Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I thank Members from across the House for their constructive engagement in getting the Bill to this point. This Bill matters because, if we are to transform our economy, drive up living standards and deliver better public services in every community, a fundamental change is needed in the way that the country is run. This landmark Bill will deliver just that. It represents the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. I am glad that we have found a way forward on several of the issues that we most recently discussed—namely, the role of strategic authorities and mayors in rural affairs, agents of change in the planning system, and the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses on the remaining issues: the ministerial power of direction in schedule 1, the prioritisation of development on brownfield land, and the models of governance in local authorities. That is why the Government have today tabled three amendments, which I will now outline. On the question of the ministerial power of direction in the Bill, I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. I repeat for the record that we on this side of the House believe strongly that the Government have a duty to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver better outcomes for our communities. To deny communities that opportunity would be to hold them back. That is why we originally put in place a backstop power of direction for the Secretary of State to use in exceptional circumstances—I emphasise “exceptional circumstances”—but to be clear, the approach that we are taking in practice is to work with local leaders to forge enduring local partnerships and strong local institutions with their consent. However, we have heard the concerns and strength of feeling from some noble peers about the scope of the powers previously included in schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying the progress of the Bill and of showing that communities can benefit from the powers that we all wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral strategic authority. In addition, I am happy to commit that the Government will not seek to use the remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that have been discussed at length. As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, our policy and our practice are very clear. We are working with local leaders and we will continue to work with them to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their area. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions I am making here today put that commitment beyond any doubt. I shall turn now to the issue of brownfield land. The Government consider Lords amendments 89B and 89C to be unworkable. They would undermine effective plan making, constrain proper consideration of local circumstances and introduce inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform can be pursued, and it is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place. Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of the recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development and to further reinforce a brownfield-first approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making powers to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed. This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues that are also on the face of the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and clearly desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s clear commitment to a brownfield-first approach. I now turn to the matter of local authority governance. As hon. Members will know, the Government have set a clear default position. Councils that are currently operating the committee system and are not otherwise protected should be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. That remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns expressed in the other place and in this House that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could create challenges for some councils, their members and officers—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals. The Government amendment we are bringing forward today responds to those concerns. It allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. This provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution, so that it is not required to undertake a significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform, but it does provide a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points that have been raised over the pace of change. To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and I thank the noble Lords and this place for their contribution in helping us with that. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on brownfield land, local authority governance and the ministerial power of direction. I urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept these concessions.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip, which corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by and agreed with the constituent councils. From here on in, when referring to Sussex and Brighton combined county authority, I will use the term “strategic authority”. Let me state very clearly that we believe that devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England, and the English devolution White Paper sets out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme, to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument, which will establish their strategic authority and provide for the mayoral elections, represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their patch best. The Government have worked closely on the draft regulations with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton: West Sussex county council, East Sussex county council, and Brighton and Hove city council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of the regulations, and I thank personally the local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point. The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves them, under the enabling provision in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the regulations are made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028, with a four-year term. The draft regulations make provision for the governance arrangements for the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be members of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members presenting and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor acting on the mayor’s behalf. The regulations provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, which I hope we will get, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those specifically reserved for the mayor. As this is an important change to the governance landscape of the area, we ensured that there was robust and effective consultation with stakeholders across the area. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of the consultation material. Responses could be made online, by email and by post. We received a wide range of responses from key stakeholders: the public, businesses, councils, universities, and third sector and other bodies. A summary of the responses has been published on the gov.uk website. We are clear and confident that the statutory tests to establish the strategic authority have all been met. Subject to the regulations being made, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding, and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities. The draft regulations represent clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make that a reality in Sussex and Brighton. They will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving residents’ lives and opportunities. I look forward to answering any questions that Members may have, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these critical regulations.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members for the cross-party support for both devolution and the regulations. This is an important step forward for the area, and I am glad it is being done with our collective support. Let me pick up the specific questions that were asked. When we informed both the areas concerned and the House that we would be postponing the elections until 2028, I said the rationale was that, in our judgment and from the experience of devolution in lots of different areas, the strength of the partnership is critical. In the context of local government reorganisation and creating strategic authorities—the footprint upon which we put a mayor—our view was that we needed to create the time to allow those institutions to bed in. We have been working very closely with the constituent authorities to ensure that there is an effective partnership, which will create the foundations upon which we can have mayoral elections. I think that is the right way to go. In the end, what we all care about is that at the other side of the process we have effective institutions that can deliver for local people. We think that by taking this slower, more considered journey towards it, we will deliver better outcomes for everyone. On the costs specifically of mayoral elections—rather than those associated with local government reorganisation—we do not think that costs will be incurred by the constituent strategic authorities. We have committed to capacity funding from this year so that the institution can build its capacity and resources to work collectively. We are also clear that in advance of having the mayor, the strategic authority will operate as a mayoral strategic authority with powers over transport and skills, for example, so that it can crack on with the job that it needs to do. We will work on a case-by-case basis where there are pressures in the system. That support has been welcomed by the constituent authorities, and we are clear that we will do this in partnership. On the interdependencies with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we are optimistic and confident that we will get the Bill through in this Session, and it is key to this change; part of the reason that this statutory instrument is much slimmer than ones approved previously is that a lot of this is built into the Bill. We are working relentlessly with our colleagues in the House of Lords to make sure that we can get the Bill through. I think there is cross-party support for the idea that this is a critical step in terms of governance and pushing power out, and I hope we will have cross-party support to get the Bill through in this Session. An important question was asked about the abolition of police and crime commissioners. We are working very closely with the Home Office to make sure that we get that transition right. As Members will know, we are in the process of rolling out strategic authorities across the country, because we want to make sure that devolution is spread across every part of the country. Those strategic authorities, whether they have mayors or not, potentially have an important role to play in the transition of both police and fire services. We are working with constituent, combined and strategic authorities to think about how we transition the functions that currently sit with PCCs or with fire authorities into those authorities. On the point about devolution being required in all areas, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Mid Sussex. That is why we are rolling out devolution through strategic authorities. We have just closed expressions of interest for all areas to come forward and set out the partnerships that they want to build, and we will be taking that forward. We will move at the pace that places want to move, because we are very clear that we will not impose devolution geographies on places, but we are working actively with all areas. My hope is that in a year—possibly a year and a half—the entire country will be filled with the strategic authority footprints that will allow us to push powers down to those different areas. On the hon. Member’s point about Brighton and Hove being over-represented, that is not my understanding. I have spent a lot of time engaging with the constituent authorities, and that issue has never been raised. What I would say—and this is right—is that we have left the particular set-up of the committee and governance structure to local partners. It is not for the Government to dictate to them how they should govern themselves; that is based on what the constituent authorities think is right and on local consent. I hope everyone would agree that that is the right approach. We are therefore leaving it to our partners in local government to decide the right balance, particularly in the transitions where we have district councils in place that may not be in place in 2028. Different areas will approach it differently, and that is what we are seeing here. Ultimately, as I said when we were taking the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through the House, it is in the interests of constituent authorities to make sure that they are engaging their communities, and all constituent authorities, because, ultimately, partnerships are based on consent. That is what we are seeing in practice, and that is what I believe that this particular strategic authority will continue to take forward. In conclusion, we have worked incredibly closely with the constituent authorities. I am confident that they will make this work and that, even though the mayoral elections will be in 2028, we will create a strong partnership that will allow them to crack on with the important job of building an economic strategy for their area and delivering for their area, with the investment to do that. I thank hon. Members from across the House for supporting the regulations, and I hope that we can take them forward in order to deliver the benefits of devolution. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and I thank Members who have spoken for their insight, passion for their area, and fantastic contributions. Let me start with my hon. Friend’s insightful analysis of both the challenges and opportunities in the area. I look forward to reading the APPG report, and to drawing insights on how we can continue to work with the area to advance its economic potential. We all agree that economic growth is paramount, and it is one of the Government’s top priorities. Economic growth is central to raising living standards, which we absolutely must do, funding improvements in public services after a decade and a half of under-investment by the Conservatives, and rebuilding the country. That is why the Government are determined to not only drive growth from the centre but empower local leaders with the tools they need to drive growth in their area—local leaders such as Mayor Claire Ward, a fantastic Labour mayor whom I have had the privilege of working with, and who has been an important champion for the region before and since her election. Productivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) pointed out so eloquently, is one of the key drivers of growth. While we can debate the causes, we all recognise that productivity has been weaker in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. Improved productivity will require relentless work and a focus at every level of government—from national Government, through to our regional government and our local authorities—in partnership with the business community and industry. That work is essential to everything that my Department and others are doing to make progress—and we are making progress. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation last month showed that UK productivity grew more in the last year than in the previous seven combined. But we acknowledge that there is more that we need to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right to point out that productivity varies across the country. Indeed, the gap between our cities, where we would expect some of the highest productivity, and the UK average stands in contrast to the performance of many comparable cities across the OECD. Cities such as Lyon, Frankfurt, Turin and Bilbao have productivity higher than the UK average, while many of our own cities have productivity lower than our UK average. As my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) pointed out, devolution is key to unpacking, unlocking and dealing with the challenge. We know the impact that devolution can have on growth and in improvements for local people. The parts of the country with the longest and deepest devolution of powers and funding are the ones where growth is taking off. That is why we are giving more areas, including the East Midlands combined authority, the tools and funding that they need to address the challenges in their areas and to realise the opportunities for growth. Devolution is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and, frankly, deserve: growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them. I am conscious, however, that the debate is not just about the East Midlands combined authority; it is about the whole of the east midlands. Local leaders have an important role to play in growing the economy. We want more collaboration, not less, and we are supporting places to access devolution so that they can work together to drive outcomes locally. We have therefore issued a call for areas without devolution, including parts of the east midlands not within the combined authority, to come together with their neighbours to form strategic authorities so that they can benefit from devolution. Local leaders will have greater control over economic development levers, transport and skills, as well as having revenue-raising powers, to ensure that they invest in the economic prosperity of their area. In the meantime, we encourage local leaders to work together and to set a vision for their area. Many local authorities already have an economic strategy, and we encourage them to set out a vision for growth in their area and to work across administrative boundaries for the benefit of their region. Industrial strategy zones are a perfect example—industry, innovators and government coming together, and local leaders equipped with a powerful set of tools to drive growth in each of the sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly pointed out under-investment in these areas, and Members across the House reiterated that point. I would say that that is, in fact, a double whammy, because we have had under-investment across the piece under previous Governments for 15 years, in every key part of the economy and in the infrastructure that we need to unlock economic development. In addition, investment was skewed to some areas, to the disadvantage of others, and we are absolutely determined to turn that around and put that right. That is why we as a Labour Government are putting in record investment across all key sectors of the economy. On the key point of transport, where Members have pointed out a range of transport investment schemes and key pinch points to economic growth, the Department for Transport has unlocked a record £2 billion of support for transport in the east midlands. That is an important first step to deal with some of the critical transport connectivity issues, combined with investment in the green economy—which we see across the east midlands —in advanced manufacturing and in defence, with £180 million of local growth funding next year alone, to ensure that we put the money in to unlock the potential that we can see and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe so eloquently pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) made the point that when we put investment in, it does not always touch our communities or lift the lives of people in those communities. We need to be intentional about it, which is why what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Members said about skills is absolutely critical. We have to combine the investment with intentional work to ensure that we develop a workforce strategy for the area and the skills, and ensure that we have the employment support to get people into jobs. That is the approach that we will take with the combined authority and that we intend to take with Team Derby. Our absolute commitment is to do our bit to work alongside leaders to unlock potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about the critical role of the visitor economy, which we absolutely recognise. One of the key requests of our mayors was for a visitor levy so that they can raise revenue that can then be invested in the enabling infrastructure and the support we need to boost the visitor economy. We are now consulting on that, and we will legislate on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about how this cannot be just a short-term blip; we need a long-term commitment and long-term plans. In the mayor, Claire Ward, we see a long-term plan for the area, but that long-term commitment from local leaders must be matched by a long-term commitment from this Government. That is why we are moving to multi-year funding that is looking at the long-term horizon in our places, and standing with our local leaders to invest and unlock that potential over the next decade. As my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made clear, however, the plan cannot just be for our urban centres, as critical as they are as engines of growth in the region. It must also speak to our rural areas to make sure that we unlock opportunities, not just in our towns and cities, but across the agricultural sector and our rural economy. We must also ensure that we deal with those pockets of deprivation. Pride in Place is targeted at that very question: how, alongside the big work that we are doing regionally or in a local area, do we get investment into some of our deprived communities so that they can invest in the things that will lift up their area and restore pride in place? That goes hand in hand with the work that we know needs to be done regionally. Finally, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made the important point about SMEs, which make up 99% of businesses in the economy. Under the last Government, however, we saw a huge neglect of the SME economy. Our job is to make sure that we support the backbone of our economy, which is why we have an SME strategy that looks at everything from late payments to procurement and how we provide the support to ensure that SMEs continue to be the key engine for growth. I will end by referring to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who spent a long time bemoaning the Government’s growth record. I would gently point out, as has been acknowledged by Members across the House, that the legacy that we are trying to turn around is a function of the fact that we had a decade and a half of Governments who did not have an economic strategy, who chose to under-invest in key services, and who deliberately took money away from regions across the country, such as the east midlands, to make sure that they did not meet their economic potential. We are turning that around; that is the job and we are getting on with it. The underlying fundamentals are there. We have been in power for 18 months; it will take time to repair the damage that was done over a decade and a half, but we are getting on with that job. Today, the Chancellor will set out our economic plan and the sectors that we will be boosting. Part of that will be a critical step around how we devolve to areas, such as the east midlands and across the country, to ensure that they work alongside us in partnership to unlock their potential. To sum up, it is clear that we all agree on the need to boost productivity and support economic growth across the east midlands. I hope Members can see the Government’s commitment, passion and determination to work alongside leaders in the east midlands to ensure that we do that. Devolution is a critical part of that, and my job is to ensure that, whether through mayoral strategic authorities or foundation strategic authorities, we equip our local leaders with the skills, tools and capabilities they need to do their job. But that is just one part of the answer: from day one, the Government have been clear that while local leadership in all its forms and at all levels is vital, it sits alongside the work that we are determined to do at the national level to boost the economic potential of the east midlands and every region across the country. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for being such an amazing champion for the area. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House to make sure that we do right by the region.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for securing this debate and for his powerful and eloquent contribution, and all the hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions and insight. There is clear passion and commitment across the House to tackle this issue, which I agree is cross-party. Throughout our history, the United Kingdom’s ability to withstand external challenges has been underpinned by a shared sense of pride, tolerance and courage. We are accepting of our neighbours, proud of our varied experiences, traditions, national identities and customs, and confident that those differences enrich our communities and our country. Those core foundations that have kept us united in the face of adversity on so many occasions are now under threat. One of the privileges of my role is that I have been able to talk to communities across the country. Time and again, I have heard clearly about the rising tide of hate and division seen in communities. I talk to our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities, and hear that people, who have made this country their own and have been here for generations, feel scared in this country, in their communities and in their homes. We have got to turn the tide on that. People are under pressure, and in that context—it is a tale as old as time—bad faith actors will try to exploit our communities in order to tear them apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) is absolutely right; at the heart of this is a story about economic neglect and of the failure of the Conservatives to properly fund our amazing councils and invest in our communities. We see the impacts of that in terms of closed shops on our high streets, shut up libraries, closed youth clubs and the abandonment of so many of our vital community assets that bring people together. That sense of decline on too many of our doorsteps has bred a real, justified sense of frustration, anger and a lack of control. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is not just a question of local growth; it is a question about cohesion. We cannot and we will not pretend that the legacies of any of those issues can be reversed overnight, but as both a Labour Government and as a Parliament, we can be confident that the way in which we restore cohesion and pride in our communities does not lie in this building or the corridors of Whitehall. The answer is in the communities and people that we represent. We all know that the bonds that hold society together are anchored locally, so often it is the voluntary community and charity groups and the grassroot bodies at the heart of our communities—we all have them in our constituencies—that bring people together every day. To build stronger communities, we must bring people together to make positive, meaningful change in their own neighbourhoods. That ethos is at the heart of our groundbreaking Pride in Place programme, which, importantly, will mean local people will decide how money is invested. They will work together to unite their communities and bring everyone around the table to find common ground and invest in their priorities. That point has been made time and again by hon. Members, who have provided amazing examples of how that is happening. As a Government, we see our role as supporting and enabling that, whether it is through places that have received Pride in Place funding or, more broadly, the approach that we want to increasingly see where we create the ability for communities to get a grip on the funding the Government are already spending. That will enable them to shape it, drive it and, fundamentally, invest in their priorities. To achieve all that, we are working closely with pioneering councils and communities. A great example is in Rugby, where the local authority and other partners are stepping forward as one of the first to deliver the work that we want to see on our high streets through, for example, high street renewal auctions. That will unlock vital spaces on our high streets for local businesses and community groups so that everyone can be part of building thriving high streets. That is renewal in action, led by people who know their patch better than we ever will in this place. They are backed by the Government who are choosing unity over division. Let me pick up the point on flags that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby, for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). I absolutely agree that we must reclaim our flags and national symbols, and push back on those who want to use them to divide and intimidate our communities. We know this is a difficult area for councils to navigate, and that is why we are providing guidance, best practice and training to support them in navigating this terrain and to ensure they can hold our national symbols so that they represent all our communities, and to push back on those who want to use them in a divisive way. We are absolutely clear that we need to work on social cohesion. We are working across Government to develop a response, led by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we will say more very shortly. To update hon. Members, this includes three key strands. First, building confident communities that bring people together so that we can build common ground. Pride in Place is one example, but this is about creating spaces and places where people can cohere around issues they care about in their area. There is a critical role for voluntary, community and faith organisations in doing this hard work. Many have been doing so during difficult periods under the Conservative Government, but without support from Government.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  We have a very clear methodology based on a combination of deprivation, connection and access to assets in local places. That is published for every hon. Member to see. We have provided Pride in Place funding in particular parts of Birmingham. I would love to have Pride in Place in every deprived community, and I will continue to make that case and champion it. We are rolling out a further 40 areas, considering both deprivation and cohesion, and will say more about that shortly. Critically, we want this to be an approach that applies to all parts of the country. Irrespective of whether an area is part of the programme, we want it to have access to funding and the ability for local community groups to come together to drive priorities and regenerate their place. We will say more through our high streets strategy and the ongoing work we are doing. On cohesion, the first strand is building confident communities. The second is strengthening integration. That means supporting people who come to this country, both existing and new migrants, so that they are integrated into society, speak the language and contribute to the community, while ensuring there is zero tolerance for those who want to sow hate and division. Whether that is the rise in religious hate or racism, there must be proper enforcement, with a clear line we say people cannot cross, and if they do, action is taken against it. The final strand is tackling extremism, which we know is on the rise, with robust action to disrupt it in our communities and, critically, online, where we know we are seeing increasing division, hate and radicalisation. We know we must respond. We recognise that this is a first step. The hard work of trying to build cohesion in our communities is ongoing, and we as a Government are absolutely committed to playing our part. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made the important point that whatever we do on cohesion must be rooted in a wider strategy to tackle inequality and poverty, because that is the breeding ground for division. It is essential that the work my Department is doing sits alongside wider Government action to increase living standards and tackle poverty, whether through the child poverty action plan, removing the two-child benefit cap, lifting the national living wage, tackling homelessness, building the next generation of social housing or reviving public services so they provide a foundation for everyone to live well and do well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), raised the important point of asylum accommodation. We inherited a legacy of asylum hotels from the last Government that was an absolute shambles and paid no regard to community cohesion, tension or consent. We will do the hard work of closing those hotels, but we must work hand in glove with local authorities to provide accommodation in a way that brings communities with us and has their consent. We know this is a critical task, and the Prime Minister has told me it is one of the most important things that we will do as a Government. He is right. The Government will play their part, but we all have a responsibility as Members of this House and as politicians, because the words and language we use have an impact on what happens on the ground. We all have a collective responsibility to step up, working with local government and with grassroots organisations to do the vital work of holding and cohering our communities.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Draft Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority Order 2026 Draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The draft orders were laid on 18 December 2025. For both the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority and the Cumbria combined authority, I will hereafter use the term “strategic authority”, unless there is a reason to be specific. Devolution is critical for delivering growth and prosperity for local communities, as mayors and local leaders are best placed to take decisions that benefit their communities. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England, and the English devolution White Paper, which was published in December 2024, sets out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following an expression-of-interest process in February 2025, we announced six places on the programme, including Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria. These statutory instruments will establish those two mayoral strategic authorities and provide for their mayoral elections. In doing so, they will represent substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and Westminster and back to those who know their patch best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils in Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria on the instruments, and all constituent councils consented to the making of their respective instruments. I personally thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this critical point. If Parliament approves them, the instruments will be made under the enabling provision in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Both strategic authorities will be established on the day after the day on which the instruments are made. The inaugural mayoral elections are due to take place for both on 6 May 2027, and their elected mayors will take office on 10 May 2027 for a four-year term. The instruments make provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authorities. In each case, each constituent council appoints two of its elected members to be members of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. The instruments provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong interrelationship with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent to the Bill, these strategic authorities will be classed as mayoral strategic authorities, and the functions reserved for their tier will automatically be conferred on them. That is why the instruments confer fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The provisions in the Bill will give these strategic authorities functions on transport, strategic planning and housing, adult skills and employment support, economic regeneration, and the environment and climate change, ensuring that they can deliver for their residents even before a mayor is in place. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consulted on the proposals to establish these strategic authorities between February and April last year. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authorities and to ensure that we had local consent. We considered the responses, and on 17 July we confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test for establishing strategic authorities both in Cumbria and in Cheshire and Warrington had been met. Subject to these instruments being made, both strategic authorities will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills. They will also receive capacity funding to support setting up the new institutions. Furthermore, they will receive a 30-year mayoral investment fund to kick-start local economic growth and support key local priorities. These instruments represent clear progress in our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England, and will make that a reality in both Cumbria and Cheshire and Warrington. They will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these instruments.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I confirm that the devolution Bill is coming through, and so the election will take place under single transferable vote. A statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament to lock into legislation the date of the mayoral election, subject to the consent of the constituent councils involved. As I have said consistently, we are determined to crack on with the elections, because we believe in the democratic process as much as the hon. Gentleman does, but it is right that we always create the space to reflect on and respond to any extenuating circumstances.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is completely right to talk about how sacrosanct democracy is. We absolutely share that view, but it is right that as we think about inaugural elections for mayors—they have never been held before in some areas—we try to ensure that, on the other side of the elections, we have strong institutions that can deliver for people. I think constituents in those areas will thank us if, at the end of it, we have institutions that are delivering incredibly well for them because we have taken the time to get this right.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  To be very clear, the Secretary of State was talking about council elections; I urge the hon. Member to look at the transcript. I keep trying to make the distinction between council elections and the inaugural mayoral elections, provisions on which do not come into force until we have laid the SI before Parliament and we have the consent of constituent authorities. There is a distinction. We are determined to move ahead with local elections, but it is right that we have made a judgment on mayoral elections.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Let me reiterate that we are committed to moving forward with local council elections next year. On the fundamental question of local government reorganisation, which the hon. Member raised, let me say that at the heart of local government reorganisation is the creation of strong and effective councils that can deliver for their communities. I know that is a difficult concept for the Reform party, given the absolute shambles we are seeing in the councils it controls, whether in Kent or in Staffordshire. I know that the idea of strong and effective institutions delivering for their country is 100 miles away from Reform’s understanding of the point of government. Let me reassure him that we are absolutely committed to democracy and strong institutions, and we are committed to working with all councils to ensure that they deliver for their people.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Local Elections · Hansard source

  More

  We are clear—I will keep saying this, and we have consistently said this—that we want to move forward with elections. The decision to delay the elections last year was not taken lightly. We all believe in the democratic process, and we all believe that it is absolutely right that leaders must face the electorate, so we will never, ever take the decision to cancel or delay an election lightly. There will have to be extenuating circumstances. Our plan and determination at the moment is to crack on with local elections.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed. I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach. Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House.

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

  More

  I will make progress. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward. My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision. More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward. Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility. Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [ Interruption. ] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively.

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

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House. I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver. Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid. However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter. I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for advocating for our national park authorities. We are clear that, as we go through the process of reforming local government, we want strong and effective collaboration between all the institutions that need to drive services for local people. We will look to ensure that we are strengthening those partnerships and collaborations as local government reforms and the general power of competence for those authorities bed in. I turn to taxi and private hire vehicles. Let me be clear: the current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic; some legislation dates back to Victorian times. The Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including the inconsistency of licensing standards throughout the country and the practice of out-of-area working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  We understand the pressure that businesses are under with energy, but it is driven by our dependence on global fossil fuel markets. We can do sticking-plaster or short-term fixes, or we can deal with the fundamental problem. We are pushing towards clean power, because that is how we ultimately drive down bills. That is not an offer to do so in 10 or 20 years; we are committed to driving down bills in this Parliament, and we will not resile from that. Labour Members agree that our high streets will always be at the heart of our communities, and we welcome the cross-party agreement on that. Unless we grow the economy and put more money in people’s pockets, however, our high streets will never match local people’s ambition. That is why our high streets are front and centre of our growth mission, and why we are committed to driving their renewal. I ask everyone in the House to remember the record and the legacy of the Conservatives, who are holding this debate pretending that they really care. For 14 years, our high streets were decimated, shops were boarded up and people in all our communities saw the impact of the Conservatives’ actions.

• 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

  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

  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 (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 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