practice, not set aside for ministerial discretion and Tory cons. I tabled a motion to disagree with the Banner amendment but under the arcane procedures of this place, I understand that my motion will not be voted on, while the Banner amendment will remain. That marks a sad day for Wimbledon specifically, public trust land generally and the credibility of the Conservative party across Merton, where the overreach of the AELTC is an important local election issue.

It is a privilege to speak tonight in support of two specific areas of the Bill that will directly affect my constituents in Portsmouth North.

First, I welcome the strengthening of gambling impact assessments. That links directly to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I have already been doing on our “Back Our High Streets—Stop Dodgy Shops” campaign, which has been calling for stronger powers for councils and trading standards to protect our local high streets from rogue, harmful businesses. As I have said throughout the campaign, it is not just about tax-dodging businesses, dodgy vape shops and cowboy barbers; it is also about making sure that our high streets are not overwhelmed by the uses that damage community wellbeing and push out legitimate local traders. That absolutely includes gambling premises.

In North End, one small part of my constituency, five betting shops and arcades are concentrated within a very small area. North End has a proud local high street, but it faces challenges, because the community is already dealing with significant economic and social pressures, alongside a high street that has been neglected for years. This concentration of gambling premises in one community is not an accident, and it is not acceptable.

This kind of clustering can deepen financial hardship, contribute to addiction and poor mental health and undermine the health of the high street. That is why Lords amendment 80 matters. It gives local authorities stronger powers to assess whether additional gambling premises are genuinely consistent with the needs of the area and licensing objectives. That is exactly the kind of tool I have been pushing for and that local councils need if we are serious about backing our high streets and restoring confidence. That is what the Pride in Place strategy should look like in practice—not just warm words on a page, but real powers to shape better high streets.

Secondly, I will highlight the amendments on taxi and private vehicle licensing. I wholeheartedly welcome Lords amendments 43 to 79. The gap in enforcement powers that exists when a vehicle is licensed in one authority but operates in another is real and a long-standing concern for my residents. Like colleagues from all parts of the House, I have concerns about the number of vehicles operating that are licensed outside Portsmouth. Mainly, they are licensed in Wolverhampton.

To be clear, I realise that Wolverhampton carries out robust checks and I understand why many drivers choose to license there—in particular because of the cost of living and because it is significantly quicker—but authorities have too often found themselves powerless to act swiftly when a driver poses a risk to public safety, simply because the licence has been issued elsewhere. These amendments close that gap.

Residents have also highlighted concerns where local standards differ. For example, in Portsmouth, licensed taxis are expected to meet local safety requirements, such as having dash cams and vehicle CCTV, while those licensed elsewhere do not. Can the Minister comment on the options for having a national framework for the licensing of vehicles? That common-sense reform would put the safety of all passengers and drivers first. These are practical, common-sense initiatives, but we need to make sure that our councils deliver on them.

I will briefly speak to Lords amendment 98. When it comes to regions such as Cornwall and my constituency of North Cornwall, this Bill neither respects nor gives due consideration to our unique national minority status. In a letter sent to the leader of Cornwall council in November last year, the Secretary of State said that he recognised Cornwall’s “distinct local identity” and said that the Government were

“minded, on an exceptional basis, to work”

with the leader to explore a bespoke deal for Cornwall.

Five months later, the Bill has progressed through both Houses and still we have nothing in writing about that bespoke Cornwall-only deal, or even provisions to allow for one. Instead, we see efforts by this Government to undermine Lords amendment 98. The Secretary of State plans to force his MPs to vote against that vital amendment, which would prevent the Bill from giving overreaching powers to Ministers, through which they could essentially force local authorities to combine, against the will of local people.

On 24 March, on Report in the other place, the Government Whip responded that discussions are “positive and ongoing” and urged my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Lord Teverson, to withdraw his amendments that were specifically designed to provide appropriate legal protections for Cornwall. The Minister in the other place said:

“While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2026; Vol. 854, c. 1413.]

Instead, the Government seem to have chosen to completely ignore the European framework convention and charter for languages, which opens up the Bill to potential legal challenges.

Our national minority status in Cornwall has been completely ignored, and now risks being ignored by future Governments as well. This essentially means that the current or any future Secretary of State could force Cornwall to combine with other authorities, and disregard its national minority status. Let me be clear: Cornwall does not want that, and my constituents regularly urge me to make this point. We do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a combined authority with Plymouth or any other wider south-west authority.

Without Lords amendment 98, we risk having a diktat from the Westminster Government that tells us what to do. That is not devolution. I urge Members from across the House to vote against the Government’s attempt to disregard this vital amendment, and I respectfully ask the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and set out what protections for Cornwall’s national minority status the Government will bring forward, and when.

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. I invite the Minister to respond.

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left.

Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—

To central Government!

No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.

On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.

Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.

On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.

The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make progress because there is very little time left.

I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward.

Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy.

Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite.

If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities.

I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [Interruption.] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward.

I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

With the leave of the House, we will consider the motions to disagree with Lords amendments 99 to 116 collectively.

Lords amendments 99 to 116 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 120 and 121 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 123 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 155 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35, 38 to 40, 42 to 84, 88, 92 and 93, 95 and 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154, and 156 to 170 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 39.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Sam Carling, Andrew Cooper, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;

That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.