Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I think I have been very clear. The legislation is very clear, and Members of the House were all involved in agreeing it. We are proceeding with elections. The principle that has guided what we have done is that the preference is always to have elections, but if there is a reasonable, justified case that there is a risk to delivering our reforms, or that the risk to the transitional arrangements is a genuine, material consideration for those authorities, it is right, rational and sensible for the Government to listen to them. The legislation is that legislation that we have. We are proceeding with elections, and certainly the Labour party is gearing up to speak to its voters and ensure they come out—no doubt parties across the piece are doing that. That is the mode in which most of local government is operating, and certainly we on the Government Benches are. The cost of local elections is met locally. Again, I refer Members to the new burdens doctrine, which requires that any new responsibilities are assessed. That is how we will approach elections, which are locally funded. Broadly, we are not hearing about issues with constituent authorities that are undergoing this process at the moment, but we will continue to review the new burdens doctrine to ensure that critical elections are held with no detriment to the voters in those particular areas.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady has set out the Government’s ambition to move away from a document-led planning system to a data-driven one, where planning data is openly available and more easily accessible. I recognise the intention to expand the data standards provision to ensure that it covers other types of plans produced by strategic authorities, such as the local growth plan or the local transport plan. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards. Given that data standards can evolve, the Secretary of State also has the power to define those standards. The definition of planning and development is already broad enough to capture the types of data that would be used for the plans sought to be covered by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. The Government are confident that existing powers in the 2023 Act are broad enough to make the new clause unnecessary. I come back to the consistent theme of many of my responses to the hon. Lady: it is now in the doing and the acting. We have the powers in statute to respond; it is about how we put those into practice. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this amendment. As a proud Co-operative MP and as part of a Government who are driving through changes to the economy that put people at the heart, I support the intent behind this amendment. I know of the good work CLES does to drive this agenda across local and regional government. As I have said before, for us, the purpose of devolution is to equip and enable our mayors, local authorities and communities to rewire the economy so that it works for local people and fundamentally builds the wealth of communities. That is clear. However, a duty to create a separate community wealth building plan will not achieve the intent of the new clause. These approaches should be embedded in the local growth plans that mayors are developing. We see that in practice if we look across the country at what our Labour mayors are doing, whether that is in Greater Manchester, the Liverpool city region or the West of England combined authority. Their approach builds in the principles of building community wealth, of co-operatives and mutuals and of community power, with a strong emphasis on the everyday economy. We can legislate as much as we like, but what is important is the doing and the practice. We are clear that our job is to empower and equip our local leaders to do this. Many of them are already at the vanguard and well ahead of national Government because of the legacy of the previous Government. We will work with our mayors and strategic authorities to embed this in their local plans. Critically, we are making sure that there are clear levers at the community level to drive this approach, for example, through the community right to buy. We agree with the intent, but a separate plan is not the way to deliver it. It needs to be fundamentally baked into the way that mayors drive local economic growth—a way that will put their communities at the heart and not just improve living standards, but build the wealth of those communities.

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

  More

  I thank hon. Members for the lengthy and robust debate on this issue. We all recognise that there is a need to continue evolving, improving and strengthening our democracy, but we do not believe that the new clause and the electoral reform proposal are the right answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for local councils in England. We believe that first past the post is a clear way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters, and, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, provides a direct link and relationship between the member of the legislature or council and the local constituency. That model works well where we have collective decision making and collective systems of governance—that is quite distinct. We had a debate on the changes that we are proposing for mayors and police and crime commissioners—the supplementary vote system—where there is a single executive position. We think that strengthening the democratic link in that way is appropriate and right in that context. We think that through the Bill we will have the right mechanism for the right type of representation, as presented through the mayor and the police and crime commissioner on the one hand, and councillors and MPs, which operate within a collective governance model through Parliament or councils. I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the new clause—I am not sure that she will, but I will put the request.

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

  More

  I understand the intent behind the new clause, and the Government are absolutely committed to building the homes that people across the country need. But I cannot let it pass without setting the record straight: housing delivery plummeted because of action taken by the previous Government, including the scrapping of housing targets across the country, the under-investment in social and affordable housing and, dare I mention, Liz Truss—remember her?—who saw mortgage rates skyrocket. Those are the factors that have driven down housing stock, and we, again, are having to fix the mess left by the previous Government. I will take no lectures from them on house building, given their record. We are determined to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we know the country needs, and we will work with strategic authorities and local authorities to do that. There are already provisions that will enable mayors to accelerate housing development and drive economic growth, and we are providing further tools through the Bill, whether that is the strategic planning powers, the ability to raise the community infrastructure levy, the extension of the ability to form mayoral development corporations to all mayors outside London or, importantly, the land assembly powers given to strategic authorities to unlock development. We are very clear-sighted about what needs to be done, and we are already equipping and empowering mayors to do that. We already have examples of where this is working, such as the Olympic legacy in Stratford and the huge progress delivered in London through that. There are provisions in the Bill. Our challenge is that we have to fix the mess that we inherited, but we are absolutely determined to do that, and we will do it in partnership with mayors.

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

  More

  Let me respond directly to the inference by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that, through the Bill and the devolution of power, we are essentially imposing the Government’s own agenda and requirements on strategic authorities, mayors or local authorities. Let me be very clear: that is not the intent. The intent is to enable mayors and local and strategic authorities to define and drive their own priorities. If the hon. Member spends any time with any of our brilliant mayors or our emerging strategic authorities, it will be incredibly clear that they have their own agenda, which is driven by the priorities of their local people. The idea that we can impose on them a set of things and use them essentially as a new revenue-raising mechanism is for the birds. We do not think that the desire expressed in the new clause to impose restrictions on the ability of the mayor to raise a precept is right or proportionate. We are clear that the precept must be both proportionate and fair. Ultimately—I said this before, and I will say it again—mayors are democratically elected. They are no less immune to the requirements and the political pressure from their voters than I am or the hon. Member is. The process of democracy—of people having to account for both revenue-raising and, critically, for what they are investing in—is absolutely right. I trust our mayors to do that. Ultimately, if they do not raise revenue and, critically, invest it in things that improve the lives of their constituents, they will pay the price at the ballot box. They do not need the hon. Member to impose his requirements on them.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for this new clause. We wholeheartedly agree with its intent. In the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to removing altogether the requirements for local government members’ home addresses to be published. The new clause would not achieve that aim because it relies on a member requesting non-publication. We believe that the default position should be non-publication, and we intend to legislate with more robust provisions when parliamentary time allows. In light of the reassurance that we will be legislating on this important issue, which we agree on, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

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

  More

  We all agree that we need stronger community engagement, and a big strand of what we are trying to do through the Bill is to ensure that our communities across the country have greater powers and voice. A new commission is not the answer. The answer is in the doing—us doing the job of enabling all levels of Government, including our national Government, to engage the public and our communities better. There is a role for the LGA, supported with funding, in building local authorities’ capability to do community engagement effectively. We have discussed the neighbourhood governance structure that we are trying to build, and creating an effective locus for communities to exercise their voice and power, and to be interlocutors with local government. We are building the network for neighbourhoods, which will bring together communities and partners to share best practice, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is suggesting, and strengthen the capability of communities to exercise their voice and power. Critically, we are already putting this into practice through pride in place. We are putting investment into communities, organising community leaders on to neighbourhood boards to make decisions about the things that matter. While I appreciate the need for greater community engagement, I think that rather than set up a long-winded commission, we should crack on with the doing. That is what the Government are committed to.

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

  More

  Let me address the question directly, and then I will turn to new clause 5, on the cost of local elections, and new clause 43, on support for neighbourhood planning. We like elections, and we think it is absolutely right that voters have the opportunity to exercise their democratic mandate. We have therefore proceeded with elections. It is important to clarify that we opted to delay them where there were specific requests from the local authorities involved, because they were going through the process not only of local government reorganisation but of creating mayoral strategic authorities. The concern was that the capacity, resource and transitional arrangements would be jeopardised by early elections. All reasonable Members will understand that it is right that the Government listen to constituent authorities that are going through what we all acknowledge is a difficult reform and transition process, and that we get that balance right. Our principle will always remain that we want elections to go ahead, because it is critical that voters have the chance to exercise their democratic rights. We are balancing that with being fair minded, rational and reasonable. When constituent authorities, including authorities of both parties, tell us that there is a genuine transitional and delivery risk that we need to take into account, we are sensible and reasonable, and take that into account. That is the balance that we will continue to hold to.

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

  More

  This group of amendments expands the scope of schedule 7B so that arrangements such as options and rights of first refusal are also within the scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type may allow the tenant to enter into a new lease on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used to avoid the ban’s effect. As a result, we cannot permit new leases such as those to be excluded from scope, as this would likely encourage gaming of the system and prevent businesses from being protected in the way that the Bill intends. Government amendment 389 makes a minor change to clarify that the application of schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances, therefore allowing for arrangements to move in and out of scope. By doing so, this amendment ensures that different types of arrangements, such as options and rights of first refusal, are caught by the ban if they meet the stated criteria at the relevant point. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

  More

  We absolutely recognise the funding pressures that local government is under, and we have been clear and transparent about them. They are a function, obviously, of the legacy that we inherited and that we are working incredibly hard to rectify. The long-established new burdens doctrine sets out that all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed by the relevant Department. That includes the overall cost to local government, including any one-off implementation or transition costs. Suffice to say, but to reassure the hon. Member, my Department is working in the usual way to assess the cost to local government of any mandated changes to local governance models. We will go through the standard process to take a judgment on that. The principle that local authorities should be adequately compensated if there are new requirements or burdens on them runs through what we will do. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member will withdraw her new clause.

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

  More

  Can the hon. Member remind the Committee when housing stocks plummeted? Was it not in 2023, on his watch?

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

  More

  The English devolution White Paper set out clearly our proposals to strengthen the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans and highlights the intention to use legislation and statutory guidance as appropriate to achieve that. As a Government, we remain completely committed to that position, and we intend to bring forward legislation to do precisely that. We are not, however, just waiting for legislation; ahead of that, updated statutory guidance will set out how we expect strategic authorities and employer representative bodies to work together on the next round of local skills improvement plans. That will include a requirement for both parties to confirm whether they are content with the plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Where they do not agree, Skills England, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will help to resolve any issues. In that context, and given the direction of travel, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw new clause 56, because it is not necessary. On new clause 57, I point the hon. Member to schedule 10 of the Bill, in which strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their area. That will include considering existing provision and provision of different types in the area; but, crucially, it also allows them to consider a broader range of factors than the new clause allows for. We know that in practice strategic authorities are already considering a wide range of local factors—including where the labour market is, and where current and future demand is—as they design, develop and drive forward their adult skills strategy.

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

  More

  I have finished, and I have sat down.

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

  More

  My summing up will be very short. There is clearly a problem. That problem has been around for decades. Upwards-only rent reviews are an outlier internationally, and it is putting huge pressure on our high street. I absolutely recognise that we have to strike a balance between the investment that we want to see in our local economies and commercial property sector, but we also need to protect tenants. It cannot make sense to have a system whereby rents can only go up, irrespective of what is happening in the market, and cannot go down if the market goes down. That is an illogical system and one that is putting huge pressures on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones. There is a reason why all other advanced countries do not apply this system. Those countries all function well and have vibrant property markets. Critically, there are specifics around individual places and the reforms that they have been through, but the lesson across the piece—whether in Ireland or Australia—is that reforms are possible, and in the end we can still have both a vibrant sector and a property market that is far more rational from the perspective of tenants. I commend these amendments to the Committee. Amendment 387 agreed to. Amendments made: 388, in schedule 31, page 326, leave out line 5 and insert “Application of this Schedule”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 390, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “to an arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 389, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “if” and insert— “at a particular time if, at that time,”. This would make clear that the application of Schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances. Amendment 391, in schedule 31, page 326, line 9, leave out paragraph 2 and insert— “2 (1) Condition A is met if Part 2 of this Act— (a) applies to the tenancy, or (b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy. (2) In the following paragraphs of this Schedule— (a) the tenancy to which Part 2 applies, or has the potential to apply, is referred to as the ‘existing tenancy’; (b) the premises let under the existing tenancy are referred to as the ‘relevant premises’. (3) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the existing tenancy if— (a) Part 2 cannot apply to the existing tenancy because— (i) none of the relevant premises are occupied by the tenant, or (ii) the relevant premises are or include premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes, (b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the ‘permitted use terms’) which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and (c) if the tenant were to occupy relevant premises in accordance with the permitted use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy. (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), terms of the existing tenancy which— (a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for some purposes, but (b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for other purposes, are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes which are not prohibited. (5) Sub-paragraph (3) must be construed as one with section 23(1).” This would replicate the new paragraph 1 of new Schedule 7A that is contained in Amendment 376. Amendment 392, in schedule 31, page 326, line 17, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 393, in schedule 31, page 326, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 25 and insert— “a tenancy renewal arrangement. (2) In this Schedule— ‘new tenancy’ means a new tenancy of the whole or a part of the relevant premises; ‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ means an arrangement under which the tenant under the existing tenancy— (a) can require the landlord or another person to grant a new tenancy, or (b) can be required by the landlord or another person to take a new tenancy.” This expands the scope of new Schedule 7B to cover any arrangement under which the grant of a new tenancy can be required, whether it is the landlord or tenant that can impose the requirement. Amendment 394, in schedule 31, page 326, line 26, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 395, in schedule 31, page 326, line 27, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 396, in schedule 31, page 326, line 31, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”. This would ensure the defined term “new tenancy” is used. Amendment 397, in schedule 31, page 327, line 1, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 398, in schedule 31, page 327, line 3, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 399, in schedule 31, page 327, line 6, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 400, in schedule 31, page 327, line 14, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”. This would ensure the defined term “existing tenancy” is used. Amendment 401, in schedule 31, page 328, line 22, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 402, in schedule 31, page 328, line 35, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2)”. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 403, in schedule 31, page 328, leave out line 36. This is consequential on Amendment 393. Amendment 404, in schedule 31, page 329, line 2, at end insert— “‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(2);”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This is consequential on Amendment 393. Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to .

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

  More

  Both the last Government and this Government have invested huge amounts in building the infrastructure. In the end, Governments have to make a judgment about where we put our funding and finances. We know that is difficult for particular communities, but we think there is sufficient infrastructure and sufficient people with expertise in neighbourhood planning. We will continue to work with them on how they innovate to provide a service for particular parishes. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is forcing me to labour the point that, because of the absolute mess that the Conservatives left us with after years of austerity, we are having to make tough judgments about what we can fund and invest in. It is not where we want to be, but that is the reality we have to confront. We had to make choices in the spending review; we are investing more in affordable housing, and in supporting our communities with homelessness. We think that those choices were right, and ultimately we had to make a judgment about prioritisation. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that it can innovate and continue supporting neighbourhoods.

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

  More

  I will be brief because the Committee has discussed this question before. We absolutely recognise the importance of training, which is why the Government currently fund the sector support programme, which is delivered by the Local Government Association and open to strategic authorities and local authorities. That will continue and we will build on it. It should be for strategic authorities and local authorities, as independent bodies that we are trying to empower, to decide the form of training for elected members. The Government will do our part to work alongside them and to give the LGA what is required, but we do not think that a one-size-fits-all requirement on strategic authorities to provide training is proportionate. The best way to do that is to build the infrastructure to enable and support training in an effective and sustainable way. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

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

  More

  I acknowledge the intent behind new clauses 3 and 15. We all agree that transparency, accountability and greater scrutiny are needed, and that there is room for improvement in our system. On the specifics of new clause 3, all local authorities must publish annual accounts along with an annual governance statement. The local government transparency code 2015 requires local authorities and combined authorities to publish regularly on their websites information about spending and assets, including, as a minimum, all spending over £500, which must be published quarterly, and all land and building assets held. All mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework. That sets out how mayors will be held to account by central Government, at local level, and by the public. As part of the local assurance framework, mayoral strategic authorities must describe their arrangements for enabling effective and meaningful engagement with local partners and the public. My argument is that we have the legislative framework, and that this is now a question of practice. Everyone wants information about public spending and Government accounts to be as accessible as possible. It is as much a problem for central Government as it is for local government and lots of bodies and institutions. I would argue it is a question of practice and of improving the way we do things. Through digital technology and the ability to use different methods, we can make this information far more accessible. I do not think we need further legislation. We need to improve our practice and innovate and modernise so the public can better hold all of us to account. That is an endeavour across all levels of government and all public institutions, so the new clauses duplicate existing arrangements and do not really get to the heart of the issue that we all recognise we need to resolve. I absolutely agree with the intent behind new clause 15. We have stated on the record that we understand the need to strengthen the accountability and the scrutiny mechanism for strategic authorities. We said this in the English devolution White Paper, my colleague said it in the House, and we are committed to that. I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them. The challenge I have with the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is that the independent panel she is recommending would mean we have to wait over a year after Royal Assent to respond to this critical issue, because we would not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the panel. In some respects, the very thing that the hon. Lady is trying to force us to do may well end up slowing our ability to do.

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

  More

  As this is, I hope, the last time that I will be standing, I thank you, Dame Siobhain, and our other Chairs for your fantastic chairing of this Committee. The pace, tone and quality of the debate are testimony to how effectively it is been chaired. I put on record my thanks to the Clerks, who have done a fantastic job facilitating the proceedings of this Committee and ensuring that we all know what we are doing. I offer huge thanks to my hon. Friends, who have been fantastic colleagues in driving through this line-by-line process. It is the first time that I have ever taken a Bill through Committee, and I thank them for all their support. I also thank Opposition Members. The way we have conducted the Committee is a testament to the very best of Parliament. It has been done with much gusto, with spirit and with great insights, but in a very collegiate manner, and I thank all hon. Members for that. Finally, I put on record my thanks to my fantastic officials. This is a mammoth Bill, with a huge amount of work done before my time and up to this point. We would not be here with this genuinely transformative piece of legislation, which begins to rewire the state to put power in the hands of our communities, without the fantastic work of my officials in the Department who drove it forward. With huge thanks, great relief and slight exhaustion, I turn to part 6 of the Bill. The clauses in part 6 are standard Bill clauses, which ensure that the provisions in other parts of the Bill work as intended when it comes into force. The amendments are consequential clarifying amendments. They mean that the Bill as a whole is coherent and operates the way that we intend it to in policy. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 79, in particular, which provides that the short title of this Bill, once enacted, will be the “English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act”. I think we will all be proud of our role in bringing it into force. Amendment 243 agreed to. Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 73 Saving of orders and regulations relating to combined authorities and CCAs Amendment made: 244, in clause 73, page 74, line 27, leave out from “which” to end of line 29 and insert “is to continue to apply instead of the primary legislation by virtue of subsection (2), or (b) makes modifications or other contrary provision to which the primary legislation is to continue to be subject by virtue of subsection (2).”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This would clarify the relationship between subsection (4) and subsection (2); and clarify that paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives. Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 74 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 78 Commencement Amendment made: 245, in clause 78, page 76, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert— “(c) any other provision of this Act comes into force (including provision modifying other legislation) so far as it confers power to make secondary legislation or is otherwise necessary for enabling the exercise of such a power on or after the day on which this Act is passed.” —(Miatta Fahnbulleh.) This ensures that the powers to make secondary legislation inserted by the Bill, and any provisions necessary for enabling the exercise of such powers, come into force on the day on which the Act is passed. Amendment proposed : 303, in clause 78, page 78, line 7, at end insert— “(5A) Section 71 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has— (a) completed a consultation about the impact of section 71 on businesses, and (b) laid a report summarising the consultation before both Houses of Parliament.” —(David Simmonds.) This amendment would prevent section 71 from coming into force until a consultation on its impact on businesses has been completed and a report summarising the consultation has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 243, in clause 72, page 73, line 15, at end insert— “‘FRSA 2004’ means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”. This would define the abbreviation “FRSA 2004” which is used in the Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for tabling new clause 45, and I have a lot of sympathy with what it tries to do. She rightly quoted the English devolution White Paper, in which we committed to explore local public accounts committee models. We consulted on the initial proposal for such a model in December last year, as part of our local audit reform strategy. The Government’s response on 9 April confirmed that they would explore how any model could draw on audit findings and interact with the Local Audit Office, once established. It is important to consider how that would fit with the reformed local audit landscape. Mayoral strategic authorities are already expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. That includes the requirement to have overview and scrutiny committees and an audit committee. We absolutely recognise that there is scope for further strengthening the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, and we are carrying out engagement with the sector on what that looks like. Although I accept the principle of new clause 45, the Government intend to do further work to ensure that whatever new regime or additional arrangements to strengthen the status quo we put in place, they work well alongside not only the huge reforms we are driving through in the audit system but what already exists on the ground, to ensure that we are not duplicating or creating confusion. We need a little time to work that through and to think about the right set of reforms to put in place. However, the principle that we absolutely need to strengthen the status quo is one we completely accept and recognise the need for. I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to allow us the time to do the work properly, so that we can come up with a system that works alongside the reforms we are driving through. I therefore ask her not to press the new clause.

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

  More

  We recognise that we have a challenge in bringing in sufficient audit capacity of the standard we need. That is the status quo. We are working closely with the sector to ensure that we are generating a pipeline and that there is training provision. We are working with the Local Government Association to ensure that that happens. To be completely candid, we are in a mess. I will not play party politics by mentioning where that mess came from, but the status quo is dire. The regime is failing, and we do not have sufficient audit capacity of the quality that we want. That is why we are putting these reforms in place. I reassure the Committee that we completely understand the challenge we face. We want to keep high-quality finance directors in local authorities. We understand the risk that there might be bleed into the much bigger audit infrastructure and regime that we are creating, but the job now is to reach into the private and public sectors to train up a cadre of auditors so that the system is fit for purpose. At the moment, the system is under strain and collapsing. There is urgency, certainly on the part of the Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms—to address the problem. Question put and agreed to. Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 Code of audit practice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was dissatisfied by my pensions example. In part, I hope the clause speaks to some of the challenges that we are trying to get at. Clause 69 is the first step in separating pension fund accounts from the accounts of the administering authorities. It removes the implied requirement in the current legislation for the accounts to be published together. We can then make regulations to introduce the change in practice. Decoupling the accounts is widely supported by auditors and local authorities and was recommended by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament. The clause implements that recommendation. It is a relatively straightforward change that will deliver real practical benefits. Pension fund audits will no longer be held up by audit delays on administering authority accounts, allowing timely assurance to be provided to scheme members and admitted bodies. Many other organisations rely on pension fund audits to confirm pension figures in their own accounts, and their audits have been disrupted and delayed by problems around administering authorities that rarely relate to the pension fund. As well causing problems for local bodies, the issue has caused problems in completing the audits of the whole of Government accounts and at least two Government Departments. Decoupling will shorten and simplify administering authorities’ accounts. It is more logical to publish pension fund accounts separately, as those funds are ringfenced for the benefit of scheme members and not available to the administering authority for other purposes.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 61, page 62, line 20, at end insert— “(8) Subsection (9) applies to any sum received by the Office by way of penalty under— (a) paragraph 2A of Schedule 1B (penalties against external registration body), or (b) arrangements made for the purposes of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1C (penalties against registered local audit provider), including any interest. (9) The Office— (a) must pay the sum to the Secretary of State, but (b) may deduct any costs incurred by it in connection with the imposition or enforcement of the penalty, so far as those costs are not otherwise recoverable.” This amendment makes provision about the destination of penalties enabled by Amendments 238 and 240.

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

  More

  Let me first clarify that no decision has yet been made on who will deliver public provision. It is important to state that. The Bill is drafted deliberately to allow flexibility, whether through the Local Audit Office itself, through a company that it establishes or in collaboration with the private sector. That said, I fully agree that if the Local Audit Office does act as the audit provider, it must be subject to robust and independent scrutiny to maintain trust and confidence across the sector. That principle is wholly right, and I think everyone would agree with it. Clause 66 already requires the Local Audit Office to appoint an independent entity to scrutinise its audit work. We do not consider that amending the language from “independently” to “wholly independent” would change that position, although I recognise that it is a small change and I understand the intent behind it. The expectation that the appointed body must possess appropriate expertise is inherent in the function itself and a statutory requirement for expertise would be unnecessarily prescriptive—it is in the practice, the guidance and the strength of the infrastructure and the institution that we are creating. The LAO will remain accountable with the Department, and there will be robust mechanisms to ensure transparency and competence. That is a big priority for us as a Department, given the state of the system that we inherited. The Secretary of State will continue to use all the available levers to ensure we have a system and an LAO that is independent when it needs to be and of the highest standard and competence. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there are sufficient safeguards in place and will withdraw the amendment.