Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

640 published records · newest first.

Speeches

21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move Government amendment 171.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
This cluster of amendments to clause 46 allow a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral county combined authority to take on the role of a fire and rescue authority, where appropriate. These amendments strengthen the fire and rescue provision in clause 46. They give the Secretary of State the power to designate strategic authorities as fire and rescue authorities. They also ensure that where strategic authorities cover more than one fire and rescue area, they take on responsibility for all fire and rescue authorities in their area. Collectively, these amendments provide consistency and prevent fragmentation of governance, by requiring mayors to cover all fire and rescue authority areas within their boundaries, creating stronger accountability across local areas. Amendment 209 agreed to. Amendments made: 210, in clause 46, page 51, line 17, leave out from “for” to second “a” and insert— “an area by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or (g),”. This is consequential on Amendment 209. Amendment 211, in clause 46, page 51, line 23, after “the” insert “combined authority or”. This corrects an omission. Amendment 212, in clause 46, page 51, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 52 and insert— ““1A Designation of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral CCAs (1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the whole of its area. (2) The Secretary of State may— (a) by order specify a part of the area of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, and (b) by order designate the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the specified part of its area. (3) But, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred by subsection (2) in relation to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA (the “relevant mayoral authority”), the Secretary of State must ensure that those powers are exercised so as to secure that— (a) two or more parts are specified under subsection (2)(a) which, when taken together, consist of the whole of the area of the relevant mayoral authority; (b) the relevant mayoral authority is designated as the fire and rescue authority for each specified part; (c) all of those designations come into effect at the same time. (4) Accordingly, where the powers conferred by subsection (2) are exercised in relation to the relevant mayoral authority— (a) there are separate fire and rescue authorities for each area specified under subsection (2)(a); (b) the fire and rescue authority for each of those areas is the relevant mayoral authority. (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the name by which an area specified under subsection (2)(a) is to be known. (6) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make consequential alterations to any other— (a) section 1A(2) area, (b) section 2 combined area, or (c) section 4 combined area. (7) The alterations that may be made by virtue of subsection (6) include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of such areas. (8) An order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) may make provision for the abolition of— (a) a metropolitan county fire and rescue authority, (b) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2, or (c) a combined fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies. (9) The provision that may be made by regulations under section 52 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 (incidental etc provision) for the purposes of, or in consequence of, an order under subsection (1) or (2)(a) or (b) relating to a particular mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA and particular area includes— (a) provision for functions of a fire rescue authority to be exercisable in relation to the area by the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA during a shadow period (and not by any fire and rescue authority by which those functions would otherwise be exercisable), (b) provision for those functions to be exercisable only by the mayor on behalf of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA; (c) provision about who is to scrutinise the exercise of those functions; (d) any other incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision. (10) In this section— “section 1A(2) area” means an area specified in an order under subsection (2)(a) (including such an area as varied from time to time); “section 2 combined area” means an area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, or used to be, constituted by a scheme under section 2 (including such an area as varied from time to time); “section 4 combined area” means the area for which a combined fire and rescue authority is, used to be, constituted by a scheme to which section 4 applies (including such an area as varied from time to time); “shadow period” , in relation to provision made in accordance with subsection (9)(a) in relation to a particular area, means a period which— (a) ends when the designation of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA as the fire and rescue authority for the area takes effect, and (b) is no longer than one year.”” This would make further provision about the Secretary of State’s power to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority (see Amendment 209). In particular, subsection (3) would ensure that, where the area of a mayoral combined authority or CCA is to consist of several fire and rescue areas, it must be the fire and rescue authority for all of those areas. Amendment 213, in clause 46, page 52, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 53.— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This would be consequential on Amendment 209.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I know that the Committee agrees on the need to boost economic prosperity—there is broad consensus on that—and to do it in a way that reflects national and, critically, local priorities. Although many places have a plan for growth, there is no consistent requirement for places with a mayor to do so. Currently, only London is required to set out a strategy for its economic development, and we can see how London’s economy has benefited over the decades. Where places have taken the initiative, their plans do not have consistent central Government backing. Schedule 19 will change that by creating a process for all mayors to agree local growth priorities with the Government. It will provide a common approach for mayors outside London to set out their priorities and investment opportunities in their local growth plan. Mayors up and down the country have given their backing to local growth plans, and we are already seeing this in practice. We have already agreed shared local growth priorities with the 12 longest established mayoral authorities, but agreeing and publishing shared local growth priorities is not enough. Mayors need to know that these priorities will be acted upon, which is why we will require public bodies to have regard to them at key points. The approach will ensure that everywhere with a mayor has a clear plan for growth and economic prosperity in their area, whether that is a local growth plan or the economic development strategy for London. Crucially, it will ensure that the priorities we agree with mayors have Government backing, with relevant public bodies alert to them, so that all levels of government can pull in the same direction. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 19, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 39 Local Government Act 2003: expenditure grant Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I hear the passion and commitment of the hon. Lady clearly. Certainly my experience of strategic authorities and mayors who cover a combination of areas—including rural areas—is that they are mindful and clear about it; they want to have a conversation about transport connectivity and digital connectivity, and about how we drive economic growth and prosperity within our farming communities. There is no evidence to suggest that local growth plans as defined in the Bill do not enable places to drive that. That is certainly not the experience that we are seeing at the moment. I understand the concern that a lot of our mayors have been in more urban areas, but in the north-east and increasingly with the mayors who are coming through our priority programme, they are clear about the importance of their rural communities and the fact that they will need certain powers and functions to drive that. Although I completely understand the intent and legitimate concern behind the amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I think they are too prescriptive, and it is right that we create the flexibility for mayors to understand their patch across the piece and then respond effectively in their local growth plan. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 359—although I think she said she will press it to a vote.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
These functions are essential to the effective operation of strategic authorities. We are now standardising these functions across all existing and future authorities. These powers are core functions that any local government body needs. Standardising them across strategic authorities will create consistent foundations for them to build on and thrive from. Without these functions, we risk significantly debilitating new institutions before they have a chance.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 46, page 51, line 10, leave out from “for” to end of line 14 and insert— “the whole of its area if the Secretary of State designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that area in accordance with section 1A(1); (g) a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA is the fire and rescue authority for a part of its area if the Secretary of State— (i) specifies that part of its area, and (ii) designates it as the fire and rescue authority for that part of its area, in accordance with section 1A(2) and (3).” This would enable the Secretary of State to provide for a mayoral combined authority or CCA to be the fire and rescue authority for its area or part of its area. Amendment 212 makes further provision about these powers.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas. We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government. However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for being a consistent champion of town and parish councils throughout our proceedings. We also recognise the important role they play in their communities, which is understood and should not be understated. We have been clear that local growth plans should reflect the diverse needs and views of a range of local and regional stakeholders. Not only is this already possible, but it is actively encouraged. We have set out in the Bill that, when drafting their local growth plans, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. That guidance can already set out who the authority might consult, as well as the information to be included in the plan. We think that specifying a minimum level of engagement for town and parish councils is disproportionate and over-prescriptive. For too long, central Government have dictated what local areas should do, who they should talk to and how they should do it, and we are calling time on that. This is about empowering mayoral strategic authorities to reach out to the key stakeholders that they know and understand best to drive the changes they want in their place. For that reason, I do not believe this cluster of amendments is necessary. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Lady for these probing amendments. Again, we had a debate about this earlier in Committee. Let me put on record that we are clear that, if we are asking strategic and mayoral strategic authorities to drive this critical function, they must have the capacity to do that job well. It does not serve them, the Government or their constituents if they do not have the capacity and capability to do that well. That is why we are, for example, providing capacity-building funding for mayoral strategic authorities, so that they can not only set up but do some of the core enabling functions, such as producing plans, well and effectively. As I said, the principle holds that capacity-building support must be there to ensure that strategic authorities can do their functions incredibly well, but I do not think it is necessary to specify that on the face of the Bill, not least because we already have the spending review process where strategic authorities set out their demands, ambitions and resources, and have a conversation with Government about ensuring that they are adequately resourced. The principle of capacity building is therefore absolutely clear and firm, and is designed into the way we are trying to drive the legislation forward. Putting it on the face of the Bill would be too prescriptive when there are already processes in place to enable it to happen.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I reiterate the assurances that I have given. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, where strategic authorities take on new functions and duties, they have the resource and capacity to do so. That could mean: providing capacity funding to the strategic authorities; ensuring that the budgets necessary to deliver the outcomes that they are committed to are in place through the process of devolution, or, ultimately, when they become established combined authorities, through the integrated settlements. I again put that reassurance on the record.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I must tell the hon. Lady that I can barely hold them back. Our mayors are pretty independent-minded and robust, and they are very clear when they want a particular power. They run effective campaigns and they are very good at advocacy, so I do not think the Government need to—or indeed can—tell them what to do. They are very clear about the powers they want; they build consensus among all their partners to ensure that they apply maximum pressure on Government to respond effectively to the right to request, and rightly so. That is the case now and I suspect that, once we give them legal powers in this Bill, it will continue to be so.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The clause sets out the criteria for transfer by default of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor of a strategic authority, where the mayoralty matches the geography of the police force area and a transfer date has been set. Making mayors responsible for policing governance offers a more joined-up approach to preventing crime and driving local economic improvements. It will enhance mayors’ broader ability to bring about local change by bringing together responsibility for policing and crime with mayors’ wider remit for economic development, skills and infrastructure. This delivers the ambition set out in the English devolution White Paper. Mayors who have police and crime commissioner functions will be required to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime. That will ensure that the mayor has sufficient capacity to discharge their functions, while ensuring there is dedicated oversight of policing on a day-to-day basis. The clause provides for a mayor to exercise police and crime commissioner functions for either a single police force, or more than one force when the boundaries of those forces align with the mayoral area when taken together.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those. We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important. In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process. I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities. We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority. Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level. Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular. The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I want to put on record that the Government absolutely recognise the vital role the fire and rescue authorities are playing across the piece; there is a huge amount of work going on in my Department to ensure that they are fit for purpose, that they are resourced and that they can continue to evolve. The Government believe that the negative procedure is the right and proportionate route for these regulations. The powers here in the Bill are simply technical powers, enabling powers that are already conferred in legislation for the fire and rescue authority functions to be transferred. That is why they take up such a small proportion of the Bill—it is a technical change rather than a substantive one, which exists already in legislation. It is important that there is a timely transfer of these functions so that mayors can deliver joined-up services without lengthy procedural hurdles. Subject to clause 46 standing part of the Bill, Parliament would have already approved the principle of mayors exercising fire and rescue functions. This part of the Bill makes that transfer live and real. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole appreciates the care that we certainly have around the fire and rescue service and that there is much wider work going on outside the scope of the Bill about how we ensure those services are fit for purpose, and will therefore withdraw her amendment.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank hon. Members for that lengthy and robust debate. I will start with clause 40, and then I will pick up on the amendments. I remind the Committee that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote tourism and cultural activities, which we think are critical to boosting regional economies. These provisions enable authorities to encourage visitors and provide facilities such as conference centres, driving job creation and investment. Authorities can add value by forging a regional brand, and by attracting business and visitors, they can make the most of their multifaceted areas and the strengths of each local authority area. That is key to creating thriving hubs for visitors and residents. Amendment 358 and new clause 41 touch on something that has been a constant theme throughout the debate. I understand the aims behind the provisions, and I understand opposition parties’ desire to have regard to town and parish councils. I come back to the fact that we have agreed that town and parish councils have an important role. They are important local partners, and we expect authorities to work with them where appropriate. However, we do not believe that it is proportionate or right to put that in the Bill as a legal requirement. We trust authorities to decide how best to engage with their local partners, including town and parish councils, based on what is right and appropriate for their areas. Requiring formal consultation and reporting could, as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth have so eloquently said, create unnecessary administrative pressure, burden and resources at a time when we want these strategic authorities to be focused on delivery. Of course we want to encourage collaboration, but not to prescribe it. Engagement should be flexible. It should not be dictated by central Government or indeed this Committee; it should be left to mayors and strategic authorities who know their patch and their partners best. I recognise the type of levy that new clause 41 would introduce, and I recognise that it is supported by local authorities and mayors. The Government keep all tax policy under review, and any changes to tax policy will be announced at a fiscal event in the normal way. I do not believe that the Chancellor would be very pleased with me if I were to make tax policy now in this great Committee.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
There are quite a few amendments in this grouping, and all are broadly technical, clarifying and consequential amendments. Government amendments 172, 181 and 190 are consequential amendments that expand the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities agreed with mayoral strategic authorities. The change reflects the original intention set out in the White Paper to apply the duty to arms-length bodies. Government amendments 174, 182, and 191 simply clarify that public authorities that operate GB-wide or UK-wide may be specified in regulations as subject to the duty to have regard, and that the duty will apply only to their activities in England. Amendment 171 agreed to. Amendments made: 172, in schedule 19, page 201, line 8, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”. This expands the power to require a non-departmental public body to have regard to shared local growth priorities to any relevant public authority. Amendment 173, in schedule 19, page 201, line 11, after “of the” insert “mayoral combined”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172. Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 201, line 17, at end insert— “(1A) Where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the United Kingdom, the duty under subsection (1) only applies in relation to activities that the authority carries out in England.” This ensures that where a relevant public authority carries out activities in England and anywhere else in the UK, the new duties relating to the local growth priorities of mayoral combined authorities will only apply to activities that the authority carries out in England. Amendment 175, in schedule 19, page 201, line 18, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172. Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 201, line 19, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172. Amendment 177, in schedule 19, page 201, line 26, leave out “non-departmental public body” and insert “public authority”.— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 172.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The clause introduces alternative ways by which a mayor or strategic authority may exercise fire and rescue and police and crime commissioner functions introduced by the Bill. The Government aim to establish mayoralties with the full range of powers and responsibilities wherever possible. The clause enables the Secretary of State to authorise a mayor of a strategic authority to delegate fire and rescue authority functions to a chief constable and to authorise that chief constable to further delegate fire and rescue authority functions to police and fire rescue personnel. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 Sharing of information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The purpose of the provision in the Bill is to give the Secretary of State the power to make that transfer in a way and at a time that makes sense. Whether with regard to the electoral timetable or to issues of deliverability and the viability of the transfer, the Secretary of State’s ability to take a view and set a future date is why we have provided that power to mitigate the issues the hon. Lady is concerned about. The default should be that the police and crime commissioner function sits with the mayor where the geographies align. That is an important principle as we build up the mayoral strategic authorities across the country.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The process in practice is distinct from the local government funding settlement. Established mayoral combined authorities are all going through the integrated settlement process, which is a negotiated process where the demands and ambitions of the mayor are weighted against the funding in Government Departments that we have provided with an integrated settlement. That is being rolled out among established combined authorities. For other mayoral combined authorities that are not established, the process in practice has been, “This is what we have tried to do in our area. These are the resources, and this is where we can use, for example, the mayoral precepting power,” and then there is a conversation with Government to enable them to do what they want. We are moving towards multi-year settlements, because we think that is a better way to run the public finances. The principle of multi-year settlements applies to local government and across Departments, and will apply in the context of mayoral combined authorities.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s point. Mayoral strategic authorities are already subject to the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets. We have seen that mayors have complied with the duties on local authorities around air quality and producing air quality action plans. Those have shown to be effective in London. The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy. We will reflect on the guidance that comes alongside local growth plans to ensure that, across the piece, those national obligations are reflected in every tier of Government. The hon. Member has my assurance that we will reflect on it, and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The schedule sets out the content of the new schedule 10A that will be inserted into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. It provides that once the functions of a police and crime commissioner have been transferred so that they are exercised by a mayor, there will no longer be a PCC for that police force area, which I know the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will be delighted about. It also explains how mayors are to exercise PCC functions where functions have been transferred. I beg to move that this schedule stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to . Schedule 21, as amended, accordingly agreed to . Clause 46 Functions of fire and rescue authorities
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I know that Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the Committee—are all too aware of the unique needs and challenges that rural, remote and coastal communities face. I want to reassure them that local growth plans provide a framework for growth for all parts of their regions. That is exactly why we are requiring local growth plans to set out an economic overview of their whole area. Whether it is urban centres, or rural or farming parts of the entire strategic authority area, a proper assessment needs to be conducted. Yes, there is no requirement to specifically reference rural, remote or coastal areas, but there is equally no requirement to specify urban or suburban areas.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source
More
I understand the intent behind the amendment. Mayoral development corporations are already subject to the national planning policy framework, which reflects the brownfield-first approach that the hon. Member has talked about, encourages densification where it makes sense and includes strong protections for greenfield land. We think the provisions already exist, because any mayoral development corporation must have regard to the national planning policy framework. We believe it is important to give mayoral development corporations flexibility, however, because there will be instances, in the case of urban extensions or new towns, when the decision needs to be made to build on greenfield land. We think that the amendment would disproportionately restrict mayoral development corporations and place on them additional restrictions that do not apply to other bodies. Ultimately, it would reduce mayoral development corporations’ flexibility, slow down delivery and add unnecessary constraints on decision making. For that reason, we do not support it, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move amendment 129, in schedule 15, page 179, line 34, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 4 on page 180 and insert— “(a) in paragraph (bb), omit ‘and’; (b) after paragraph (c) insert— ‘(d) if the land is in the area of a strategic authority to whom this section applies, consult with that strategic authority (in addition to any other consultation required by this subsection).’” This would require the Secretary of State to consult a strategic authority (as well as the local authority) before authorising a compulsory acquisition

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →