Miatta Fahnbulleh MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Polly Billington) made about commissioners and the governance arrangements. We are clear that strategic authorities absolutely must think about how they drive the prosperity and wellbeing of their rural and coastal communities. The structures—and, indeed, the policy framework—that they put in place to do that will be in the gift of local leaders and the mayor. That is right, and that is the basis of devolution. What we are trying to do through the Bill—I think we have achieved it through the amendments and the existing provisions—is to ensure that there is a clear framework that strategic authorities and mayors are working towards. We as a Government absolutely recognise the important role that coastal and rural communities play. We are committed to doing our part to support strategic authorities, to ensure that they are dealing with issues from housing through to transport and the infrastructure that we need, in order to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Members across the House have our commitment that we will do that, so that local plans reflect the composition of different parts of the country, and that we are putting in place the building blocks to ensure that none of our coastal or rural communities are left behind.

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

  More

  I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing. My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment. The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment. We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right. On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for opening the debate with such a poignant and thoughtful contribution. He set the tone of the debate impeccably. This debate has shown, powerfully and painfully, that the past few years have not been easy for British Jews, or for Jewish communities across the world. Many colleagues have spoken today with a frankness and empathy that reflects the deep concern felt across the House. Britain is rightly proud of being one of the world’s most successful multi-faith and multi-ethnic democracies—it is part of who we are—so it is with a particularly heavy heart that we recall the attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, and the shocking attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney. These events remind us that antisemitism is never a problem for someone else to solve. It is a threat to all of us—to our values, our cohesion, and our shared sense of safety. This debate, however, is not only about confronting rising antisemitism; it is first and foremost about honouring the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered in the Holocaust, and the thousands of Roma and Sinti, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men and political opponents who were also persecuted and killed. It is also about remembering the genocides that have happened, tragically, in more recent times. More than 80 years have passed since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, yet the lessons about where hatred, dehumanisation and violent bigotry can lead remain painfully relevant. Many of us in this House have had the immense privilege of hearing directly from Holocaust survivors. This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme, “Bridging Generations”, feels especially poignant. The survivors, who have carried the heaviest of burdens, and who have shared their testimony with extraordinary courage, are fewer each year. We owe it to them to ensure that their voices never fade. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke incredibly powerfully of the memories and stories of that dark period, the profound impact they have, and how sharing them is more important today than it has ever been. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for sharing the heart-wrenching story of Susan Pollack, which is a harrowing reminder of where hate and othering can lead us. Over the past two weeks, colleagues will have walked through the atrium in Portcullis House and seen “In Their Footsteps”, an extraordinary exhibition of ceramic shoes. It is a quiet but powerful reminder that trauma and memory echo across generations, and that remembrance is not passive, but active, creative and deeply personal. The exhibition also pays tribute to Danny Herman. Danny and his family arrived in the UK on the eve of the second world war, eventually settling in Liverpool, becoming British citizens and contributing to this country in ways large and small, in everything from wartime industry to professional sport. In the atrium, the shoes created by his family speak of love, survival and legacy. They remind us that every survivor’s story is unique, and that everyone deserves to be remembered. The message today is clear: we cannot remember the victims of the Holocaust while ignoring antisemitism in our own time. Despite the words “never again”, we continue to see violent conflict across the world, and civilians are caught in its path. That underscores the urgency of the work we are discussing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) set out so effectively, we all know that social media can be an extraordinary force for connection, but it can also be a vehicle for spreading Holocaust denial, hatred and division faster than ever before. That is why we must remain vigilant, and why it is so important to safeguard our children—not only to protect them, but to equip them with the critical skills and confidence that they need to challenge hatred when they encounter it. The Department for Education launched the tackling antisemitism in education innovation fund on Holocaust Memorial Day to address misinformation, improve media literacy and encourage tolerant, informed debate. Some £7 million has already been allocated to tackling antisemitism in our schools, colleges and universities. That includes £500,000 for the University Jewish Chaplaincy, and further funding for the Union of Jewish Students and Palace Yard to train staff to recognise and address antisemitism. Many Members have spoken today about the importance of testimony. The Prime Minister has made a clear pledge that every student in the country should have the opportunity to hear recorded survivor testimony. Testimony 360, a free digital education programme from the Holocaust Educational Trust that uses virtual reality and digital eyewitness accounts, will help to deliver that promise and ensure that survivors’ voices remain accessible long after they can no longer speak in person. This Government continue to support high-quality Holocaust education through the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education, and the Holocaust Educational Trust “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme—programmes that have transformed the understanding of thousands of students and teachers, and will continue to do so. This education is vital. As Members have said, it is more important now than ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) provided powerful testimony about the rising tide of hate and division, both at home and abroad. She is right to demand that we be vigilant, and that we do better. I will take away her call for a strategy to prevent the mass murder of innocent people simply because of their faith, race, ethnicity or identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) was right to remind us that we all have a responsibility to tackle the antisemitism and the rise of hate and division in our communities, and that we must use our empathy, compassion and respect to bridge and hold our communities together. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman): we must all stand up against this hate, and thank everyone who does stand up against it. I finish by paying tribute to Karen Pollock, the chief executive officer of the Holocaust Educational Trust, whose leadership and passion continue to inspire so many; to Olivia Marks-Woldman and the team at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, who deliver the national ceremony and countless local events across the country; and to the many other organisations whose work enriches and protects the memory of the Holocaust: the Holocaust Survivors’ Centre in Hendon, the Anne Frank Trust, the Wiener Holocaust Library, the Association of Jewish Refugees, Generation 2 Generation, the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark, the Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield, and the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education. I ask the House to take a moment to remember the survivors who shared their testimony with us and who are no longer here. Their courage, generosity and determination to educate others, despite the unimaginable trauma that they endured, is a gift to this country. We honour their memory, and wish their families a long life.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his points and for the cross-party support in getting these important statutory instruments through. I will take his questions in turn. We have made a clear commitment to the 30-year investment fund, and it is worth saying that this is a commitment that the previous Government made with our established mayoralties. There has been a change of Government, and we have upheld that commitment. I intend, and imagine, that our Treasury and future Governments would do that. The key for us is that there is a clear pipeline that areas are putting in place and that there is Government support for that pipeline. In the way we have approached that with our established authorities for nearly a decade now, I hope and intend that that is how we as a Government and our Treasury would approach it, and how any future Government would approach it, too. The shadow Minister asked an important question about data sharing, which a huge amount of work is going on to enable and support. There are obviously some technical barriers, as well as some safeguards that we need to put in place. Clear protocols govern the way in which different public institutions share data; that is one of the reasons why it can be quite slow and painful, but we will adhere to those protocols. My experience is that when it works well, it is because partners recognise that there is a common use and that there are opportunities and benefits for their particular area of service or investment, and because they are willing to work together. That is the way mayors have done it in other areas and the way I imagine it will continue to be done, supported by Departments where there is a common agenda and a common landing zone. On the critical question of the level of the precept, central Government grants will always be part of that. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to what we are already doing with established mayoral authorities. There is investment from the Department for Transport into things like Northern Rail and particular transport schemes, alongside co-investment from mayors, which may come from the precept or from work they are doing with the private sector to invest in their place. I imagine that the set of mayors that these instruments will create will take a similar approach, but ultimately it will always be a partnership between central Government and our mayoralties and regional strategic authorities. There is no intention on our side to undercut our strategic authorities or not to work together to ultimately drive the infrastructure that we both care about because it unlocks growth and improves living standards. Finally, on the important question that the hon. Member raised about Warrington, we are acutely aware of the challenges that it faces. The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is working with all the places where a debt burden needs to be managed. The Department is working actively to support them to do so. There is no intention that the specific challenges faced by Warrington will be ported on to the combined authority—not least because a lot of the funding pressures apply to local services, and this is about economic development functions. We have made a clear commitment to work with constituent authorities where there is a challenge around their public finances and debt to resolve it. Having responded to those questions, I thank the Committee for its support. These instruments deliver on an important commitment that we made to Cheshire and Warrington and to Cumbria on devolution. It is the next stage of our journey, as we progress more places towards becoming mayoral strategic authorities. I thank the Committee and look forward to working with the areas to take the instruments forward. Question put and agreed to. DRAFT CUMBRIA COMBINED AUTHORITY ORDER 2026 Resolved , That the Committee has considered the draft Cumbria Combined Authority Order 2026.— (Miatta Fahnbulleh . )

• 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

  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 · Pride in Place Funding: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The big driver of how we are allocating funding is deprivation. We are taking a slightly different approach in Scotland, where we have also looked at other indicators, including health indicators. As I said, we are working closely with the Scotland Office and local partners to ensure we are getting the Pride in Place programme into the areas that need it, and we will be announcing that allocation in due course.

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

  More

  Lane rentals are there for all highways authorities. This is about the approval of lane rentals, which currently sits with the Secretary of State for Transport. We think that if we can devolve that to another democratic person, namely the mayor, that will be a good and quick way to do lane rental—and it will, critically, ensure that we are responsive to what is required locally. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for his efforts in pushing an eminently sensible amendment.

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

  More

  Mayors across the country have been strong advocates for a visitor levy, but the hon. Lady will forgive me, because that is within the Chancellor’s remit, and I would not dare to pre-empt anything that the Chancellor may or may not say in the Budget, which is only 48 hours away. Suffice it to say, our mayors have been making the case vociferously for the benefits of such a levy and what it could do for their visitor economy while critically enabling them to unlock some of the investment that they want in their areas. I have been clear throughout this process that the devolution framework is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. Where there are sensible opportunities for us to go further and devolve more powers to mayors, we should take them. We have therefore brought forward an amendment to devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting the decision in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.

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

  More

  Let me start by saying that we absolutely recognise the issue that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and hon. Members representing the Isle of Wight have raised. That is why the Department for Transport has engaged with MPs and stakeholders on the Isle of Wight to identify their local solutions to the concerns that we understand and appreciate need to be addressed. That engagement has included a ministerial roundtable on this issue and a commitment to create a cross-Solent group. An independent chair has been appointed to take that group forward. We will continue to engage with partners locally to address the genuine issues that have been raised about the ferry service in the area. The power of a democratically elected mayor is that they can make this a core issue and use the levers that they have and the seat that they will have at the table with Government to keep making the case and delivering for their community.

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

  More

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

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Often, funding held by combined and combined county authorities is best used by local councils to deliver their responsibilities. Consistently throughout our proceedings, I have said that the mayor is only as strong as its partnership and relationship with the constituent authorities that have to drive the delivery. That is why the clause will standardise the power already held by most existing combined and combined county authorities to pay grants to their constituent councils. The ability of combined and combined county authorities to pay their constituent councils is vital to the smooth running of transport, for example. Constituent councils are the highways authority in their area, with the duty to manage their road network and deliver highways maintenance; the authority therefore needs a power to fund them for delivering those key functions. We understand highways authorities’ need for sufficient funding to deliver against their duties, which is why clause 39 requires combined or combined county authorities to have in mind the necessity of ensuring a council has enough to deliver its highways functions when paying grants.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Liberal Democrat Members for their consistent championing of town and parish councils. This power is focused on the constituent authorities, in part because the use case we have in mind is transport, where we can see the importance of highways authorities in particular. The hon. Lady will know that town and parish councils in the round tend not to draw down Government grant or funding. In conferring on strategic authorities this power, which currently goes from the Secretary of State to constituent authorities, we are thinking in particular about grant funding. That is why we have constrained it in the way we have set out. I will take her point away and consider it to make sure we have not missed a trick, but our focus is particularly on transport and highways authorities and the ability to pass through grant funding.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  They are doing different things. The local plan is a strategic document. It is not the spatial development plan that will be the key driver for planning decisions. As is the case now, it is absolutely right that the relevant authority making the decision on planning has regard to local nature recovery strategies.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Government amendment 88 ensures that the combined authority or combined county authority is the only local transport authority for the area with the associated powers and duties once it has completed its first full financial year. That includes having responsibility for local transport planning, bus partnerships and bus franchising, and is in line with its role as the strategic decision-making authority for the area, with other responsibilities such as producing the local growth plan. Constituent councils sometimes need to retain certain local transport powers to continue the operation of, for example, a local authority-owned bus company. That will still be possible through bespoke arrangements provided for in secondary legislation. Turning to Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100. Paragraph 4 of schedule 9 currently sets out the voting arrangements for adopting local transport plans for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. These amendments extend the provision to cover all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This will provide standardisation and clarity for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities about the requirements for adopting their local transport plans. Regarding Government amendment 92, there are currently no provisions in schedule 9 for the type of vote needed to adopt a local transport plan in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. The amendment provides a clear voting arrangement: a simple majority vote of constituent members. That is in line with the approach taken for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities in the schedule. It ensures that a majority of the constituent members agree with the decision on top of the consent requirement provided for in Government amendment 96. Government amendment 94 provides detail on how votes to adopt the local transport plan occur in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. In line with the existing provisions in schedule 9 for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities, the amendment ensures that each constituent member has one vote. Unlike mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities though, no member of a non-mayoral combined authority and non-mayoral combined county authorities will have a casting vote. In the event of a tie, the resolution would not pass. A clear majority would be needed. This amendment is important to bring clarity to how votes to adopt local transport plans are taken in all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities. Finally, on Government amendment 96, the standard voting arrangement for making decisions in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities will be a simple majority vote, as is provided for in clause 6. However, in the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to ensuring that key strategic decisions would have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those key decisions. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that these provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils, which is why the amendment introduces a requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to get the consent of all their constituent councils before adopting a local transport plan. I commend all the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 88 agreed to .

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 8, page 142, line 20, leave out from beginning to “that” in line 25 and insert “under section 33 or 33A of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or under a permit scheme prepared under section 33 of”. This amends the definition of “permit authority power” in relation to combined county authorities so that it conforms with the definition used in relation to combined authorities in section 89A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by this Bill). Under schedule 8, the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will have a power to direct local highways authorities in the use of their powers on these roads, including over traffic, highway, street and permit authorities. The power of direction will help mayors to deliver their local transport plans and assist places in developing more integrated transport networks. The role of a permit authority is to provide permits for roads and street works. The amendment will make a minor adjustment to ensure that the definition of a permit authority is coherent throughout schedule 8. This is an important amendment to ensure that schedule 8 delivers on our aims of a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities. Amendment 87 agreed to .

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Schedule 5 sets out the details on giving the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. We have had a good, broad debate on this, and I think there is support across the Committee for the view that this area must be tackled. All licensing regimes will contain mandatory conditions and additional local conditions, which will bring the consistency that all parties seek, while ensuring flexibility to meet the needs and priorities of different areas. The framework allows for new micromobility modes, such as pavement robots and e-scooters, to be incorporated in future, to ensure that our local leaders will always be able to manage their streets effectively. The schedule sets out clear, consistent processes and powers for local authorities to feel confident that these services are operating safely and effectively in their areas, and are well integrated into the transport networks of the future. I commend schedule 5 to the Committee.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the end, this will only come into place where the constituent authorities support it. When it is the Secretary of State making the request, it would be with the Secretary of State; when it is constituent authorities coming together to do maintenance or works that they would do anyway, it would be shared among them. Question put and agreed to. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 25 Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause will make it easier for Transport for London to free up land for new housing and development in the capital. The Bill gives the Mayor of London the power to agree to Transport for London selling or leasing unneeded operational land. In most cases, this will remove the need for Government consent, which currently adds complexity and delay to the process. To guard against the risk of Transport for London inadvertently disposing of operational land that is relied upon by the wider rail network in London, the Bill requires Transport for London to consult Network Rail before selling or leasing land involved in wider rail services. To reflect the Mayor of London’s geographical remit, and to mitigate against a democratic deficit, the Mayor’s powers to consent will apply only to Transport for London land within the Greater London Authority area. These changes will better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  There are a few amendments to work through, so let me take them in turn. On amendment 246, although I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to ensure that the general public can hold their authorities to account, particularly on something as important as parking, the amendment would limit the ability of combined authorities and combined county authorities to effectively discharge their functions. It would prevent the mayor and elected members from delegating functions to officers or commissioners—that is the intent of the amendment—but delegating those functions to individuals with the specialist knowledge and capacity to carry out those functions effectively is an important and long-standing feature of how those authorities operate. I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that officers are already accountable to the authority, and to its overview and scrutiny committee. The Committee yesterday debated commissioners, and their accountability to the mayor and the oversight committee. Likewise, where a combined authority or combined county authority exercises civil enforcement powers they may do so only with the written consent of relevant constituent authorities. We believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to address the important point that the hon. Member raises. I share the concerns that amendment 348 seeks to address. I agree that vehicles parked on pavements can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility issues or sight impairment, as well as for prams and pushchairs. All mums in the House, and indeed dads, could attest to that. The Government are already considering measures to address pavement parking. We know and have heard that it is an issue. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole stated, the Department for Transport put out a consultation in 2020. We will publish a formal response to that consultation in due course. In the meantime it is worth saying that highways authorities may continue to introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing powers. We know that pavement parking is an issue. It is an issue that the Government and the Department will come to more fully. On the specific matter of varying parking charges across different areas, local authorities already have the ability to vary charges within the levels set in national guidance. Obviously, they have to take the decision to vary carefully, and do it alongside public consultation. Amendment 291 essentially seeks to prevent mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using the proceeds of those charges. The Bill does not provide mayors with powers in respect of parking provision. Parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations—we acknowledge that. Consistent enforcement across a combined authority and combined county authority area is therefore not appropriate. That is why the Government have determined that powers relating to parking provision should continue to be exercised by local authorities. Combined authorities and combined county authorities will not have powers to provide paid-for parking places. The Bill does provide combined authorities and combined county authorities with the ability to take on powers on civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and moving traffic restrictions. Critically, any proceeds in any case are ring-fenced, in the way that they are with local authorities, for environmental measures and public transport schemes. The scenario would not arise in which parking charges could be used to fund something other than those narrowly defined areas.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond to the questions that were asked. The key question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire concerned the designation of key route networks and its potential inappropriate use by mayors. The mayor will not be able to do that unilaterally; they will be able to do so only alongside their constituent authorities and with their support. We think that that will fundamentally mitigate that risk, but he is right to raise it, and we will keep it under review to ensure that the Bill does not operate differently from the intent behind it. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that we should move beyond having an Office of Rail and Road to having an office of integrated transport. I endeavour to write to her to inform her of the Department for Transport’s considerations. On the wider question of key route networks versus local road networks, we are trying to strike a balance between conferring strategic power on the mayor, and the ability not just to request reports from the highways authority, but to direct it to respond to them. The principal authority has the ability to put those requests, but also the ability to respond to them. We think we have the balance between those things right, because, in the end, they interact in a place. Although we do not want to confer too much power on the strategic authority, neither do we want to denude the local highways authority of the power that sits with it. Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause introduces schedule 8, which relates to key route networks in England. As we will discuss later, in the debate on schedule 8, combined authorities and combined county authorities take important roles in co-ordinating local transport networks. As I have just noted, schedule 8 sets out some of the roles for combined authorities and combined county authorities on local road networks. This will include agreeing a local key route network and power of direction, and the power to transfer a duty to make reports on traffic levels.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will write to the hon. Member on the specifics of that. I will say that the mandatory concession scheme is determined by the Department for Transport and would operate in that way, and then there is the ability for greater flexibility for additions on top of that. The way that is applying at the moment is that it varies between different strategic authorities in the approach that they are taking, both in terms of who is eligible and the way that they implement it. On the details of how the provisions in the Bill are mitigating against the scenario that he sets out, where the strategic authority wants an additional concession and it has a financial impact on constituent authorities—

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it. In any planning process, constituent authorities will be fully consulted and engaged. Ultimately, the implementation of a local transport plan or of transport decisions that are made through a mayoral development order will require engagement and work with the constituent authority, so the process will be one of consensus. In the broad majority of cases, we expect to see that consensus. Indeed, where we currently see collaboration across boundaries, consensus is what is driving decisions across those boundaries. However, we recognise that there will be occasions when consensus cannot be reached. It is absolutely right that mayors can then refer the case to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate, to be assessed on its planning merits. The ability to make a referral to the state and the Planning Inspectorate is a standard feature of the planning process, even for local authorities, and we think it is right that it operates. I come back to the point that, ultimately, to implement big schemes, constituent authorities need to be brought in and to be part of the implementation. Finding consensus is not only what happens in practice but the spirit in which we expect mayors to work. This provision is but a backstop.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Under schedule 9, all combined authorities and combined county authorities will hold powers and duties over travel concessions. This includes the duty to provide concessionary fares for older and disabled people, as well as a power to provide concessionary fares beyond those that are mandatory. Government amendments 98, 103 and 104 provide for a transition period for all recently established authorities, during which time they will hold these powers and duties concurrently with constituent authorities. That transition period will extend until the end of the first full financial year following the establishment of the authority, at which point the combined authority or combined county authority will become the sole travel concession authority for the area. These are important amendments that mean that schedule 9 delivers on our aim to have a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will streamline the management of travel concessions, making better use of local government resources. Having only one travel concession authority in an area means a uniform approach for passengers, who can rely on their concession passes working across their local area. I now move to Government amendments 101 and 102. It is essential that newly established strategic authorities can staff themselves and establish robust decision-making procedures—for example, before exercising certain vital transport functions. That is why amendment 101 introduces a transition period, so that newly established combined authorities and county authorities do not have to secure the provision of passenger transport services on day one. Until the end of the combined authority or combined county authority’s first full financial year, their constituent councils can continue to exercise that duty to ensure that bus services, for example, are provided for local residents. The transition period allows the combined authority or combined county authority to build up capacity and capability, and to agree a suitable approach to taking on the exercise of these functions. That will support a smooth transfer that minimises disruption for passengers and supports the continued delivery of services. Finally, Government amendment 102 introduces a transition period for powers to make agreement with Transport for London specifically regarding paying for public transport services, in line with similar transition periods for other local transport powers and functions already provided for in the Bill. Proportionate transition arrangements are essential to support the smooth transition of transport powers from constituent councils to newly established combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will be particularly relevant for councils that border London if they form new strategic authorities. Any agreements that they have made with Transport for London to pay for public transport services can remain in place for the transition period, which gives the combined authority or combined county authority time to negotiate agreements during that period, rather than having to do so on day one.