English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

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 Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration.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

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

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

[Mr Kohler]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

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

[Mr Kohler]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kohler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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