English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

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?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Mr Kohler]

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Wendy Morton]

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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—

[Sir James Cleverly]

To central Government!

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.