PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - 27 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

Areas of competence

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes further Amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 37 and 91, does not insist on its amendment 37A in lieu, and proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 94B and 94C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 but proposes Amendments (a) to (h) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am pleased that we have worked constructively throughout the Bill’s passage to ensure that the Bill is as strong as possible. We have engaged in good faith with Members from across the House and incorporated their feedback. With that, I turn to the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to add “rural affairs” as a distinct area of competence in clause 2 of the Bill. As I have said before, there is no difference in policy intent here; the Government’s position remains that those matters are captured in the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords in the other place. As we extend devolution beyond the predominately urban centres of England, it is right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether urban, rural or coastal. The Government are therefore prepared to accept the addition of “rural affairs” and “coastal communities” to the list of subjects included in the areas of competence.

Hon. Members will know that the Government’s objective is for every part of England to benefit from devolution, and that we want this to be fundamentally a bottom-up process. For the benefit of the House, I will repeat the Government’s commitment not to commence the ministerial powers of direction to establish non-mayoral strategic authorities or expand existing strategic authorities without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This is the approach that we have taken in conversation and engagement with local authorities in order to form foundation strategic authorities, and this is the approach that we continue to take. At the same time, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by some in this House and in the other place about the backstop powers set out in schedule 1. We therefore propose removing the power for the Secretary of State to establish a mayor in an area without local consent.

On brownfield land, the Government fully agree on the importance of prioritising the development of brownfield land. As previous stated, planning policies and decisions are, and should be made, under the national planning policy framework. It remains the right place to set clear expectations on how and where developments should come forward. I have previously set out that imposing a legal requirement in the Bill would risk undermining effective plan-making and local flexibility in supporting sustainable development. The Government consider the amendment passed by the other place to be impractical, as it would undermine effective plan-making, limit consideration of local circumstances, and create inconsistency between the requirements for spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities, and those prepared by upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities. I therefore invite hon. Members to reject the amendment in lieu on brownfield land.

Let me turn to the issue of local authority governance arrangements. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance—in particular, the leader and cabinet model—provide the clearest and most transparent decision-making in local government. We continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England’s local authorities and respecting local democratic mandates and decisions where a committee-run council has adopted its governance model more recently. We have got the balance right; we have listened and adapted, and we do not intend to go further. I invite hon. Members to reject the Lords amendment.

I recognise the strength of feeling about the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The Government have considered Lords amendments 37 and 91 carefully, and we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principles of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide on, based on their community’s needs. Central Government should not intervene and direct that any particular model of neighbourhood governance is right for a place.

However, we have proposed a further amendment, building on our previous commitments. The new change requires local authorities to engage with town and parish councils where appropriate regarding parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. That makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Again, we absolutely recognise the role of town and parish councils—I have made that point consistently throughout the passage of the Bill. We believe that our amendment strikes the right balance, alongside our commitments to reviewing and updating the guidance on community governance reviews, and to publishing a neighbourhood governance framework.

While I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the “agent of change” principle, I continue to hold that the most effective way to ensure the proper consideration of that principle is by strengthening existing mechanisms. National planning policy is not wishy-washy, as some have suggested. The framework carries significant weight in the planning system, and we are already in the most ambitious period of planning reform for a decade. I recognise the concerns that have been raised with me throughout this debate, and it is clear that the principle is not being effectively implemented. We already propose updating policy to address these issues, and I have committed to reviewing the guidance, in order to help disseminate best practice. Again, there is no fundamental difference in the policy intent; we are talking about the mechanism for taking it forward. We believe that the changes that we have in train will ensure that important businesses are protected from the effects of new development. With that, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

The Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and we are incredibly grateful. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on rural affairs, coastal communities, the power to direct a mayor, and town and parish councils. However, the Government are not prepared to accept any of the other Lords amendments that we have discussed today—not because there is fundamentally a difference in policy, but because we are thinking about the most effective mechanism for ensuring that these policies bite. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept the Government’s concessions.

I call the shadow Minister.

Despite the Minister’s centralising zeal, I detect a slight weariness on her part as we once again go toe to toe on Lords amendments. It remains the position of the Opposition that the Government are bringing forward in this Bill overall a set of centralising measures that are fundamentally about extending control from Whitehall into our town halls. Those measures come from a Government who have a record of imposing additional cost and responsibilities on our local authorities, as we hear continually from local government leaders.

It is welcome to hear from the Minister that there has been additional recognition from the Government of the differences that exist in our rural and coastal communities—I do have some coastline in my constituency, but I do not think Ruislip lido was what we had in mind when making the argument. It is clear that the needs of our rural and coastal communities, and the potential that they offer, are often different from what we see in urban and suburban areas, so we will not be pushing for a further vote on the matter of extending the recognition of rural affairs.

The point that my hon. Friend is making is a very accurate description of what is happening in my local area of Bexley, where developers are trying to argue that greenfield sites are now ripe for development because of the Government’s planning changes. Does he share my concern that the Government are continuing to try to barge those changes through this House, and that both Reform and Labour support the Government’s position on the grey belt, which will have a detrimental effect on our local community and our natural environment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People in Old Bexley and Sidcup—just like those in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and, indeed, in many of the constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members—are concerned about a Reform party that is championing tearing up the green belt across our capital in pursuit of housing targets, and about the ambiguity that has been created by the Government’s position on grey-belt land. That description seems to be applied to any site on which a developer can argue that housing could be delivered because it has had some previous use. That level of ambiguity is another one of the reasons why we are keen to make the very strong case for brownfield being enshrined as the priority, and for the Government to accept that case.

I will now turn briefly to the Lords amendments dealing with the leader and cabinet model of local government. To be clear, as an Opposition, we do not have a strong view about what governance arrangements town halls should choose. Many of us will have had experience under the committee system or under the leader and cabinet model, some with executive mayors. However, the reason why we intend to push the Government on this issue is that it once again represents their centralising tendency—a view in Whitehall that the Government know best what structures should be used. I happen to agree with Ministers that the leader and cabinet model is the most effective and efficient model, but it is not for us to tell locally elected officials and councillors what arrangements they should make.

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and congratulate him on his efforts yesterday. I am sure we are both struggling to bob in the Chamber this afternoon.

I agree with the shadow Minister about the cabinet model for local councils. I am sure he agrees that one of the advantages of that model is that there are fewer meetings, which makes being a councillor more accessible for those who have jobs and childcare commitments and means that we do not just rely on councillors who are perhaps retired. On his point about the Government’s approach to local authorities, does he agree that one good thing that this Government have done is ensure multi-year funding for local councils? When I was a councillor in Harlow—I got my mention of Harlow in—it was a real challenge for the opposition to do its shadow budgets and for the administration to do its budgets.

It would be interesting to know the timings of the shadow Minister’s marathon.

Suffice it to say that I was significantly slower than the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), whose outstanding efforts will, I am sure, leave him a little bit sore when bobbing today.

The hon. Member will know the benefits of an effective leader and cabinet model, because he has a good Conservative local authority led by Councillor Dan Swords, and the work of Councillor Dan Swords and his team has driven forward the improvements Harlow has been able to enjoy over many years.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am going to make a little progress, if I may.

The key point is to ensure that our local authorities can set out their governance arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of their community. The Government have already accepted the argument that we need to ensure a degree of nuance in the Bill for rural and coastal communities, and this is another example of exactly that argument.

On parish governance, I know we do not all have parish councils in our local areas, but they are a significant feature of civic life across the country and many of them run important local facilities such as leisure centres and car parks. It is clearly important to ensure that their role is enshrined, especially at a time when this Government’s wider agenda of local government reorganisation is leading to a significant transfer of services to parish councils from districts due to be abolished, so it is welcome that the Government are moving forward on that.

On the final two groups of amendments we are debating this afternoon, the so-called agent of change principle is the idea that a new arrival in a community should bear the cost of consequent changes on its gaining planning consent: if somebody opens a new music venue or builds a new residential development, that should not be at the expense of existing and long-established uses. Many of us as constituency MPs have had experience of when, for example, a property developer creates a new residential development and seeks to close down an existing venue such as a local pub—I had an example to do with a bus garage—because they are concerned about the impact it would have. Clearly those established uses with prior consent need to have a degree of priority, and that has already found its way into law in Scotland. We believe that it is reasonable to recommend that the Government take this forward and ensure that those existing uses have sufficient protection in the Bill that they are not subject to the unfair impact of new and subsequent arrivals seeking to pass the costs of mitigating the consequences of their activity on to them.

Finally, Lords amendment 98 is about the Secretary of State’s powers on changes to strategic authorities. It was hotly contested as the Bill made its way through Committee that it contains chapters and chapters of new powers for the Secretary of State to direct mayors or combined authorities, which very much speaks to the point that this is centralising legislation. While it introduces a new layer of local government, it none the less results in central Government having significantly more powers to levy a precept, to create a new housing development, to create zoning to ensure development takes place, and to bring together groups of local authorities and assume some of their responsibilities. All of those now fall much more strongly within the purview of the Secretary of State issuing directions from Whitehall about how things should happen locally.

It remains the Opposition’s position that, as supporters of and believers in devolution, we should not simply pay lip service to it in the title of the Bill, but ensure that those measures have the consent and support of the locally elected politicians whose mandate gives them the power to make those decisions on behalf of their community. We remain determined to push ahead in favour of that principle of consent and ensure that local communities continue to have champions who speak up for them in this Chamber.

In my comments, I will address the agent of change principle. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, and this has long been on our agenda. The shadow Minister got the gist of this right when saying that it is about existing or long-standing venues—music venues and nightclubs, in particular—having to bat back legal challenges from residents of any new build residential property, but primarily apartments. We have had examples of cases, such as Alphabet and the Moth club, where there have been legal costs of £50,000 or more from having to take on new developments that are challenging their ongoing operations.

I encountered a case of this kind in my constituency, which we had to fight in the planning committee. An organisation called Music and Arts Production provides music and arts education in its building for young people who have been excluded from school and who would otherwise become NEET—not in education, employment or training—but who are thus kept within the education system. One of its main sources of funding is Cosmic Slop, an event that raises a significant amount on Saturday nights.

There was to be heavy residential development in the area in the form of a new block of flats in Mabgate, opposite the MAP building. The problem was that there would be no sound protection or mitigation; in its local plan, Leeds had not mapped music venues or nightclubs. I received thousands of emails about the planning application from as far away as New York. We had to have significant discussions with the planning department and councillors to ensure that the necessary stipulations were made for noise reduction, and to ensure that the new residents could not, in effect, close down the club night, because if that happened MAP would have to close as well, and all those young people would become NEET.

I sympathise with the Ministers dealing with this matter, because throughout the process the national planning policy framework, on a non-statutory basis, has forced local authorities to take such action. I think we should consider ways of addressing this issue through secondary legislation and the local planning process, because at present neither the Bill nor the NPPF protects venues adequately. I know that, like mine, the Minister’s constituency contains many music venues and nightclubs, and she obviously cares deeply about such venues. I hope she will reassure me that the Government will look at the agent of change principle and ensure that, both locally and nationally, the relevant protections are available so that further pressures are not put on those venues. Nightclubs in particular are already suffering as a result of the business rates increases and other recent cost pressures, and the additional costs of having to fight developers will eventually push them out of existence.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.

Too often, rural communities such as mine in Wiltshire have been overlooked by successive Governments and treated as an afterthought rather than as places with distinct needs, challenges and enormous potential. Decisions are far too often made on urban assumptions, leaving rural areas struggling with weak transport and fewer services. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embedding rural affairs at the heart of strategic authorities, the Lords amendment will ensure that rural communities are no longer overlooked or left behind?

My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill.

As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making.

As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.

Many people in my constituency are very nervous about how local government reorganisation will impact them, and they worry that it could lead to a top-down style of devolution, which entirely misses the point of making decisions locally. The Government’s backing down on Lords amendment 2 will provide some reassurance to rural and coastal communities, like those in my patch, that the governance of rural and coastal affairs will be meaningfully devolved to local leaders. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the Government’s acceptance of the Liberal Democrats’ calls to add both rural and coastal affairs as competences required of a strategic mayoral authority following LGR?

I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill.

I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most.

Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment.

I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all.

We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution.

Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.

I encourage Members to ensure that their contributions are linked to the amendments that are in front of us.

I welcome the Government amendment to include a competence covering coastal communities, in addition to the existing Lords amendments on rural areas. As many Members have already mentioned, coastal communities have lagged behind the rest of the country when it comes to economic growth since the great financial crash. Our constituents have more physical and mental health needs, lower life expectancy and higher rates of major diseases, and they are generally older. On average, they have lower educational attainment and higher rates of school absences, and once they enter the workforce, they are paid less. Our coastal towns are also more likely than non-coastal towns to suffer from high levels of deprivation. Coastal towns face unique economic pressures, including seasonal economies, struggling industries such as fishing and hospitality, and acute housing crises caused by the spread of short-term holiday lets and a lack of social housing.

Connectivity is also a major issue for our constituents. Along with a lack of quality public transport and less broadband availability, our constituents are at the forefront of the impact of the climate crisis and the sewage scandal. Renewing our coastal towns and their local economies will be crucial to ensuring that all parts of the country share in the national renewal that the Government are aiming to bring. That is why this amendment is so important. I hope that the Government will be clear in their expectations of what metro mayors with responsibility for coastal communities should do. There needs to be a strong economic focus, with an understanding of how public services and infrastructure underpin the ability for a community to prosper. Can the Minister confirm that one of the commissioners will have to have responsibility for coastal communities, if a metro mayoral area has a coast?

Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will discuss with colleagues on the Treasury Bench how an economic strategy for the coast might be developed through the designation of a coastal economic area. That would complement the new competences outlined in this Bill to ensure not only that our national strategic priorities for growth reach the communities that could benefit from that investment, but that we can contribute to the economic health of the nation.

Will my hon. Friend consider some of the perhaps unintended consequences of the local government reorganisation planned for the coming years? I am very much in favour of unitarisation, not only for efficiency, but for the ability for places like mine to come together to develop a strategic vision for the wider economy and society of east Kent. However, research I have commissioned suggests that there may be unintended consequences for coastal towns from the local government reorganisation as planned. There are 33 coastal towns and cities with a council’s main office, town hall or headquarters within their boundaries. Some 24 of those are going through the local government reorganisation process, and 22 have a proposal or multiple proposals that could result in their being dissolved in their current structure and merged with other councils into a larger unitary that covers a bigger area. If that happens, the new unitary will need to decide where they have their headquarters.

Town halls in coastal towns or cities are at a particularly high risk of relocation because of their often peripheral location, their relative lack of proximity to the new, larger constituent population, their weaker transport links and other issues such as flood risk. Those relocations would have a detrimental impact on local economies, at a time when many of those 22 coastal towns and cities are already struggling. They would also lead to the those places being more cut off from public leadership, increasing that left-behind feeling. I remind the House that some of those high-risk areas include Clacton-on-Sea, Sittingbourne, Margate, Blackpool, Cromer, Grimsby, Southend-on-Sea and Eastbourne. It ends up being a list of exactly the kind of places that we should be helping, so mitigations should be put in place for precisely that.

I will also refer to the parish and town council amendments as outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said that there was a commitment to

“hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working”—[Official Report, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 250.]

into the new governance proposals. It is a shame, however, that parish and town councils are designated only to be important local partners, rather than there being a legal requirement for them to be consulted. I say that because the town councils in Broadstairs and Ramsgate are highly valued and complementary to the existing local authority structures of Kent county council and Thanet district council. We notice the difference between what we see happen in Ramsgate and Broadstairs, which have town councils, and in Margate, which does not.

The reality is that Margate is about to secure its own town council thanks to fantastic, strong community campaigning by some of my good friends and allies in Thanet Labour party, and that will help to correct a democratic deficit that would otherwise occur. Indeed, Margate has always been short of democratic governance, and it will be needed all the more because of unitarisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me and colleagues that town and parish councils really will be fully incorporated into the new settlement, and that, as outlined in the new Government amendments, existing town and parish councils will have a role to play? Can she also reassure us that those without existing town and parish councils will have the opportunity for strong neighbourhood governance?

In summary, we need to ensure: that the commissioners who will be part of the metro mayoral settlement have an economic focus if they are responsible for coastal communities; that every metro mayor who has the power to appoint a commissioner and has responsibility for the coast ensures that one commissioner has that focus; that local government reorganisation factors in appropriate mitigations for when there are risks of reduction of local government presence in coastal towns; and, finally, that parish and town councils continue to be a vital part of the local government settlement.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and in particular her points about parish and town councils. In Cornwall, where we are completely parished and towned in that sense, they are an important vehicle for communication up from the community. They enable communities to articulate their views. Indeed, one might even argue that parish and town councils are the highest tier of local authority in the sense that they are closest to the people and to the pulse of local opinion, and are able to articulate that in the process.

I would like to make remarks on two other amendments. On the proposals regarding brownfield first, which I strongly support, I am disappointed by the Government’s response. The Government’s policy, in particular with regard to rewriting the NPPF, will result in a goldrush to the greenfield edges of our towns and communities. In December 2024, they set a new housing target which effectively means that local authorities can no longer defend the edges of their towns if they are unable to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply. At present, therefore, policy is going in exactly the wrong direction. It also fundamentally undermines local authorities and local communities that are seeking to advance rural exceptions policy. All those rural exceptions opportunities are now effectively lost as a result of local authorities no longer having five-year land supplies. That is to the detriment of communities that are desperately seeking to meet local housing need, hence the importance of ensuring that local authorities are under a stronger obligation to bring forward brownfield first.

The other amendment I welcome the opportunity to speak to—the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) will echo these concerns—relates to the Secretary of State’s powers regarding combined authorities without local consent. That is the critical matter. The only way in which the Government can demonstrate that they have the backing of local communities is to ensure that they consult them throughout.

The Isles of Scilly are keen to work with Cornwall to ensure we achieve the maximum level of devolution, and it is really important that the Government look at the very special case of Cornwall. We have a number of cultural and language designations that mean that the integrity of Cornwall becomes ever more important when navigating one’s way through the extremely sensitive process of devolving power. It is easy to undermine the great strengths of places such as Cornwall if those matters are not properly considered.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that half of Cornish MPs are present tonight, at this late stage and in a relatively sparsely populated Chamber, and that the others would be here if they were able to be, is testament to the fact that although it feels as though we are part of the way towards Cornish devolution, there is still deep concern, as this process draws towards a conclusion, that we are not considerably further forward in that process?

Order. I am aware that Members wish to make stellar contributions on behalf of their constituencies, but I do not believe that we are discussing Cornish devolution right now. Let us keep the debate in scope of the amendments in front of us.

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are simply giving the example of Cornish devolution as one of the potential products should the Government not reject the opportunity for local authorities to be properly consulted, which is what is on the amendment paper this evening. That is the most important thing this evening: to ensure that local authorities are consulted. We are seeking to make this an effective vehicle for achieving what is very much desired throughout Cornwall, both by the local authority and by local Members. I accept your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but fundamentally, be it Cornwall or any other local authority that is seeking to ensure that its local and wider communities are properly consulted, it is not a question of our seeking a process of isolation, as I think the Government recognise.

The point that we make perpetually in relation to Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly, which we hope will be co-operating with Cornwall as a combined authority—is that it is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity across the United Kingdom. I hope that, in that spirit, Ministers will respond constructively and, in spite of the passing of the Bill, we will have a vehicle to achieve the desired ends as far as Cornwall is concerned.

Before I start, I would like to ask for a little leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to two amendments, but they have a direct impact on my experience of devolution, which is in Cornwall. Therefore, I just ask for a little bit of leeway, but in relation to the amendments themselves.

So long as you are referencing the amendment to which you are speaking, then of course—the Floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome amendment (a), which would include coastal communities, as the changes are very encouraging, but I would also like to speak to the Lords amendment on local authority consent. I am deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State’s right to impose on a local authority without local assent has been delayed for only two years. The reason why, and this is where I have to reference our experience in Cornwall, is that for centuries—since the Stannary Parliament ceased to meet in 1753—Cornwall has longed for greater powers to control its own affairs. The amendment was an opportunity to work with Government to provide that level of devolution. It should also be noted for constitutionalists that the Stannary Parliament was never actually revoked.

The hunger for greater devolution runs deep in Cornwall, and in the 21st century it has been enhanced by the Council of Europe’s framework convention of national minority status, which recognises the Cornish as a national minority. I fear that the Government’s refusal to accept some of the amendments that were tabled, including this one, runs in contravention to article 16 of that framework convention. The national minority status process began under the previous Labour Government. I am also very grateful for the elevation of the Cornish language to the status of all other British Celtic languages.

With this hunger for devolution and commitments from the party, expectations were high. However, as we approach the end of the Bill’s passage, I am disappointed by the progress made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is not as though the Ministry did not know what devolution we were looking for. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and to two Secretaries of State for so frequently meeting Cornish Members from both parties to elaborate on what constitutes a devolution deal. I am very grateful that the Treasury has delivered the Kernow industrial growth fund. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is moving ahead with support for the language, as I mentioned, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education are investing in Cornwall. However, it feels a bit like MHCLG is not moving at the same pace as the others. This was never more starkly exposed than on the day it was announced that Cornwall was losing its shared prosperity funding, and new shared prosperity funding was announced in northern English mayoralties.

I am grateful that in November 2025 the Secretary of State was mindful to offer Cornwall single strategic authority status, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned. Cornwall will never willingly become part of a mayoral combined authority, because to do so would compromise national minority status, as I have mentioned. However, when she gets to her feet, could the Minister please confirm when those outstanding areas, including transport, economic development, strategic place partnership for housing and British-Irish Council attendance, will be dealt with? Until then, there will remain distrust and scepticism of the Government’s intentions for devolution in Cornwall and its place within these British Isles.

I will keep my contribution brief and speak once again on Lords amendments 98 and 98A, to allow other hon. Members to speak. Along with many of my constituents, I was very disappointed last Tuesday that the Minister failed to mention Cornwall once in her closing speech, despite my pointing out the dangerous powers that the Government are still trying to instil into law—powers that could be used by this Government or a future Government, which could force Cornwall to merge with another authority without the consent of the Cornish people. Cornwall still faces the prospect of having no legal protections in the Bill. Liberal Democrats have made efforts here and in the other place to secure protections that would take our national minority status into account under the European Framework convention for the protection of national minorities.

I fear that my constituents are being held to ransom by this Government, who say, “Accept our terms, effectively give up your national minority status, be forced into a merger with another region, and we might give you more money—and if you don’t accept our terms, we have the powers to force you to do so in two years’ time anyway.” In my eyes, that amounts to nothing more than economic coercion against a national minority. The Minister keeps repeating, as she did last week, that the Government have already committed not to use these powers for two years. How does that provide comfort for my constituents? Either a future Government or this one could use that power after two years.

I therefore hope that all my Cornish colleagues and Members from across the House will join me this time to vote against the Government’s latest attempt at blocking Lords amendment 98. Let us please not hand this Government or future Governments this unlawful power to combine authorities against the will of local people—our constituents. To the Minister, I say again that she has not considered Cornwall’s national minority status, contrary to the European framework convention, and so she will likely expect a legal challenge if the Bill becomes law.

I would like to speak to Lords amendment 94B and 94C on the agent of change principle. My particular concern, as I said last week, relates to grassroots music venues and the impact on them of the current lack of robust application of the agent of change principle through planning guidance.

To set a little context, there were 1,150 grassroots music venues a few years ago. The Music Venue Trust now believes that has fallen to 800 venues. Grassroots music venues are important, and not just to local cultural identity—Sunderland is a music city, as we all know. Those venues are core to the UK music industry, which is worth £5.2 billion a year in this country, and grassroots music venues are the research and development department of that industry.

It is tempting to assume that a lot of money is sloshing around because of the success of some of our international acts, but that is absolutely not the case for grassroots music venues trying to keep the show on the road, as it were, on our high streets. That is why 350 have closed in recent years. Of the 366 small venues that Ed Sheeran played in when learning his trade, more than 150 are now closed. Of the 34 venues that Oasis played in before being signed, only 11 remain. If we do not work to ensure that the agent of change principle is properly applied, which Lords Amendment 94 sought to do, we risk further catastrophic loss of venues. The closures are due not just to economic factors on the high street, which people have discussed; the Music Venue Trust conservatively estimates that since 2015 over 125 grassroots music venue closures have been due specifically to planning issues.

The specific issue of licensing is important. Small venues in my constituency are vital for our visitor economy and in being part of the pipeline for developing enormous amounts of talent. It is worth pointing out that the UK representative at the Eurovision song contest comes from Ramsgate. If it were not for strong music venues such as Ramsgate Music Hall, as well as Faith in Strangers, Where Else? and Olby’s in Margate, the likes of “Look Mum No Computer”—our entry in the Eurovision song contest—might have had no prospect of being able to develop.

I fondly remember the vibrant cultural scene during my time in Broadstairs. Too many grassroots music venues risk facing their own “Waterloo” at the moment.

I cannot let this moment pass, particularly following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), without raising the son of Redruth—one Mick Fleetwood, of Fleetwood Mac. I highlight the importance of the cultural diversity in Cornwall, including my home town of Redruth. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we celebrate these great musicians?

Absolutely. Too many music venues risk becoming old news by being forced to shut, even if they are where the likes of Fleetwood Mac learned their trade. I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

The Government recently made a welcome commitment to set out a new high street strategy. The high street is, of course, changing due to changing retail habits, including online shopping. Cultural venues such as music venues are absolutely core to the regeneration and future of the high street, which means that the sort of protections envisaged in Lords amendments 94B and 94C become even more crucial.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are particular issues for councillors on the planning committees of local authorities? The amendments would bring a clarity that would make it much easier for planning committees to operate and give music venues and nightclubs the reassurance that they need.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to say a little about the national planning policy framework at the moment. When my hon. Friend spoke, he made a good point about local plans. Part of the issue at the moment is that local councils have very different approaches. I wonder whether there is scope for the Government to ensure, or certainly encourage, local authorities to explicitly reference and identify grassroots music venues in their local plans so that when such planning applications are put in, there is explicit recognition of those venues.

It is not just the risk of actual closure that the lack of “agent of change” envisages; there is also the ongoing uncertainty. The Night & Day Café in Manchester spent three days fighting noise abatement proceedings from a nearby development, which put stress and risk on that establishment over time. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) is not in his place today, but he intervened last week in the debate, referencing venues like that one.

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment from the Dispatch Box that the current planning framework is not operating as initially envisaged. I think the “agent of change” principle was first put into the national planning policy framework in 2018, following a private Member’s Bill secured by the now Lord Spellar—MP for Warley at the time. That guidance has not been sufficiently implemented; the Music Venue Trust reports that there has not been a meaningful reduction in the number of planning applications that risk threatening music venues. There is an issue about enforcement. Will the Minister say a little about the work that the Government are doing to increase the resources and the ability of local authorities to enforce the national planning policy framework when it comes to “agent for change” in future?

The other reality, I am afraid, is that the NPPF, including the draft NPPF set out by the Government recently, is not strong enough; Lord Brennan of Canton referred to that in his speech in the other place last Thursday, I believe. To reassure the Minister, I should say that I am not seeking a widespread power that would extend noise protections to all sorts of establishments. My concern, and that of others across the House and in the other place, relates specifically to cultural venues—in particular grassroots music venues and nightclubs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has ably set out.

I support the Government’s mission to build more houses and create more residences. The example in my constituency is that the lack of clarity and enforcement of the current framework is stopping properties being built—some flats in my city centre are not being built because the developer tries to get away with what it can under noise abatement, in the absence of a clear statutory duty. A local music venue is therefore stressed about potential threats, and a developer is not able to build houses.

There is reported to be greater clarity in Scotland. I understand that the Scottish planning system is significantly different in many elements from the one in England. The Music Venue Trust reports a significant reduction in the number of venue closures in Scotland.

I want to reaffirm on the record what my hon. Friend has said. This is an important way of ensuring that we have a place-led way of shaping our communities; without that, we will not be able to get the homes that people desperately need in the places where they need them. Furthermore, we will not be able to ensure that those places are worthwhile living in because they have other things apart from homes. The cultural venues that we are talking about are so vital—not only to the economy, but to making sure that people actually want to spend their time in places. That balance is going to be required, and that is why the power needs to be there.

I entirely agree. The title of this Bill includes the words “community empowerment” and “devolution”. I want my community in Sunderland to be empowered: to have the powers to ensure that our key cultural venues—such as Pop Recs, Independent and the Bunker—retain protections from further development around them.

I turn to the draft national planning policy framework, which the Minister referred to. I understand the Government’s difficulty in breaking what some might say is a precedent by not putting planning guidance into statute. I understand that there is a genuine judgment to be made, even if there is a shared policy intent. But the existing draft national planning policy framework states, in P4:

“Existing businesses, community facilities, public services and defence and security activities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on their current or permitted operation”.

“Should not” gives far too much leeway. There is also no explicit reference in the draft national planning policy framework to specific actions about noise levels, sound insulation, licensing outcomes or operating hours, despite those being the most common and predictable mechanisms through which “agent for change” risks threaten our music venues. If it is the Government’s intention to try to get the policy solution through planning guidance rather than through statute, will the Minister commit on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning to reconsider some of the language in the draft NPPF to strengthen those points in particular? Will the Minister also write to local authorities on ensuring that local plans include grassroots music venues?

There has to be a review of the NPPF. Could the Minister say a little about how long she believes it is appropriate to monitor the implementation of the NPPF if this is where we end up at the end of ping-pong and there are no statutory powers engaged to protect our music venues? If inappropriate planning applications that threaten our music venues continue to come in, how long will she and the Government wait before reviewing the policy and looking to further strengthen it? Indeed, if there is any chance of a late concession in the event that the agent of change returns here from the other place, will she consider taking potential statutory powers not to be used except when needed to safeguard our grassroots music venues?

I am really pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) with my own story of an early venue. In 2007, I remember visiting the Stage Door in Southampton—a venue above a pub—for one of the very first, intimate gigs of Scouting for Girls. They are now internationally renowned and celebrating their 20th year, but there were so few of us at the gig that we actually helped them carry their kit there and back afterwards. Without those little gigs, they would not have had that success such that 20 years later we can go and enjoy them at summer festivals.

I rise specifically to speak to Lords amendment 37. During the Bill Committee, as the Minister will recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and I spoke frequently about the importance of town and parish councils and the need to strengthen them as unitary councils take decision making further away from local people and dilute the identity and priorities of clearly defined places. As local government is reorganised and councils cover ever larger geographies, it is critical that communities retain hyper-local democratic structures not as an add-on but as an essential part of effective devolution.

There was a lot of talk originally about what other structures might be in place as part of the Bill if not a town and parish council, but that does not seem to have made much progress. I am disappointed that without something really strong in that place, there is nothing recognising the critical place of our town and parish councils, whose strength forms part of our communities, as so passionately talked about by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

I spoke on Second Reading about how the forthcoming local government reorganisation—it does not affect my area—will see the end of authorities such as Winchester and Southampton city councils. It is inconceivable that historic places such as Winchester will not either immediately or within a couple of years re-establish a town council to protect their identity and ensure that their unique needs—beyond those covered by the fairly nebulous unitary authorities that will replace them—are met. Parish and town councils give residents not only that opportunity to create their sense of place, but a direct, accountable voice.

In Dorset, the plan for change created in 2016, which came before our local government reorganisation, talked about the expansion of town and parish councils and the creation of neighbourhood-level structures, but those decisions were deferred for future administrations to progress. On the Dorset side, the gaps were filled so the whole area became parished, but in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole they were never implemented after being blocked by the then Conservative-led councils. A decade on, we are having to retrofit them at local cost and with an administrative burden.

I welcome that Conservatives in the other place have recognised that encouraging the expansion of parish governance in currently unparished areas really does matter—it is ironic that their colleagues have chosen not even to stand for election in the new town councils in Broadstone and Poole.

As the remit of unitary authorities has expanded, funding has inevitably focused on statutory services and neighbourhoods with the highest levels of deprivation. I welcome that, but as a consequence many of the facilities that residents really value—the fabric of everyday community life—have quietly fallen away.

When I moved to Broadstone at the turn of the century, Christmas lights, street furniture repairs, tree planting and small community grants were considered standard and funded, or at least supported, by the local authority. Today, they are routinely deemed out of scope for huge councils doing their best to protect the most vulnerable through statutory services. However, those things still matter deeply to the residents they serve; without them, communities begin to feel overlooked and to look unloved.

I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement on the Bill and their insightful contributions to the debate. I am glad that our concessions have secured support. I thank both my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and hon. Members across the House for their feedback and insights, which have led to these concessions—[Interruption.] Thank you. Since the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) piped up, I will start with him.

There is the consistent theme of the hon. Member accusing the Government of making this a centralising Bill and, in a way that is becoming tradition, I must push back on that. I remind him that this is the biggest transfer of powers out of Whitehall and Westminster to our local leaders at regional level and to our communities. I also remind him that his Government had over a decade to drive through wholesale, consistent devolution in the way that this Government are doing, and they did not take up that opportunity. We had a decade of slow, ad hoc, piecemeal transfer of power to our communities and our local leaders. We do not agree with that approach.

In the Bill, we are doing two things. We are setting out a framework for clear economic devolution to our regions that makes devolution by default the norm and creates a mechanism by which that can happen without individual deals being negotiated. Critically, we are also building the power of our communities, whether through strengthening the community right to buy so that communities can take hold of assets of community value or through the creation of neighbourhood governance so that we have a tier of local governance that ensures that communities have the power and voice to drive the change they want to see in their place and shape their neighbourhoods and communities.

I am interested to hear the Minister explain how we can ensure that town and parish councils, particularly existing ones, are integrated into the new local government settlement. They are particularly important when unitarisation is happening, increasing efficiencies of scale and enabling more strategic deployment at the kind of scale that is important. However, there is a concern that if those local parish and town councils are not integrated into the local government settlement, we will have a reduction in democratic accountability.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question and for being a clear, consistent and passionate advocate of town and parish councils. I will pick up her point, but I want to start with her forceful and effective contribution about coastal communities and the amendments that we are proposing.

The Government have heard the concerns that rural affairs will be marginalised with our new devolution framework. As we extend devolution beyond the urban centres of England, it is absolutely right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether they are urban, rural or indeed coastal communities.

I am grateful for the steps that the Government have taken today in recognising the importance of rural and coastal communities. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made reference to my constituency earlier in this regard, and I thank her for doing so. The Government clearly realise how important it is to recognise a rural and coastal communities in this Bill. Has the Minister now had her mind changed such that we should recognise rural and coastal communities with their own Cabinet position?

This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Polly Billington) made about commissioners and the governance arrangements. We are clear that strategic authorities absolutely must think about how they drive the prosperity and wellbeing of their rural and coastal communities. The structures—and, indeed, the policy framework—that they put in place to do that will be in the gift of local leaders and the mayor. That is right, and that is the basis of devolution. What we are trying to do through the Bill—I think we have achieved it through the amendments and the existing provisions—is to ensure that there is a clear framework that strategic authorities and mayors are working towards.

We as a Government absolutely recognise the important role that coastal and rural communities play. We are committed to doing our part to support strategic authorities, to ensure that they are dealing with issues from housing through to transport and the infrastructure that we need, in order to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Members across the House have our commitment that we will do that, so that local plans reflect the composition of different parts of the country, and that we are putting in place the building blocks to ensure that none of our coastal or rural communities are left behind.

I understand the temptation to distinguish between urban, rural and coastal communities, but does the Minister recognise that urban communities such as mine in Sunderland are also coastal communities? By the limitations of geography, our economic activity is limited by 180°, and there are particular issues regarding transport links, economic geography and so on. Does she agree that it is not a binary distinction between urban, rural and coastal, and that many city council areas such as mine, as well as combined authorities, need to be considered as coastal communities as well?

My hon. Friend is completely right. Indeed, the reason that the Government originally resisted this amendment was on that very point. Ultimately, we believed that the framework and the set of competences that we had set out were broad enough to capture the complexities of different areas with a mix of urban, rural and coastal. However, we understood the strength of feeling in the other place and we have made this concession. Now it is for our local leaders, through the context of devolution, to ensure that they come together to put in place a plan that can deal with the specifics of their area.

Let me turn to the points on town and parish councils that hon. Members have raised. I have been consistent through the passage of this Bill that we absolutely recognise the importance of town and parish councils. I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), who has been a consistent advocate for town and parish councils, both in Committee and in the House. Our amendment in lieu provides that regulations made under clause 60 may provide for parish councils to be represented on neighbourhood governance structures. This locks in the importance of town and parish councils within the new neighbourhood framework that we are putting in place. It places beyond doubt the expectation that local authorities should engage with parish councils about parish representation under that framework.

Can I just clarify the use of the word “should” rather than the word “must”? Where these bodies exist, they must have a right to be included; this is not just a “should”. I worry that the word “should” will allow a mayor or a larger authority to have the power over what is, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) commented, possibly the most important level of local government.

I absolutely agree that communities are a fundamental level. Part of the reason we are putting in place a neighbourhood governance structure is to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet made, which is that at the moment the neighbourhood structure is not built within our framework for local government. We believe that communities must be empowered, and this is an important step to rectify that. Where we disagree, however, is that I think it is wrong for Government to impose on places any particular neighbourhood governance structure. It is absolutely right that it is left to local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them.

Town and parish councils exist across 80% of our geography, so in many areas they will be the default, but in other areas they may not be. We are criticised for being centralising, and I have pushed back against that constantly. I think it would be hugely centralising to say that, irrespective of what your community wants—whether it is an area or ward forum, a neighbourhood forum or a structure that already exists—central Government think you must have this model and this model only, and that is not the approach we are taking. Yes, we recognise the importance of town and parish councils, but we ultimately think it must be left to communities and local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them that represents what the community wants and can be the voice for the community to drive the change that they want to see.

I am grateful to the Minister for letting me come back on this, because the missing link is not necessarily that it is a town and parish council structure; it is that 20% of the country has nothing, and there is nothing in place to ensure that those people have something. In the area that I represent, a huge cost has now come to the local area because there was a failure to put anything in place. Whether it is a town or parish council or another neighbourhood governance, the current structure does not provide for there to be anything.

The hon. Member is completely right. There is a gap, and we are putting in this provision for a neighbourhood governance structure across the country to address that gap. Many areas that do not have town and parish councils will have other mechanisms in place. I point to my borough of Southwark, where we have area committees that work really well and represent the community. The key principle here, however, is that it must be for the community to determine the right structure that represents their area and can be an effective voice. We cannot and must not dictate from central Government.

As someone who was a parish councillor in a previous life and now represents a seat that has no parish level of governance whatsoever, I wonder whether the Minister sees a role for arbitration over where there is conflict between what that local mechanism might look like—for instance, where a residents association encroaches on another set of streets that might be considered another part of a residents association. Where do the Government see their role in facilitating resolution so that those powerful local bodies can exist in a way that is representative, fair and equal?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We as a Government are committed to putting in place a neighbourhood governance framework, and that framework will set in place the key principles. It will be a guide for what effective, strong neighbourhood governance looks like. We will put in place regulation and guidance to support local authorities as they go through the endeavour of working with their communities to put the right structure in place. We have done a huge amount of work with the sector, and have taken evidence, which has informed the principles, but one of the big messages we got from everyone across the sector is: “Whatever you do, do not dictate what this looks like; build on what exists, and ultimately leave it to communities and local areas to come up with the right model for them.” When the sector speaks, we listen.

If the Minister reckons that Ministers should not dictate what local government structures should be, will she let areas that have two-tier government, and that want to keep their district councils, keep them? My area does; it wants to keep Conservative-run Broxbourne district council. Why is she mandating that we go to unitary authorities, when she is clearly saying, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that she does not want to dictate what local government looks like across the country?

I have had this debate many times with the hon. Member. His Government were in power for over a decade and oversaw the decimation and denuding of local authorities through a sustained period of austerity. His Government saw that local authorities were not sustainable, yet did not act. It falls to this Government to recognise those failures. We care about having strong local government that can deliver services for communities. Local government reorganisation is neither easy nor fun—it is hugely time-consuming, and we know that it is a difficult endeavour for our local authorities—but it was a necessity because of the previous Government’s failure to act for nearly a decade and a half. They saw the failings and issues in local government and did not respond; we have not done that.

We were clear that, ultimately, we would ask local areas to come forward with a range of proposals, based on a set of criteria. They have done that, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is judging the proposals that have come forward against the objective criteria that have been set. What we would not do—I will never concede on this point—is nothing, because that would have left local government collapsing at the very time when our communities need it to be working.

I reassure hon. Members that we think that we have struck the right balance, particularly on town and parish council governance. We are clear that town and parish councils have an important role. We are driving forward community power—something I am fundamentally passionate about and committed to—but we have balanced that with the imperative that national Government must not dictate the structure; that must be left to local areas to decide.

I would like to pick up on “brownfield first”, raised by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). I continue to stress that the Government fully agree with, and support, the principle of “brownfield first”. There is no difference in policy intent here, and there never has been. We have demonstrated our commitment by strengthening support for brownfield development in national policy in December 2024, and we proposed further changes earlier this year. I have been clear that the NPPF is the framework under which planning policy and decisions are and should be made, and it remains the most appropriate tool for supporting brownfield development.

My hon. Friend is completely right: we need to build more homes. We are absolutely committed to doing that, but they have to be the right homes for communities. That is why this Government are investing £39 billion to ensure that we have the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. We must build homes that our communities can afford, and that are appropriate for our communities.

In Stoke-on-Trent, we are outside a mayoral combined authority, but have oodles of old industrial brownfield. We are itching to get our hands on it, but we do not have those compulsory purchase powers that sit with Homes England. Once the strategic combined authorities are up and running, how soon will we be able to use those powers to purchase that land, so that we can build the houses that the Minister talks about?

We are as impatient as my hon. Friend is to get building on brownfield land, so we are working closely with all our authorities and strategic authorities to ensure that they have the power and tools to do that. We recognise that a big barrier to building on brownfield land is funding. This Government committed a record amount—£5 billion over the spending review—to supporting the remediation of brownfield sites, so that we can unlock the development that we all want.

The Opposition, who are pushing this amendment, accuse us of centralising, yet the amendment would, by its very nature, remove flexibility, whereas the Bill allows our local leaders, be it at regional or local authority level, the flexibility to deploy policy in a way that makes sense for their area. The amendment is fundamentally centralising, and we would be much better off trying to achieve “brownfield first”, an objective that we all agree on, through a policy that gives local leaders the flexibility to apply policy in a way that makes sense for their area.

Will the Minister elaborate on funding for brownfield sites? In my constituency, we have Riverside Sunderland, the most ambitious city centre regeneration project in the UK. That is only possible because of £30 million of Homes England funding, which will create more than 800 homes. Does she agree that it is somewhat hypocritical for parties that voted against that funding to say that they favour a “brownfield first” or “brownfield only” policy for building?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I could not have put it better myself. If we believe in “brownfield first”, which we do, then it has to be enabled. That requires funding, which requires political will, which we Labour Members have, but which is sadly too often missing from the Opposition.

I turn to agents of change. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the subject, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who talked knowledgeably, articulately and persuasively on this question. I reiterate our strong reason for maintaining the view that a policy approach is best suited to addressing issues of implementation, when it comes to the agent of change. As with “brownfield first”, there is no difference in policy here. I absolutely agree with the points and concerns that have been raised. National planning policy exerts a significant influence on the planning system in two principal ways. Plan-making authorities must have regard to national policy when preparing development plans that form the basis for decision making, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National policy itself is a material consideration, meaning that the NPPF can have a powerful and immediate effect on planning decisions, allowing policy changes to take effect quickly.

Furthermore, the new draft framework aims to improve delivery across the planning system by setting out much clearer policies for plan making and decision making. It makes it explicit that the decision-making policies should not be repeated in local plans and provides for these policies to bear on the system from day one. That is why we have not taken forward statutory national development management policies at this stage, although we are keeping that decision under review.

Would the Minister and colleagues be prepared to look at the idea that grassroots music venues and nightclubs should be in the local plan, so that planning committees and planning officers have to have regard to them? This is clearly a gap. If they are in the plan, this will not move on to a statutory footing, which is something that she is obviously concerned about.

Local plans can include community facilities, and we are committed to looking at ways, through the local plan, that we can strengthen the policy intent that we all agree that we are trying to achieve. First, we intend to work closely with local planning authorities, once the new NPPF is finalised, to ensure that the policy is fully understood and implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, there is a discrepancy between planning considerations and what is actually enforced. We recognise that discrepancy and are looking at what more can be done to ensure that local planning authorities are enforcing planning conditions related to this important issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is very exercised by this issue and is grateful for all the contributions that have been made by hon. Friends. He is content to meet to discuss what more can be done, but I hope that Members hear the Government when we say that we agree with the policy intent and that the national planning policy should be strengthened—we are undertaking that. We think there is an opportunity to make more progress through the local plan, and we are committed to working with local authorities to do that. We have committed to working with Members from across the House to ensure that this bites in the way that Members are keen for it to bite.

I thank the Minister for those welcome words, the acknowledgment that there is no policy difference here, and that she will keep statutory guidance under review, should that be necessary. Will she commit, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning, to a meeting before the publication of the final NPPF, at which we could give serious consideration to explicitly mentioning issues such as noise reduction and insulation, when it comes to grassroots music venues?

I am always very happy to commit my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to any meeting that my hon. Friends would like. We are very keen to meet in advance of the NPPF biting.

May I also say a word about support for the music industry? My hon. Friends have talked with great passion about the music industry in their constituencies, and have shown that they care about it. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK music industry as part of our industrial strategy. We will soon publish a music plan, drawing together all that the Government are doing to support the music industry, which is a vital part of our communities, cultural heritage and local economies. That includes a £30 million music growth package over three years from 2026, to support domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt—

Order. Before she drifts off into the music industry in any great detail, may I respectfully remind the Minister that she must confine her remarks to the Bill and the Lords amendments thereto?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I got far too excited about the music industry. Suffice it to say that the Government recognise its importance. That is why the debate about the agent of change is so important, and why we are committed to playing our part in supporting that aim.

I turn to the Bill and the amendments. Let me pick up on the amendments relating to the removal of the Secretary of State’s directed powers. The Government have committed to not commencing powers to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities for a period of two years following Royal Assent. That will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have also listened and responded to concerns expressed in the other place. We recognise that it will be important for non-rural authorities to have the opportunity to build capacity and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For that reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. We believe that that strikes the right balance, but I encourage Members from across the House to judge us by our actions.

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that it will be necessary to have local consent to take these matters forward. In these conversations about devolution, I make the observation that lines drawn on maps in Whitehall rarely work. It is therefore extraordinarily important to have local and public consent to taking forward these kinds of devolutionary powers. Otherwise, we will end up with a local government settlement that does not meet the needs of local people.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what happened under the approach adopted by the Conservative party in government. It created random boundaries and involved ad hoc devolution that did not treat our local leaders as equal partners who know their communities and can drive change. That is not our approach.

I ask Members to consider the approach that we are taking by setting up strategic authorities. We have gone to places and asked, “What is the local partnership that works for your place? Which geography means that you can drive the outcomes that your community wants?” We are not dictating from Whitehall; we are leaving this to local areas. That matters, because devolution works well when we have strong institutions, predicated on partnership between local authorities that understand their place and are willing to act collectively for it. We will not use the approach of imposing on places; rather, we will ensure that there is local consent. That is why the amendment works.

I will be brief. I completely understand the principle that the Minister is outlining of not wanting to force areas to have something that they do not want. She talks about consent, but what does that actually look like? In some areas, the board will have one or two intransigent members who will not allow progress—they could hold up a majority view that is in favour of a combined authority. What is the Government’s role, if they are removing their ability to tell parts of the community that they do not have the right to hold up something that a majority of local component units want?

The role that we will play is to work with our local authorities. Ultimately, the common thread is that we are working in service of and on behalf of communities, and it is for both national Government and local leaders to make decisions on the geography that makes sense for local economies and that works for their community. We will always advocate for the community in those conversations to ensure that we get the right partnership that can deliver for places.

The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?

I was just coming to the hon. Member’s earlier contributions. We absolutely want to move at the pace at which our most ambitious and fastest-moving places want to move. We recognise the unique circumstances in Cornwall. I have spent a lot of time with hon. Friends from across Cornwall, who have been very passionate, effective and robust advocates for their place. I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall and seeing some of the issues, as well as the huge amount of work and innovation. We have invested £28.6 million in the current industrial growth fund—creating 300 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the supply chain—because we understand and recognise the economic potential of the area. We are committed to working with the council and with Cornwall MPs to take that further. We have set out the framework for a devolution deal, we have set out the progress that we are making to recognise minority status, and we are committed to moving further in the days and weeks to come.

The Government’s approach to local authority governance arrangements has been pragmatic. We are ultimately trying to reach solutions that we believe will bite and work in places. I remind Members across the House that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the cabinet and leader model, and it is an effective model that allows strong decision making for communities. In areas that already have a democratic mandate for an alternative—whether committee or mayor—we have created the space for those structures to continue. But we are very clear that we are having to fix the mess of the last Government, which did absolutely nothing for local government and allowed a decade in which local government was denuded—I come back to that. Our job now is to ensure that we build strong local authority institutions, because we are localists: we believe in devolution, but we need strong institutions to do that. That means both having structures that work for the communities they represent and in which, critically, decisions can be made to improve the lot of their place.

We believe that the cabinet and leader model works. We think that we have found the right balance. I implore Members across the House, particularly given that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the model that we are talking about, that we are keen to make progress and allow our local authorities to move forward.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No one is more pleased about that than me. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I hope that they see that we are a Government who are absolutely committed to pushing power into our places and our communities. It is beholden on all of us to make sure that this Bill does get Royal Assent, because this is the first step towards fundamentally changing the settlement between this place—between Government—and our communities, who do not feel that they have power and agency, and who do not feel that change is being driven in the way that they want. We have to rebalance that. This is the first step, and I implore Members across the House to support the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

After Clause 37

Brownfield land priority

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)