Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation. I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate. I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively. The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews. The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.

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

  More

  I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s original question. The accountability of the finance director, the sets of standards already locked in and the legislation they have to consider to ensure good use of public funds completely apply to this. It is their responsibility to ensure that the council’s decisions are right, that it is financially viable and that it is delivering the services required. The changes we are putting in place do not cut across that or undermine it. It remains a fundamental plank of this. We are, however, changing the oversight. First, we are enabling an independent auditor to come in and do the function of auditing, as that is currently not happening. Secondly, it will be done with auditors who adhere to a standard code of norms consistent across the public sector. That ensures that we are raising standards across the piece. If a council gets an audit, it will know it is an audit of good quality that will drive and deliver the change that we want. Thirdly, we already have the best value regime, where central Government can intervene when local authorities are not performing, or there are financial considerations at play. That will still apply. This takes the best of the current system but deals with the existing gap, which is that we do not have a uniform, consistent auditing regime that ensures an independent review of what individual councils are doing. The new system will also ensure that when problems are found, there is a mechanism for escalating, so that councils will be financially viable and delivering effective services. We all want to achieve that but, sadly, the audit regime is not delivering it at the moment. It beggars belief, but it is where we are now. These additional provisions will strengthen the entire infrastructure, add to the responsibilities of our finance directors as accounting officers, and deliver local authorities that are more financially secure and able to deliver the services their users require. Question put and agreed to. Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 29 Local audit: registration bodies, registered providers and qualifications Amendments made: 238, in schedule 29, page 297, line 17, at end insert— “Financial penalties 2A (1) If the Local Audit Office considers that an external registration body has failed to comply with a requirement under— (a) this Act, or (b) an agreement under section 6B(5), the Office may impose a financial penalty on the body. (2) A financial penalty is imposed by giving the body a written notice requiring the body to pay the Office a financial penalty of a sum specified in the notice. (3) Such a notice must— (a) explain the Office’s reasons for imposing the penalty, and (b) specify the time by which, and manner in which, the penalty must be paid. (4) An external registration body must, as soon as practicable after the end of a financial year, notify the Office of its total income in that year from fees charged under section 6A(5). (5) The amount of a penalty imposed on a body under this paragraph may not exceed 30% of the sum last notified by the body under sub-paragraph (4). Directions and penalties: procedure etc 2B (1) Before giving a direction under paragraph 2 or imposing a penalty under paragraph 2A, the Local Audit Office must— (a) give the body a notice of intent, and (b) consider any representations made by the body in response to (and in accordance with) that notice. (2) A notice of intent is a notice that— (a) states the Office’s intention to give the direction or impose the penalty, (b) sets out the intended terms of the direction or of the notice imposing the penalty, (c) explains the Office’s reasons for intending to give the direction or impose the penalty, and (d) specifies the time by which, and manner in which, representations may be made. (3) Where the Office has given a direction under paragraph 2 or imposed a penalty under paragraph 2A, the Office may by written notice given to that body— (a) cancel the direction or penalty, or (b) vary the direction, or the notice imposing the penalty, it in any way that does not make it more onerous. (4) The Office must publish— (a) a direction under paragraph 2, (b) a notice imposing a penalty under paragraph 2A, and (c) any notice cancelling or varying such a direction or notice. (5) But it must do so only after the direction or penalty can no longer be cancelled or varied on appeal (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time). (6) If a penalty imposed under paragraph 2A is not paid in time— (a) the penalty (or the unpaid part of it) carries interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838; (b) the Office may recover the penalty (or the unpaid part of it), with the interest, as a debt. Directions and penalties: appeals 2C (1) An external registration body may appeal to the High Court against a direction given to it under paragraph 2 or a penalty imposed on it under paragraph 2A. (2) The grounds on which an appeal may be brought are— (a) that the failure of compliance on the grounds of which the direction was given or the penalty was imposed did not occur, or (b) that any of the following is unreasonable— (i) the decision to give the direction or impose the penalty; (ii) any of the terms of the direction; (iii) the amount of the penalty, or the time or manner of its payment. (3) If satisfied that any of those grounds is made out, the court must allow the appeal and do whichever of the following it considers appropriate— (a) cancel the direction or penalty, or (b) vary the direction or the notice imposing the penalty. (4) Otherwise, the court must dismiss the appeal. (5) The court may— (a) make an interim order suspending the effect of a direction or penalty appealed against under this paragraph; (b) if it allows an appeal under this paragraph against a penalty, make any order as to interest that it considers appropriate (including an order varying the effect of paragraph 4(6)(a)). Compliance orders by the court 2D (1) This paragraph applies if the High Court is satisfied, on an application by the Local Audit Office, that an external registration body has failed to comply with a requirement under— (a) this Act, or (b) an agreement under section 6B(5). (2) The court may order the body to take steps that the court considers will secure that the requirement in question is complied with. (3) Such a step— (a) must be one that the body has the power to take; (b) may consist of not doing something. (4) This court may not make an order under this paragraph in respect of the requirement to comply with a direction under paragraph 2 unless it is satisfied that the failure of compliance on the ground of which the direction was given did in fact occur.” This amendment empowers the Local Audit Office to take enforcement action against an external registration body if it fails to comply with its duties. Amendment 239, in schedule 29, page 301, line 28, at end insert— “(c) arrangements for the imposition of sanctions in respect of breaches that are established, and (d) registration rules and lead partner rules designed to secure that providers and lead partners are bound by any sanctions.” This amendment and Amendment 240 require the body maintaining the register of local audit providers to put in place a system of sanctions, including financial penalties, against registered providers and their lead partners. Amendment 240, in schedule 29, page 301, line 30, at end insert— “(3) The available sanctions must include financial penalties. (4) The arrangements and rules must allow for appeals to be made to a person who will determine the appeal independently of the maker of the decision appealed against. (5) The arrangements and rules must allow for the Local Audit Office to be able— (a) to determine that a particular case raises or appears to raise important issues affecting the public interest, and (b) to assume enforcement responsibility in a case in which it has made such a determination. (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), the Office assumes enforcement responsibility if it assumes responsibility for the final decision (subject to any appeal) as to— (a) whether the requirement or rule in question has been breached, and (b) if so, the sanction to be imposed.”— (Miatta Fahnbulleh.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 239. Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to. Clause 63 New appointment arrangements for non-NHS audits

• 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.