Somalia: Operating Base SHAND Gifting
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is the normal practice when a Government Department propose to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing the gifting of a UK compound within the Mogadishu international airport in Somalia, previously known as Operating Base SHAND, to the African Union support and stabilisation mission in Somalia.
AUSSOM is a multidimensional African Union-led peace support mission approved by the United Nations. Its focus is stabilisation, security and state-building, aiming to transfer full security responsibilities to Somali security forces by December 2029. Since 2021, the UK has contributed nearly $140 million (£102.5 million) to AUSSOM and its predecessor mission, which reflects the UK’s broader commitment to African-led peace initiatives, working in partnership with the Federal Government of Somalia, the African Union, and the United Nations to tackle shared security challenges.
Operating Base SHAND—a UK compound within Mogadishu international airport—was originally commissioned in 2017 to house a three-year deployment to the United Nations support office in Somalia, announced by the then Prime Minister in 2015. That deployment, Operation CATAN, ended as planned in March 2019. Since then, the compound has remained the primary base for UK operations in Somalia. Having served its intended purpose, the base now exceeds the UK’s accommodation requirements in Somalia.
The UK remains committed to working with the Federal Government of Somalia in supporting Somalia’s security, alongside our international partners.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS1308]
Local Government Reorganisation and Local Election Postponements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are undertaking one of the biggest reforms to local government in a generation; not only have we overhauled how we fund local government, but we are ending the current two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils.
These reforms are not about funding formulas or lines on a map; they are about better outcomes for the people we serve.
We want to see our country grow economically and socially, but we inherited a local government system that did not put funding where it was needed and that left residents dealing with the disjointed two-tier council system and paying a two-tier premium.
That is why we have put deprivation at the heart of how we fund local government. The top 10% of the most deprived councils will see an average 24% increase in what they have to spend per person—those places, whether in the north or south, east or west, will finally see their areas turn a corner.
Today I can announce the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. We will finally put an end to a two-tier system that slows down local decisions, sees local economies fragmented with different councils responsible for different priorities, and means that outdated boundaries stop our towns and cities from growing.
Instead, we will see one council in charge for each area, fully responsible for taking the quicker decisions to build homes and grow our towns and cities, as well as creating the right conditions for businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs. Reorganisation is a vital element in our vision for reform—stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.
Consultation
On 28 November, my Department received final proposals from councils in the final 14 invitation areas for reorganisation. I thank all councils in those areas for their work in bringing these 52 proposals forward. As set out in the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, where existing districts would be split. These will require careful consideration.
Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the Library of the House.
Four proposals from councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough:
Cambridgeshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Cambridge city council, East Cambridgeshire district council and South Cambridgeshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Fenland district council and Peterborough city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Huntingdonshire district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Derby and Derbyshire:
Derbyshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Amber Valley borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
South Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Bolsover district council and North East Derbyshire district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Chesterfield borough council, Derby city council, Erewash borough council and High Peak borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Derbyshire Dales district council did not submit a proposal.
Five proposals from councils in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay:
Devon county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
South Hams district council, Teignbridge borough council and West Devon borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Mid Devon district council, East Devon district council, North Devon council and Torridge district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Plymouth city council and Exeter city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Torbay council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Three proposals from councils in Gloucestershire:
Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council and Tewkesbury borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Cheltenham borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Gloucester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Forest of Dean district council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Hertfordshire:
Hertfordshire county council and St Albans City and district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Watford borough council, East Herts district council and Three Rivers district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Stevenage borough council, Broxbourne borough council, Dacorum borough council, Hertsmere borough council, North Hertfordshire district council and Welwyn Hatfield borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Kent and Medway:
Kent county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Folkestone and Hythe district council, Maidstone borough council, Sevenoaks district council, Tonbridge and Malling borough council and Tunbridge Wells borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Dartford borough council and Gravesham borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Medway council, Ashford borough council and Canterbury city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Dover district council, Swale borough council and Thanet district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool:
Lancashire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Blackburn with Darwen council, Fylde borough council, Hyndburn borough council, Rossendale borough council and Wyre borough council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Chorley borough council, Lancaster city council, Preston city council, Ribble Valley borough council, South Ribble borough council and West Lancashire borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Blackpool council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Burnley borough council and Pendle borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Three proposals from councils in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland:
Leicestershire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Leicester city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Blaby district council, Charnwood borough council, Harborough district council, Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, Melton borough council, North West Leicestershire district council, Oadby and Wigston borough council and Rutland county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Four proposals from Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire:
Boston borough council, East Lindsey district council and South Holland district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Lincoln city council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Lincolnshire county council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils (supported by North East Lincolnshire council and North Lincolnshire council).
North Kesteven council and South Kesteven council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
West Lindsey district council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire:
Nottinghamshire county council and Rushcliffe borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Bassetlaw district council, Gedling borough council, Mansfield district council and Newark and Sherwood district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Nottingham city council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Ashfield district council and Broxtowe borough council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Oxfordshire:
Oxfordshire county council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Cherwell district council, South Oxfordshire district council, Vale of White Horse district council, West Oxfordshire district council and West Berkshire council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Oxford city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Five proposals from councils in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent:
Staffordshire county council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Stoke-on-Trent city council, East Staffordshire borough council, Stafford borough council and Cannock Chase district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Staffordshire Moorlands district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Lichfield district council, Tamworth borough council and South Staffordshire council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Warwickshire:
Warwickshire county council and Rugby borough council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Worcestershire:
Worcestershire county council and Wyre Forest district council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council.
Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
The consultations will run for seven weeks until 26 March 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space”, and those responding to the consultations can use that online platform, email or post to submit their views.
I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. As before, where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.
Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.
I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.
Local Elections
I can also inform the House that I have today introduced an order to postpone 30 local elections in councils undertaking local government reorganisation. This includes the 29 previously announced by the Secretary of State, and one additional council—Pendle—following further representations from Pendle borough council’s leadership. These representations, received after the initial decision of 22 January, set out more clearly how capacity and resources would be redirected from election planning and delivery in Pendle towards supporting local government reorganisation, safeguarding the programme’s delivery.
The Secretary of State considered these representations carefully and concluded that postponement is in the best interests of ensuring effective and orderly reorganisation. A copy of his letter to the leader of Pendle borough council notifying them of this decision has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.
I will keep the House informed of any further developments.
[HCWS1309]
Pride in Place Programme
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
In September, I was proud to announce a significant expansion of our Pride in Place programme, handing up to £5 billion directly to 244 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK, with communities in the driving seat of spending plans.
Today I can confirm that 40 places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that nearly 300 communities will benefit from this transformational programme. This represents an additional £800 million investment in places that have for too long been overlooked and left behind. The Government will confirm places that will be in receipt of this funding in due course.
The expansion is part of efforts to reverse the decline communities have faced. Pride in Place is about more than funding—it’s about giving communities the power to take control of their own future.
Local people know best what change is needed in their area. That is why communities are in charge of plans for this investment. Seventy-five neighbourhood boards are already up and running, bringing together local people to come up with a plan for the future of their area.
In Ramsgate, the community has decided to invest £500,000 to save the town’s last youth centre from closure, securing the building’s future and ensuring that vital services for young people can continue. Residents of Elgin have chosen to spend £1 million to create a new regional athletics hub, bringing together and providing support for sports clubs across that area of north-east Scotland.
Neighbourhood boards are beginning to take shape across the 169 places announced in September, and these local partnerships will also be established in this third tranche of forty places, laying strong foundations for community leadership.
The Pride in Place programme represents a genuine shift in power into our communities. This isn’t just short-term funding for short-term projects—it’s a long-term investment in our communities and the people who live there. We’re not starting at square one. In every community, thousands of community leaders, volunteers and grassroots organisations are already working hard to make their neighbourhood a better place to live. The Pride in Place programme gets behind these people, building strong leadership rooted in communities.
[HCWS1311]
Cranston Inquiry: Channel Incident of 24 November 2021
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On 24 November 2021 there was a tragic mass-casualty incident involving a small boat attempting to cross the channel. On 9 November 2023 the then Secretary of State for Transport announced the establishment of an independent, non-statutory inquiry into the circumstances of this event.
My deepest sympathies remain with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives, the survivors, and all those who were affected by this tragic incident.
The inquiry, chaired by Sir Ross Cranston, has today published its final report and recommendations. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Ross, and his inquiry team, for undertaking this inquiry with great care and diligence.
I would also like to thank those that contributed to the inquiry, notably the families of the deceased and a survivor of the tragedy.
The inquiry has considered lessons that can be learned from the events of 23 to 24 November 2021 and delivered 18 recommendations.
The Government will carefully consider the content and recommendations of the report and respond fully in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report of the Cranston inquiry in both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS1307]
Jobs Guarantee: Correction to Written Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
On 29 January, I made a written statement on the jobs guarantee. There was a minor error in the statement. The statement said:
“I would also like to thank the over 60 employers who have already committed to providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57WS.]
It should have said:
“I would also like to thank the over 60 employers who have already expressed an interest in providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.”
[HCWS1310]