Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me deal directly with amendments 18 and 17. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon what I have consistently said: the governance regime of local government finance is not changed by the measures in the Bill. It will still stand, including the decisions that accounting officers and the finance director need to take, and the accountability to the local community still holds. We are shoring up the system of assurance so that it is fit for purpose, and to ensure that there is independent scrutiny that then feeds back into what the local authority does. That is how the system should be operating, but it is not currently, which is why we are driving through these reforms. On the amendments, I recognise the important role that the Local Audit Office will play in overseeing the local audit system. Amendments 18 and 17, however, would delegate important policy and legislative functions from Ministers—who are directly accountable to the House, which is the way we believe it ought to be—to an independent body. Given the central role that audit committees play in local financial governance, it is essential that responsibility for their statutory framework remains with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of the local government system. My Department will continue to work closely with the Local Audit Office and key stakeholders in the sector to ensure that audit committee requirements are effective, proportionate and well-functioning. We think, however, that parliamentarians would want the Secretary of State to be ultimately accountable, so that Parliament can hold them to account. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment. On amendment 362, I fully support the hon. Member’s view that audit committee members must demonstrate the necessary skill, understanding and competence that we are asking of them. The committees are integral to robust local governance, playing a critical role in ensuring that public resources are used efficiently, transparently and in the public interest. Clause 66, however, already provides for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance in relation to audit committees. It is our intention that the guidance will include a requirement for members to undertake appropriate training. Alongside that, we will continue to work with the LGA and CIPFA to ensure that training programmes support existing and new audit committee members. There is a job to be done to make sure that we have a pipeline of members, that they are fit for purpose and that we have the right training and capacity building in place. I hope that that assures the hon. Member that we are doing everything we can to ensure that training is fit for purpose, as we need audit committee members of a high quality and standard, and that we will continue to work with the relevant bodies to ensure that that is a reality.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 71, page 72, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert— “54A Rent reviews and arrangements for new tenancies (1) Schedule 7A makes provision about rent reviews. (2) Schedule 7B makes provision about terms relating to rent in arrangements which require a new tenancy to be granted or taken.” This is consequential on the amendments of Schedule 31 in my name.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These amendments contain provisions relating to criminal offences and enforcement among audit providers, lead partners and external registration bodies. It is vital that the local audit system has the right levers to deter and sanction improper behaviour and to establish beyond dispute the Local Audit Office as the regulatory authority for this system. This is about maintaining stability rather than effecting change. The amendments maintain the existing criminal offences relating to misleading statements and wrongful holding out, and set out oversight powers over professional accountancy bodies similar to existing powers. We will also retain the principle that a professional accountancy body, where recognised as an external registration body, will be responsible by default for enforcement. An external registration body will be required to investigate and impose a sanction for serious breaches committed by audit providers and lead partners. The LAO will supervise any enforcement activity conducted by an external registration body. This could include setting guidelines on indicative sanctions, depending on the type of breaches, and monitoring live cases. The LAO will have the power to reclaim responsibility for any particular enforcement decision if it is considered to be in the public interest. This will ensure that the LAO is the final authority on all quality matters. An improvement-led approach will be central to the LAO’s regulatory work, and we expect that any enforcement action will be considered only as a last resort. However, it is vital that these levers exist to ensure that the local audit system is accountable and responsive, rather than broken, as was expressed very powerfully in our oral evidence session.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very niche question. I will have to write back to the hon. Member to clarify.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  When I spoke last week on why clause 60 should stand part of the Bill, I covered the provisions in the schedule, but I will restate my position. The schedule strengthens the existing assets of community value scheme in England and will give communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets. Together with clause 60, the schedule is vital to delivering the Bill’s community empowerment goals and protecting assets at the heart of our local communities.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 70 introduces schedule 30, which makes minor and consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament—primarily, the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Despite the amendments being minor and consequential, this schedule is an integral part of the wider reforms that we are driving through, by ensuring consistency across legislation. As we have said, the Bill establishes the LAO as the body responsible for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as certain other local public bodies. However, health service bodies will continue with their existing arrangements to appoint their own auditors. Government amendment 241 corrects a minor drafting error and omission from the Bill as introduced, by ensuring that all previous references to relevant authorities in the provision now apply only to health service bodies. I ask that these minor and consequential amendments stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to . Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 30 Local audit: minor and consequential amendments Amendments made: 241, in schedule 30, page 311, line 10, at end insert— “(b) for “body by a relevant authority” substitute “Office or body by a health service body”.” This amendment makes a consequential amendment that was missing from the Bill as introduced. Amendment 242, in schedule 30, page 316, line 28, at end insert— “Offences of deception etc 32I False or misleading information (1) It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to provide information that is false, misleading or deceptive in a material way— (a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application under the local audit provisions, or (b) in purported compliance with any requirement having effect under those provisions. (2) In subsection (1), “the local audit provisions” means— (a) Parts 2A to 5A of this Act (including any regulations under any of those Parts), (b) an agreement under section 6B(5), and (c) registration rules within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1C. (3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both). 32J Wrongful holding out (1) It is an offence for a person who is not a registered local audit provider to— (a) describe themselves as a registered local audit provider, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a registered local audit provider. (2) It is an offence for a person who is not an external registration body to— (a) describe themselves as an external registration body, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are an external registration body. (3) It is an offence for a person who is not a recognised qualifying body to— (a) describe themselves as a recognised qualifying body, or (b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a recognised qualifying body. (4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both). (5) In subsection (4), “the maximum term for summary offences” means— (a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months; (b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This amendment creates offences, similar to those currently provided in the Companies Act, about misleading conduct in the context of the new local audit regime. Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to. Clause 71 Rent reviews and “put options”: prohibited terms

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It will be the Local Audit Office, working closely with my Department, but we will obviously engage with the sector while doing that. As the hon. Member will understand, there is always a judgment call in this, and it is about balancing a set of factors. Our job is to ensure that the Local Audit Office has the capabilities and skills to be able to make that judgment, working with our respective authorities. Ultimately, if we get it wrong, it is for Parliament to haul up the Secretary of State and hold them to account. Question put and agreed to. Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 69 Amendment paving way for separation of LGPS accounts Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government fully understand that greater devolution relies on local authority members embodying the highest standards of conduct, so we absolutely agree with the spirit of the amendment. We have consulted on proposals for comprehensive reform of the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. Our response to the consultation will be published shortly and will set out in detail the scale of our ambition for a whole-system reform of the standards and conduct framework. Our ambitions go significantly further than the amendment in terms of introducing a clearer and consistently applied framework for standards and conduct, and ensuring misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly in every type and tier of local government. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the amendment.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand hon. Members’ sentiments, but 80% of councils currently operate a leader and cabinet model. My view is that that executive model allows for greater accountability and better decision making, and that is why we are proposing these changes. My hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury eloquently set out the experience of that model and said that it leads to quicker, better decision making and efficiency. It is about spending less time in committees and meetings and more time delivering. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about things that make that consensual, collaborative way of governing work, but critically they are more to do with the culture in the council and the quality of the councillors, as my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire and for Banbury pointed out. We think the model used by the majority of councils is working. Delivering for residents is at the heart of the entire Bill, and we think that that model can lead to much stronger governance and decision making, which will deliver for residents. That is why we are keen for this provision to remain in the Bill. On the point about consistency, there is always a place for referendums. As the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said, the last Labour Government were a great fan of them and introduced provisions to lock them in, but there was always a balance around proportionality. My issue is not about the logic of having a referendum or not; there is a judgment to be made about what is proportionate, given what we are trying to do and the urgency of the reform agenda. Local government is under pressure, and there is a need to deliver services when resources are really tight. Our constituents rightly demand good-performing public services, and that is what is driving us. We think we have the balance right in the provisions and safeguards in the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to support the clause. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This group of amendments introduces and defines the new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. This will permit landowners to request evidence from the preferred community buyer no less than two weeks before the end of the new 16-week review period. The period begins on the date when a notice of intent to enter into a relevant disposal is given. At the end of the 16-week review period, the local authority will decide whether the community has met the progress requirements and will give written notice of its decision to both the owner and the buyer. While I remain committed to empowering communities to take ownership of larger sports grounds, I also recognise the importance of ensuring that they have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively. That means putting in place processes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of those assets, ensuring that community buyers are well-prepared to take on the responsibilities of permanent ownership for an asset that will be critical to their community. Amendment 236 agreed to. Amendments made: 234, in schedule 27, page 281, line 39, leave out “that” and insert “the notice”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223 . Amendment 223, in schedule 27, page 281, line 10, at end insert— “(1A) Where the land that the notice relates to is a sporting asset of community value which can accommodate over 10,000 people, and the owner makes a request in writing, the relevant local authority must— (a) determine whether at the end of the 16 week review period the preferred community buyer has met the progress requirements, and (b) as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of the determination to the owner and the buyer.” This provides that where requested by the owner a preferred community buyer of a sporting asset of community value which is a large venue must show additional evidence of progress of their proposed purchase at an earlier stage in the process. Amendment 224, in schedule 27, page 281, line 13, leave out “first” and insert “6 month”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 225, in schedule 27, page 281, line 18, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 226, in schedule 27, page 281, line 19, leave out “first review period” and insert “review period that it relates to”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 227, in schedule 27, page 281, line 21, leave out “second” and insert “12 month”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 228, in schedule 27, page 281, line 28, leave out “the first and second review periods” and insert “each review period”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 229, in schedule 27, page 281, line 34, at end insert— “‘the 16 week review period’ is the period of 16 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of a wish to enter into a relevant disposal was given under section 86M(1) (‘the notice date’);”. Amendment 230, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “first” and insert “the 6 month”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 231, in schedule 27, page 281, line 35, leave out “six” and insert “6”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 232, in schedule 27, page 281, line 36, leave out from “with the” to the end of line 37 and insert “notice date”. Amendment 233, in schedule 27, page 281, line 38, leave out “second” and insert “the 12 month”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Amendment 235, in schedule 27, page 281, at end of line 39 insert— “‘review period’ means the 16 week review period, the 6 month review period or the 12 month review period.”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 223. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Deirdre Costigan .)

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  MPs going to Parliament to work as part of a collective is very different from a single individual who needs democratic accountability to drive decisions. Those are two very different models, which is why we think the single transferable vote makes sense in the context of mayors and police and crime commissioners but the first-past-the-post system that we currently have for MPs is right for collective decision making. Finally, mayors and police and crime commissioners are currently elected via first past the post, which we think is the wrong approach. We think that shifting to this new system will provide greater consensus for the electorate.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely that we need varied forms of communication to engage with our residents and that local media play a vital role. We will continue to do everything we can to protect that part of our ecosystem, because it is fundamental to our democracy. Let me be clear about what we are doing in the clause: we are shifting the focus from prescribing how information is published to ensuring that the public are effectively informed. The Bill will give councils the flexibility to publish notices of any governance change in whatever manner they consider is most appropriate for the local circumstances, because they know their residents better than we do. In some respects, it is bizarre that we were ever prescribing exactly what councils should do, so now we are saying it is up to councils. Ultimately, it is in their interest to reach the very residents we care about, because they are their voters and residents too. To be clear: nothing in this provision stops a council from including local print newspapers, which will continue to play an important role. We are simply enabling councillors in the 21st century to think about the range of media that makes sense for the constituents, voters and residents they need to reach. It is important to put this debate into perspective. As we have said, 80% of councils already have the leader and cabinet model. We are talking about the 20% of councils that do not that would go through some sort of process. This provision is talking just about that small proportion of councils. It is right that we give maximum flexibility to councils to make the right choice about how they communicate. In the context of a pretty small, practical measure relating to the specifics of the decision to shift away from the committee system, the official Opposition’s proposal on consultation is completely disproportionate and overblown. We absolutely recognise the importance of local media. We recognised the need for an overall review, which is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is currently undertaking a review of local media and putting in place a local media strategy—to address the very issues that the hon. Members have raised. We agree that we need to do the job of making sure local media can survive and thrive in the 21st century. I hope that the amendment is not pressed. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government absolutely want to ensure that the community right to buy can be used to protect a wide range of assets. That already includes a wide range of environmental assets where communities can demonstrate an existing historical, social or economic purpose, including allotments, woodlands, parks and other green spaces. We know that many of those can already be found on local lists of assets of community value.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 55 introduces schedule 24 and I have already spoken in detail about it. On clause 56, we must avoid a situation in which a predecessor council—one soon to be replaced by a new unitary council—could delay devolution by withholding consent to the establishment of a new strategic authority. Where a new unitary council is keen to progress devolution during the transitional period, the requirement for the predecessor councils to give consent will be disapplied. The Bill will ensure that consent is given by the new unitaries, which will form the constituent councils of the new strategic authority. Consent should come only from those with a stake in the future strategic authority. This clause ensures access to devolved powers as quickly as possible, where the elected representatives of all shadow unitary authorities are in agreement. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. This is purely putting in exemption for parish and town councils, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London corporation. That is because, in the instance of town and parish and councils and the Isles of Scilly, it would be disproportionate and extremely burdensome. Town and parish councils are already doing effective community engagement, and we will continue to support them to do that. At the heart of this is empowering our communities and creating structures that enable effective neighbourhood governance. Amendment 222 agreed to. Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: supplementary vote system Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It hasn’t!

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sympathetic to new clause 24, but there is no need for the Secretary of State to publish a report after the implementation of every single reorganisation proposal. Ultimately, local authorities are responsible for their own financial performance and the delivery of their local services, and they are accountable to their local electorate. As many currently do, local authorities may report on their performance each year to their electorate. That is the appropriate place for the responsibility to lie. The Government already have mechanisms to monitor the performance of local authorities and to ensure that our councils are fit, legal and decent. As part of the process of reforming local government, we recently launched our local government outcomes framework, providing outcome-based accountability for councils. I think that there are enough mechanisms, including those that are baked into what councils need to do for their local electorate and our overall performance review and assessment process. In essence, those will deliver the intent of new clause 24.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to work through all the amendments. Let me start with amendment 373. I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to protecting historical assets. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate heritage buildings and assets, and there are already protections in place for them to do that. Historical buildings that are valued by local communities, but do not meet the criteria to be nationally listed, can be listed by local authorities as non-designated heritage assets. That protects them through the national planning policy framework, so the protection is already there. On amendment 40, I reassure the Committee that we already have established processes in place to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to deliver new policies, and this is no exception. The new burdens doctrine requires that all new responsibilities placed on local authorities are properly assessed and fully funded by the relevant Department. We are assessing the cost of the process for local authorities and will provide new burdens funding accordingly. On amendment 41, I can confirm that we are assessing the costs of independent valuation to local authorities. Where the owner and community buyer cannot agree a purchase price for an asset through negotiation, the local authority must appoint an independent valuer. We will provide new burdens funding to meet those costs accordingly, once assessments have been finalised and tested with local government. I hope that that provides some assurance. On amendment 374, we know that some community groups may not come forward as they do not have the capability or capacity to put together a bid for an asset. The intention of the 12-month sale period is to give communities time to organise and to raise the funding required. We will continue to work with community organisations to ensure that they have the support to do so. Requiring local authorities to step in to purchase assets where there is no community buyer would put too much of a burden on local authorities, and we could end up with local authorities taking over and having to run theatres and pubs. Although those assets might have value for the community, that does not feel appropriate for a local authority. We think we have the balance right and that this measure is proportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said eloquently, however much we might want a particular asset to stay in its original form, sometimes that may not be viable. We do not want buildings becoming dilapidated when they could be retained in a different way. On amendment 42, we are already putting requirements on local authorities to enable and facilitate this process. For example, they must arrange that joint meeting between the asset owner and the community buyer at the start of the process and enable that process of negotiation and, as I have said, local authorities again need to step in to provide the independent valuer if negotiations fail. We think that is the right role for the local authority, not least because it has to be an arbiter in the process. However, we want there to be enough capability across all our communities, irrespective of the level of social capital, to be able to take on these powers. There is a range of community organisations with the expertise and experience to provide this kind of support to communities, such as Plunkett, Power to Change and Locality, and we are working with those organisations on the additional support that they can provide to communities across the country. Amendment 249 would restrict what an asset owner can do with their property once listed. We think that it is ultimately up to local planning authorities to consider planning applications in accordance with their development plans and other material considerations. That could include the listing of an asset of community value. The weight afforded to material considerations in making the decision will be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we think it is right that that is left to the local planning authority. Critically, the national planning policy framework already includes important safeguards to protect against the unnecessary loss of social, recreational and cultural facilities that serve an important value for the community. We think that the balance between what already exists in the planning system and the protections that we are providing through the community right to buy is right and appropriate. Finally, on new clause 51, let me be clear: this Government are absolutely committed to empowering our communities. We are giving communities everywhere the power to take ownership. Our pride in place programme, which the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion talked about, is providing £5 billion over 10 years to support 244 places, to enable and support them to take on such community assets of value. We will continue to review this area, because we are committed to communities having a stake in and ownership of their assets, and we are committed to doing our part as a Government to enable them to do that. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her many amendments.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 58, page 60, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert— “‘local authority’ means— (a) a county council, (b) a district council, (c) a London borough council;”. This narrows the types of local authority in England that are bound by the requirement to make arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address amendments 312 to 314 first. I am happy and pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is keen on the supplementary vote system that we want to implement. The challenge to her amendment was summed up by the hon. Member herself in the final part of her speech. We are moving at pace because we want to drive through these reforms. We want to drive through the rewiring of the state and the devolution of power. However, we do not expect the Bill to come into force in time to restore the supplementary vote system for the elections in May 2026, as much as I would love us to. Once the Bill is enacted, we will need to bring forward secondary legislation to implement the measures updating the conduct rules for these polls. Also, returning officers will need to prepare for polls under the new voting system and we need to ensure that there is sufficient time. Therefore, with all the will in the world, with the full gusto of the Government on what we are trying to do, we do not think we will be able to hit that timetable. But for subsequent elections, the new system should be in place. On new clause 7 and the alternative vote system, I say two things. First, I again gently remind Liberal Democrat Members that there was a referendum on AV and 67.9% of voters rejected it at the time, so it is not clear that there is a groundswell of desire for that voting system. And critically, from our perspective, it is slower, more expensive to run and more burdensome. Therefore, we think that the system that we are proposing—supplementary votes—is the right and appropriate system and I ask hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of clarification, it is consent to the creation of a new strategic authority, so this is the tier above.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Local government reorganisation is already possible through existing legislation and does not require a referendum. In the last 20 years, we have precedents of local government reorganisation, and a referendum has never been part of that. Adding a referendum on to the process is disproportionate and will slow it down. We need to go through this process for all the reasons that we have talked about in the debate. To be clear, however, before any local government reorganisation proposal is implemented, all affected authorities must be consulted. Residents can submit their views during those consultations, and authorities will engage with their residents through the proposal development process that is going on at the moment. Furthermore, all implementation orders for new unitary authorities must pass through Parliament’s affirmative resolution procedure. That allows elected Members to have their say on proposals based on the feedback that they are getting from their constituents. All these provisions are proportionate, right and consistent with what we have done in the past. Therefore, this additional measure is disproportionate and unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw the amendment.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Vaz. I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are already building in provisions to reflect the issues that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has raised. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 already provides that a direction for local government reorganisation can be issued only if the Secretary of State deems the proposal to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Having regard, therefore, to size, geography, public services and local identity is fundamentally embedded in the decision-making process. That is demonstrated by the statutory guidance and criteria shared with areas currently preparing for reorganisation. The hon. Lady is right to highlight those factors that matter for the sense of place, and therefore the boundaries of councils, and we think that the statutory guidance and safeguards fundamentally lock them into the process that we are going into. On whether this process is top down or bottom up, let us look at it: we have invited places to go through a process of reform, and those places are now having conversations among themselves to come up with proposals. Those are not Government proposals; they are proposals from local areas. We are already allowing conversations to be had about what makes sense for those areas and how we take into account the specifics of identity and other issues in those proposals. Whatever proposal is chosen must be consulted on before it is implemented, which, again, is an opportunity for local people to have a conversation, and to have some say and voice in the process. Although I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, we have legal provisions and, critically, have set out a process that fundamentally addresses the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to disaggregate two processes, although I appreciate the challenge because we are doing them concurrently: there is a local government reorganisation process and a devolution process. To clarify, I am the Minister for Devolution, so when I refer to the enthusiasm in my conversations with local government leaders, that was on devolution, where it absolutely is felt. It is right for devolution that the authorities that will form the constituent authorities and ultimately have a stake in the future direction of the strategic authority are the driving force behind it. It would be wrong if one single authority that was about to be shifted in the context of local government reorganisation were able to scupper, delay or veto the creation of that strategic authority when there is consent and support for it. This is completely rational if we allow that there are two processes. This part of the Bill is about the creation of strategic authorities and about who ultimately has the ability to drive them and consent to them. It should be those constituent authorities that will form part of the strategic authority to come.