Indices of Deprivation: England

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for securing this important debate, for the eloquent and passionate way that he talks about the issues in Blackpool, and for the powerful way that he champions voices from his community. I concur completely that his community will never be forgotten by this Labour Government.

Coastal communities such as Blackpool are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime history. However, we know that behind these places lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out. The new indices of multiple deprivation show the challenges faced by all areas across the country, but particularly by coastal communities, which feature as a distinct category of concentrated deprivation in England. Blackpool features prominently in the new indices of deprivation, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated; seven of its areas are among the 10 most deprived neighbourhoods nationally. That is a sobering statistic that shines a spotlight on the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

My Government are acutely aware of the multidimensional challenges that these communities face, and we are committed to doing our part to reverse them. The Government’s mission is to tackle inequality and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including those like Blackpool, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future, and so that they are not held back.

Through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, we will redirect around £2 billion of funding to places and communities that need it most, enabling councils to reliably deliver for their residents. Blackpool, for example, will see an 11% increase in its core spending power between 2025-26 and ’28-29, but we recognise that more needs to be done to reverse a decade and a half of under-investment in my hon. Friend’s community. We also recognise that delivery costs vary across the country, with deprivation, remoteness, variance in the ability to raise tax locally and the impact of commuters and tourists all affecting how hard it can be to deliver services in seaside towns like Blackpool. That is why we are committed to ensuring that these factors are accounted for in future funding allocations.

We are also delivering a wide range of programmes to address economic, social and health disparities across the country. Our £5 billion Pride in Place programme, which my hon. Friend spoke about, will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 244 deprived communities. Little Layton and Little Carleton in Blackpool South will receive up to £20 million in funding over 10 years. Fleetwood town in Blackpool North and Fleetwood will also receive up to £20 million over the next 10 years. That funding will be used by each local community, based on its set priorities, to lift up the community, invest in regeneration plans and build community wealth.

Across the country, the Pride in Place programme will help communities improve cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and local infrastructure. It will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen social cohesion. It will also give people agency, voice and power to drive the change they want to see in their places. We are also providing funding to Blackpool through our Pride in Place impact fund, which will provide £1.5 million of investment over the next two years to restore pride in place, support communities and stimulate local economic activity through visible, short-term, community-led improvements.

My hon. Friend raised the critical challenge of housing. He is right that good, decent housing is foundational; it is the rock on which people can build a life and get ahead. The Government understand the need to build more homes, and more social housing in particular. That is why we have outlined a plan to support the largest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and transform the safety and quality of existing social homes. A new 10-year, £39-billion social and affordable homes programme has also been confirmed —the largest long-term investment in social housing in recent memory. That is an important first step, but we know that more needs to be done.

Tackling deprivation is the work of the whole Government. My Department will play its part, but it is an endeavour across every single Department, with a range of targeted measures across health, poverty, employment and antisocial behaviour. Over 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of the Government’s historic child poverty strategy, which tackles the root causes of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials, boosting family incomes and improving local services so that every child has the best start in life.

Funding has also been made available by the Department for Work and Pensions to support Blackpool residents who are struggling with rising living costs via the household support fund. That will support those vulnerable households in most need of help with the cost of living.

The Government are acutely aware of the crime and antisocial behaviour located in areas of multiple deprivation. On crime, we have committed to five core missions that seek to address some of the fundamental challenges that society will face over the next 10 years. The safer streets mission will tackle serious crime. It will halve violence against women and girls, halve knife crime, and restore confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. It is focused on addressing both harm and confidence in parallel by taking a whole-system approach. Tackling antisocial behaviour is at the heart of the mission. We are determined to rebuild confidence through investment in neighbourhood policing. We will also be at the forefront of the fight against antisocial behaviour.

On employment deprivation, which my hon. Friend talked about so eloquently, our “Get Britain Working” White Paper focuses on building a thriving labour market, reducing economic inactivity and increasing the number of people in work, which is central to growing the economy. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the 2024 Budget, the White Paper sets out the biggest reforms to employment support for a generation.

The Government are absolutely committed to tackling entrenched health inequalities through targeted support for coastal communities. We understand and appreciate the specific challenges in our coastal communities, which is why the Coastal Navigators Network was launched by the NHS in 2024, in response to a report by the chief medical officer, to help tackle the acute health challenges facing coastal towns. It reflects the need to tailor our approach to the specific challenges of coastal communities, which can include poor transport and housing, economic decline and a high prevalence of residents with complex conditions.

We understand the acute challenges that our most deprived communities face—our coastal communities doubly so. We are taking significant steps to tackle deprivation in communities such as Blackpool, but we are open to hearing more ways in which we can play our part in supporting communities to grow, improve and thrive. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate; I look forward to hearing more from him and to working with him to ensure that we tackle the challenge of Blackpool. He is right: when Blackpool does well, the rest of the country is doing well. I look forward to hearing more when I visit in the new year.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the rest of the House a very merry Christmas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final time this year, at the end of the final Adjournment debate of 2025, I shall put the Question that this House do now adjourn. Happy Christmas, everybody.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Elections

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

Let me respond to the question directly. Local elections will go ahead in 2026—that has been and continues to be our position. We are a responsible Government, so if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them, as the House would expect, but we are as up for elections as anyone else.

This is about our commitment to devolution, and the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star—our lodestar—in every decision that we make about devolution, so I am pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to six areas in the devolution priority programme. Once their mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund. In that way, we will ensure that our mayoral strategic authorities have the strong foundation to unlock the growth potential that we see in every part of the country.

The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. That is what we have seen in our established mayoral authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. The devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authorities. We want to allow for a meaningful period between the establishment of a strategic authority, and its mayoral elections.

We are also conscious that those places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation while building those new institutions. The Government are therefore minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that those areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation, build strong and effective unitaries, which is what we want, and establish their strategic authorities before their mayors take post. The inaugural mayoral elections will take place, but in the meantime we are determined to work with those areas to provide capacity funding, build the institutions, and strengthen their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. At the heart of everything we do is unlocking areas’ potential by building strong institutions that can do that job and working in partnership with them to achieve it.

[David Simmonds]

You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that

“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]

The following day, the Minister told the House:

“Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”.

She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead:

“It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.]

Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for.

Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is really important that we distinguish between two things. We have been absolutely consistent that local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it and getting ready for them. I hope the Opposition parties are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them, but these are inaugural mayoral elections that are predicated on us laying a statutory instrument, which we are still to lay, and having the consent of constituent authorities. It is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we are asking places to get through, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils that are going through the process of reorganisation, strong strategic authorities, and then a mayor. That is the right and rational decision. There is a clear distinction that I ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we have not had before.

On the economics, I will take the hon. Member’s question seriously, even though it was completely ridiculous. We are committed to unlocking areas’ economic potential, so we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the SI, so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the timeframe that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places. We are committed to that long-term investment. We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment pipeline and their programme.

At the heart of this—I will keep coming back to this—is a determination on the Government Benches to work with every part of the country to unlock their economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party they belong to. I hope all Members across the House will approach this in the same spirit.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for asking this urgent question and the Minister for responding. Real change is about having mayoral candidates rooted in their community, with an increase in power and funding so that they can deliver that change. There are many issues and challenges across local government, which we all talk about, from special educational needs and disabilities to temporary accommodation and children’s social care. These are big issues that our councillors are dealing with day in, day out.

On 11 November, the Secretary of State told our Select Committee that he did not think local government reorganisation was taking longer than planned and that elections scheduled for May would be going ahead. Less than a month later, the Minister is saying that more time is needed for local government reorganisation in some areas. Given that we are less than six months out, can the Minister reassure the House by confirming that local elections will be going ahead in areas that are seeing reorganisation into a unitary authority and that there will not be any additional delays? This will have an impact on the local people who are working hard on this and may be worried about their jobs, so it is vital that we get clarity from the Government on those areas where unitarisation is carrying on.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is right that this about local people and delivering for them. I reassure her that that same concern and commitment is at the heart of everything that we are doing. This is not about shifting the timescales for local government reorganisation; we are proceeding on the same timescales. Authorities across the country are putting together proposals and working to the timescales agreed, and we are committed to holding to that. This is about devolution in a subset of the areas that are going through local government reorganisation. It pertains to the four functional areas that are going through the process simultaneously: in those areas, it is the creation of not just unitary authorities, which is happening in lots of other areas, but strategic authorities and mayors at the same time. It is absolutely right that we take stock and create the space for them to do each of those things in a timeframe that ensures that we have institutions that are strong and work well at the end of the process.

We want to ensure that we are taking forward local government reorganisation at the timescale that we have agreed and talked about with our partners on the ground. We then want to ensure that strategic authorities are created within the timescales that we have talked about and agreed with our partners on the ground. Our proposals set out that we are minded to push the elections of mayors to 2028, so that we can ensure that the unitary authorities, strategic authorities and partnerships are set up and working well, and we then have the inaugural elections. That is a completely rational and sensible place to be, and we will try to do that in lockstep with our partners on the ground.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first?

Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me be very clear: it was not us who briefed the media. We cannot control what other parties do—we always want to update the House, as well as local authorities. It is incredibly, incredibly important to be very clear that this is not about the cancellation of elections—[Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that are subject to a statutory instrument being laid and they are subject to consent. For all the reasons that I have set out, at the moment the Government are minded to have those elections in 2028, and we will work with the local authorities that are impacted to get consent to do that.

On the fundamental point about investment, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. That is why we have announced £200 million for those areas over the next 30 years. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline, because we want to see things happening on the ground. We have committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to ensure that if they have viable investment propositions, the Government are walking hand in hand and side by side with them to unlock that. It is good for the areas, but fundamentally it is good for the growth of the economy and for national Government.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I need to be blunt, as I usually am: we need to be better than this. Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Postponing last year’s elections allowed for these mayoral elections to be agreed, consulted on, the statutory tests to be met and funding to be confirmed, all of which was done, leaving just the legislation to be laid for polling day on 28 May. That is why Labour and other parties have already selected their candidates. The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain. Following a statutory process, all involved had a reasonable expectation that these elections would go ahead. The Government know that trust is hard won but easily squandered. Given that we are where we are, will the Minister confirm that the mayoral elections will go ahead as planned in Cheshire and Warrington and in Cumbria in 2027? Will she update the House on the progress of the Lancashire devolution deal, which was due to be presented by autumn this year, given that we are now in winter?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that he put into getting us to this place. The fact that we are in a position where we have devolution deals and places undergoing the process of local government reorganisation with the good faith he talked about is testimony to the work he has done. But it is absolutely right that we, as a new ministerial team coming in, look at the facts and at where we are and that we make a judgment.

Ultimately, what drives my hon. Friend and the decisions he made with colleagues, and what drives us and the decisions we are making, is ensuring that, when we look back on this in 2030, we will have effective, powerful unitary councils across the country delivering for their people, and strategic authorities built on strong partnership working—we know that is critical for unlocking development—and powerful mayors. With every area I speak to, the objectives are the same.

Our judgment is that if we give ourselves some breathing room to go through the process and do that with those places in the time required, we will be better and stronger on the other side. We will do this in partnership with local areas. Yesterday, I personally spoke to every single leader directly. We are going to do this in partnership, because there is a common agenda at the end of it. But it is absolutely right that my responsibility, and the responsibility of the Government, is to do everything we can to ensure that the process delivers the outcome that I think hon. Members across the House adhere to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

But the Government could have done this right and come to Parliament with a statement today. Instead, once again we wake up to overnight briefings. Cancelling elections is always a bad idea, and there is a real suspicion that the Government are worried about being trounced in elections.

May make a local point about Lincolnshire? It is now in complete chaos, because we do not know what is going to happen. The Government have already forced an unloved office of mayor on us, our friends in North East Lincolnshire have withdrawn from the whole process, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) wants to carve West Lindsey—my district—in half by creating a greater Lincoln, and the county council under Reform leadership has a different proposal. Nobody knows what is going on. Just put local democracy first by allowing the people of Lincolnshire to have the district council system of local Government that they love and know, and stop throwing everything up in the air and wasting so much money.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I reiterate that these are inaugural elections, and therefore we are not cancelling elections. [Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that were always subject to us laying a statutory instrument and subject to the consent of places. To the right hon. Member’s specific point, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through the process of local government reorganisation. We are not doing it because it is fun, or just for the sake of it; we are doing it because of the state in which local government was left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Absolutely—take responsibility! We had a decade and a half of under-investment, leaving local government on its knees. The Conservatives ducked the decisions they needed to make.

Now we are gripping the mantle, and at the heart of the reorganisation process is the simple premise that we want stronger unitaries. We believe that is the way in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The Conservative party should have got a grip and done that. It did not; it ducked that. We are now having to pick that up, so I will not have Conservative Members talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we need to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on and got on with it themselves.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

May I welcome the additional £21.7 million per year announced today for the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority? I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is on the Front Bench, has campaigned for that for many, many years. Our region has massive untapped potential in life sciences, chemical manufacturing and digital. For too long we have watched while our friends in the Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester have been able to build a transport network and a skills strategy fit for the 21st century. Does the Minister agree that this is the difference that a Labour Government make?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the funding. Just so that the House records it, let me say what we are investing in. In the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority we are investing £21.7 million. In Cumbria we are investing £11.1 million. In greater Essex we are investing £41.5 million. In Hampshire and the Solent we are investing £44.6 million. In Norfolk and Suffolk we are investing £37.4 million. In Sussex and Brighton we are investing £38 million.

This is about investment in places. At its heart, this is about resources and power so that local leaders can work in partnership to deliver for their people. I will not apologise for that; it is absolutely the right thing. I will come back to this point every single time: at the heart of everything we are doing is ensuring that we have strong institutions that can deliver for their people. I know that the Conservatives do not like me to talk about it, but the legacy we have is that huge swathes of our country have been held back—growth and investment have been held back. That is not a reality that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are doing the hard yards and the graft in order to unlock powerful institutions that can deliver for their people. [Interruption.] The Conservatives can bluster all they like, but at the heart of this matter is investment in places. We are committed to that, and it is a shame that the Conservatives failed to do that.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. Clearly there is no reason at all why they cannot go ahead in 2026—although, I know that the local Conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. The whole local government reorganisation is a dog’s dinner, and the public do not understand what is going on. You are asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You are telling them that you are going to get rid of a district council that they know, understand and respect, and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. If that is going to go ahead—I do not like it, but clearly it is—you need a senior elected figure—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The point of urgent questions is that they need to be short. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson also had limited time. Please can Members make their questions succinct, and can the Minister make her answers succinct too?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

The north-east has perhaps the strongest sense of regional identity in the country, and it benefits immensely from the brilliant Labour mayor, Kim McGuinness, who has the devolved powers and funding to make a real difference to the lives of the people in the north-east. I know that the Minister is working hard to devolve more powers and, critically, more funding. Does she agree it is critical that that sense of identity, the strong institutions, the funding and the powers are in place in order for mayors to be successful?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that absolutely fundamental point. We have now had coming on to two decades of mayors working alongside their places, and the lesson—whether in Greater Manchester, the north-east or the Liverpool city region—is that where there is a strong sense of identity, strong constituent authorities, effective partnership working and common ground in terms of what is being achieved for both the people and place, the model is powerful. The Government are absolutely committed and determined to build the foundations to get there, because we want every part of the country to be able to have a powerful executive, like Kim in the north-east, working alongside strong local authorities to invest and deliver for their people. That is our commitment; that is what we are going to work through. We will take sensible, pragmatic decisions to ensure that that is the outcome we achieve by 2030.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I disagree with all of this. I believe in strong local councils that are truly democratic and reflect local communities. My amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last week was about my borough of Havering, whose identity is linked to Essex. Will this delay allow the Minister to look again at the possibility of Havering being part of Greater Essex—with certain conditions, I accept—and not part of Greater London? If there were a referendum in my borough, I have no doubt that the people of my constituency would rather be linked to Essex than to inner London. Will the Minister please reconsider the arrangements for my borough of Havering?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We have seen the huge impact that the Greater London Authority and the Mayor have had in London. London is one of the most successful cities in the world because of that strong basis. I think it is a tragedy that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be part of this vibrant city—I certainly am incredibly proud to be a Londoner under the GLA and the Mayor of London.

To the more fundamental question, the approach that we have consistently tried to take, both with local government reorganisation—I know the Opposition like to refute this—and with devolution, is that we will try to work hand in glove with places and ensure that places can come up with proposals that work for their patch. The whole premise of devolution is that local leaders and their people know what is best for them. That may be defining their boundaries, which is why, in the context of local government reorganisation, we have said to places, “Come forward with your proposals based on conversations you have had with your people and your place,” or, in the context of devolution, places have come together and said, “This is the functional geography that makes sense for us.” We will always take that approach, because ultimately we believe that local people know their patch best, and it is our job to enable them.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that local council elections will go ahead in 2026, and I welcome the significant investment into the six priority new mayoral areas. I also welcome the fact that Greater Essex—my part of the world—will have the opportunity to complete much-needed local government reform before we elect our inaugural Mayor of Essex. Can the Minister confirm when that new investment will land with councils, which were so badly underfunded by the previous Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is important that we keep coming back to the investment. During the transition period—over the next two years—we will be bringing forward that investment because we know that places in the priority programme, such as Greater Essex, have already started putting together their investment pipeline, and we want to allow them to crack on and start getting on with things now. We will be working with them to unlock investment next year and the year after so that they can deliver for their people.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

To describe this situation as a “dog’s dinner” is offensive to the makers of Pedigree Chum. The deferral of the elections in Hampshire will delay major strategic infrastructure planning, such as the Wrecclesham bypass in my constituency, and deprive the people of Hampshire of an excellent mayor in Donna Jones. Most importantly, though, it is an affront to democracy. As the Minister will know, my seat is a cross-border Hampshire and Surrey seat, so I have three questions for her. First, will the unitary authority elections in Surrey go ahead as planned next year? Secondly, will the Hampshire unitary authority elections also go ahead rapidly? Finally, will we get a mayor for Surrey?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Surrey elections will go ahead as planned. We are moving forward with the Hampshire elections as planned, although we are now minded to move the mayoral elections for Hampshire and the Solent to 2028. On the hon. Gentleman’s question on the Surrey mayor, our ambition is to have mayors all across the country. We will move at the pace that places become ready so that we prioritise building strong partnership through strategic authorities and then mayors. We have learned the lesson of what mayors can do, and the intention is to have both mayors and strong, powerful foundation authorities.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

All Labour Members agree that we want power brought closer to our communities, and I have been clear in backing proper devolution in Norfolk and effective local government reorganisation—and the proposal for three unitaries. However, now that the mayoral elections have been postponed, can the Minister assure us that Norfolk and Suffolk will not lose out on investment, including funding that has gone to mayoral combined authorities, and that we will have a seat at the table over the next three years until 2028, so that our area does not lose out?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Absolutely. That is why we have announced £37.4 million per year, and it is why we have committed to providing some of that investment up front. Critically, though, we are absolutely committed to working with strategic authorities to unlock new powers for them, so that they can get on and deliver for their people.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a district councillor.

This is such a shambles. We have a local government sector on its knees as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party. So much time and resource has been put into these mayoral elections by local government and officers over the past year; staff and venues for polling stations have already been booked. Does the Minister have any idea how much money has been spent on this over the past 12 months?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that no area will be worse off as a result of this decision. Again, we are talking about four areas within the devolution priority programme, and we will work with those areas. We are providing capacity funding to all of them to help them with this process and help them set up their institutions, and we are committed to ensuring that they will be no worse off at the end of the process.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Unlike many Opposition Members, I welcome this announcement, for I know that the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will want the Government to get this process right. Does the Minister agree that we are not cancelling anything; we are simply postponing the mayoral elections, so that we can get this right, and so that we see the best of local democracy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Yes. It is easy to plough on, but we care about the outcome we are trying to deliver, and about ensuring that at the end of this process, we have strong local government, strong strategic authorities and effective mayors. That matters for the people we are here to serve, so I will never regret us taking decisions that have that approach at their heart.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does this latest and inconsistent decision underline that the whole of LGR and devolution is in a state of total chaos? The Government must be rueing the day that they bought the Department’s line that imposing a metropolitan concept on counties and the countryside was the right thing to do. Can the Minister explain, for example, why it was logical to cancel the district council elections last year, but not this year? Where is the logic in that? Is it not about time that she got together with her colleagues and cancelled this whole process, to save money, and so that people can get back to their jobs of running better social services, filling in potholes, and delivering for their local communities, as the excellent Tendring district council does?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We believe in unitaries; whether it is Cheshire or the other unitaries across the country, we can see that they deliver for people. I come back to the reason why we are doing this, and the fact that it takes some cheek for Conservative Members to say, “The status quo is fine.” The status quo is not fine—it is the Conservative party’s mess, created over 14 years, and Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame. We are acting and responding, because the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable and will not deliver for the people we are all here to serve.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is disappointing that the Minister continues to refer to the Isle of Wight as “the Solent”, which is a body of water where nobody lives. She says that our council elections will take place next year unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Can she please confirm unequivocally that her plans for a mayor and a local government review are not exceptional or extenuating circumstances that are sufficient for cancelling our elections next May?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

A democracy in which a Government can unilaterally chop and change the date of an election on a whim ceases to be a democracy altogether. This decision is taking the people of Eastbourne and Sussex for fools and must be resisted. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026, and will she confirm that the mayoral election, which is now delayed until 2028, will take place under single transferable vote and not first past the post?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

This is an utter dog’s breakfast that is entirely of the Government’s making. Will the Minister apologise to Tim Passmore and other mayoral candidates for cancelling the elections next year? When will Norfolk and Suffolk get the £37.4 million investment fund that we were promised if we had a mayor, and not the £3 million—the crumbs—that she has promised today?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Of course, candidates have been selected, and I am very happy to apologise to them. I hope that, on the other side of this, whoever is mayor will have the knowledge that they have a strong unitary, and a strong strategic authority working in their interests. If this means that we will have a more powerful mayor who is delivering for their place, as a result of that strong partnership, then it is absolutely worth it. We have to put the people who the mayor is there to serve first.

We are committed to the investment. The full investment fund will come into place once the mayor is elected, but because we are keen for strategic authorities to crack on, we are bringing forward some of that investment. We will work with the areas, so that they can begin delivering for their people.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Last month, the Secretary of State clearly said to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that elections, both local and mayoral, will go ahead. He did not equivocate. He did not say that there were ifs or buts; these elections were going ahead. Can the Minister confirm why the Secretary of State appeared to mislead MPs, and what steps will she take to ensure—

[Mr Forster]

Inadvertently mislead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that MPs can trust and believe what her Department says in future communications?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

This development is cynical and scandalous, and completely ignores the democratic rights of the people of Essex and beyond. This Labour Government are botching and rushing local government reorganisation for their own political ends. Given their cancelling of local elections this year, and now their cancelling of mayoral elections in Greater Essex and beyond, when will this Labour Government admit that they are treating voters with contempt, and that what they are doing is flying in the face of local democracy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are as up for elections as the Opposition. Candidly, they have a little bit more to be worried about. On the substance, I bring the hon. Member back to why we are doing this: it is because of the Conservatives’ lack of investment in local government and their failure to get a grip of the fact that the status quo is not working. What we are doing is not easy, but we are trying to do it in good faith, and I come back to the fact that at the heart of this, we are trying to ensure that we have strong unitaries, strong and functional partnerships, and a strong mayor. I will not resile from that commitment.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The Minister knew from day one that local government reorganisation and the introduction of mayors were taking place simultaneously; she knew that throughout the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, so it is simply not credible to make this announcement now. Areas with delayed mayoral elections will have some funding brought forward. Can she confirm that those areas excluded from wave one of the programme, such as Wessex, will now be able to access funding, given that we were told that the reason why we could not have any funding was that we did not have a mayor? Now that the mayors do not exist, that money should be given to other areas, such as Wessex.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are committed to unlocking the economic potential of all areas. I am clear that different places are at different stages in their journey to getting a mayor, and it is absolutely right that we ensure that those places can still access devolved funding and the powers to drive that journey. We are keen to work with areas, to encourage them to form strong strategic authorities, and to empower them to deliver on the ground and unlock growth.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In Suffolk, people are asking what on earth the Government are playing at. We are being asked to have county elections in 2026, unitary elections in 2027 and a mayoral election in 2028. That said, elected politicians in a democracy should never be afraid of the voters. Can the Minister say to the House—incredibly clearly—that Suffolk’s county council elections, already postponed once, will not be cancelled next May?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have said time and again that we will crack on with local council elections next year, but it is right, if there are extenuating circumstances and particular circumstances on the ground, that we reflect on that. We recognise the democratic necessity of elections. Some of these areas have not had elections for coming on for seven or eight years. We think it is right that leaders face their voters, and that is our overriding starting premise, but if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground, we will reflect on those circumstances.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The Minister keeps talking about the principle, and why this is being done, but we should not move away from the fundamental question: who misled the Minister by saying that this could be achieved in 2026, but then came back and said, “No, sorry, it has to be 2028”? It is 18 months until elections in 2027, and we are talking about 2028. Is she not concerned about finding out who is telling her false project timelines? How can she have any faith that 2028 will be delivered? We are told that the aim is to deliver better public services, but how can that be true when the Government cannot even get the organisation correct, and when there is a gap of two years?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. All our areas in the devolution priority programme have been working at pace, and I give them huge credit for working collaboratively across parties and across authorities to deliver this. I believe that we could deliver it all in 2026, but the judgment we are making is about whether we do that based on strong foundations. If the difference between 2026 and 2028 means that we have got the unitary process through, have strong unitaries and strategic authorities that are working well, and have created the foundations for an effective mayor, then we think it is worth taking the time and having the breathing space to ensure that the foundations are strong.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister agrees that trust in our politics, and trust in our democracy, is absolutely vital. I am also sure she will regret that postponing elections gives some, including those who do not have our country’s best interests at heart, the opportunity to try to sow seeds of distrust. This morning she will have seen the Electoral Commission’s latest stats, which show some eye-wateringly large donations. Our elections are not being fought on an even footing if they can be bought by a small handful of individuals. Will she encourage the Minister for Democracy to use the opportunity of the elections Bill to take meaningful steps to increase transparency and clarity, and to tighten up the financial donation rules, in order to restore trust in our democracy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that powerful point. Yes, we absolutely will do so.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Last Friday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended a meeting with the leader and the chief executive of North East Lincolnshire council. The chief executive produced a very thick report on why they do not want any further reorganisation in the council area. Up and down the country, councils are spending millions of pounds on producing reports about why they do or do not want to be a mayoral authority, and why they do or do not want reorganisation. Surely the Minister agrees that those millions would be better spent providing better services for their local communities.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We want investment to be spent on local communities—on that there is agreement—but I come back to the point that I have made time and again: the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable, so something has to give and something has to change. The way that we are approaching it is to say to local areas, “Come up with your plan, and here is the set of criteria against which those plans will be judged”, but we cannot stand still and do nothing; we have to do something, and we are trying to go through a process in partnership with places.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury and now cancelling elections—these are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, aren’t they?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I do not believe that question warrants a response.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There are deep concerns about the postponing of local elections—democracy has been in place for centuries. What impression does the Minister think this announcement gives to the general public, who have every right to exercise their civic responsibility in a timely manner? Is she not concerned about the message that it gives constituents about democracy in the United Kingdom?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for her responses this morning.

Pride in Place Programme Prospectus

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

In September, we announced the Pride in Place programme, providing up to £5 billion to drive change that people can see from their doorsteps. Today, I have published the programme prospectus, so that local neighbourhoods can get on with delivering that change.

This prospectus will kick-start transformation across the country, leading to the establishment of 169 neighbourhood boards made up of local people—residents, grassroots activists, faith and business leaders—committed to making their neighbourhood a better place. They will join 75 communities, from Grimsby to Jarrow, who have already come together to agree a plan for the future of their neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood boards, led by an independent chair, will drive change in their community over the next decade, and this prospectus gives them what they need to make this happen. Each chair must be genuinely representative of the community, with a deep connection to their local area, and the support of both the local authority and the MP to champion their neighbourhood and provide leadership. The chair must get the right people around the table to come up with a plan that delivers the change people want to see. They will be responsible for appointing a wider board of residents, local businesses, grassroots campaigners, workplace representatives, and faith and community leaders, who will sit alongside the local MP and councillor. The local authority and the local MP must also approve the final board selection. These must be in place by 17 July 2026, but we strongly encourage boards to confirm their membership earlier if they can.

Each neighbourhood board will work with the wider community to develop a Pride in Place plan, setting out how the £20 million will transform the local area. The plan must reflect the change that local people want to see, and the board must be guided by the wider community to ensure that. The prospectus sets out how boards can and should collaborate with the surrounding community to co-design the Pride in Place plan over the 10 years of the programme. No funding will be given for the implementation of the plan unless the board can prove that it will deliver the change the neighbourhood wants. The local MP, as a member of the board, will play a critical role in helping to convene every part of their community to make this happen.

In each of the 244 neighbourhoods, the plan must explain how they will invest up to £20 million over the next decade—split 63% capital, 37% revenue—to deliver three objectives: thriving places, stronger communities and taking back control. Today, we also published a revised list of indicative interventions to help boards develop these plans—such as visual improvements and new places to meet—in order to provide examples of how the funding may be spent.

This programme aims to deliver lasting change beyond the 10 years of investment. The prospectus sets out an expectation that each board must transition towards a community-led model by year 3 of the programme. This might mean an established local community organisation acting as an anchor institution, or the board transitioning to become a co-operative, community interest company or charity. A communities delivery unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will support the transition.

We know that Britain’s neighbourhoods are impatient for change. When the decline in pride in place so often stems from a “we know best” attitude from those at the top, the answer must be to put communities in control. The programme prospectus we published today is the next step towards that.

[HCWS1125]

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.

Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.

Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.

Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.

Government new clause 54—Guidance.

Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.

Government new clause 56—Regulations.

Government new clause 57—Interpretation.

New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.

(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’

This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.

New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—

‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.

(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—

(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or

(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’

This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.

New clause 10—Community ownership fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—

‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;

(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;

(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and

(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’

New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;

(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;

(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;

(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—

(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;

(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.

(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’

This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.

New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—

‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—

“92A Assets of negative community value

(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—

(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,

(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or

(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.

(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.

(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—

(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;

(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;

(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;

(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;

(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;

(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’

This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.

New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—

‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).

(2) The report must—

(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and

(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.

(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—

(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;

(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;

(c) access to land for food growing;

(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;

(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.

(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.

(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’

This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.

New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—

‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.

New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.

(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’

This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.

New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.

(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.

New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—

‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.

New clause 20—Training for councillors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.

(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,

(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and

(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).

(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’

This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.

New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.

(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—

(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,

(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),

(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and

(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).

(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—

‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—

“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews

(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.

(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—

(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;

(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;

(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;

“relevant body” means—

(a) a voluntary or community body;

(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;

(c) a parish council;

(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;

(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.

New clause 34—Councillor standards—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.

New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—

(a) delay,

(b) postpone, or

(c) lead to the cancellation of,

any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’

New clause 38—Land quality assessments—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.

(2) The conditions are that—

(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,

(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,

(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,

(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and

(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—

(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and

(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.

(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—

‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.

This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—

(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.

Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.

Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.

I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.

I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.

The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.

The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline

I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In addition to that very welcome general power of competence for the national park authorities, will the Minister consider tabling amendments to ensure that the new unitary authorities surrounding those park authorities do not dominate the membership of the board with a majority?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

My constituency covers two local authorities: the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. For a number of years, they have both operated a committee system that works extremely well; it is well accepted by the local community and both local authorities function extremely well. Why are the Government proposing to put in place additional hurdles for both my local authorities to continue to operate effectively and efficiently in this way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that our strong preference remains for executive models of government, because we believe that that model provides clearer and more easily understood governance structures, and leads to more efficient decision making. However, we recognise the genuine concerns held in particular constituencies where committee systems have been adopted recently, particularly where public referendums have been held. That is why we are moving forward with this amendment.

We believe that we are striking the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England that will ensure better decision making, while also respecting recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations, as well as reducing disruptions where councils are operating a committee system and are within their moratorium periods. If a council is within its moratorium period, we will allow the transition, but our strong preference is to move towards the cabinet system.

[Sarah Olney]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress.

Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.

The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.

The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:

“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]

During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:

“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as

“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.

You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.

For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.

In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Alison Bennett]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.

On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.

On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.

I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.

Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister on her fantastic closing remarks. I emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend—

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

Glasgow city will receive £1.5 million of Pride in Place impact funding to improve high streets and invest in community spaces and assets. In addition, neighbourhoods across Scotland will receive up to £20 million through our Pride in Place funding to transform their areas. We are working with the Scotland Office to announce the specific neighbourhoods included in phase 2. This is an exciting chance to put power, money and agency in the hands of communities that have been held back for too long, to drive the change that they want to see.

[Maureen Burke]

My survey of Glasgow North East constituents shows that there is real excitement about the possibility of Pride in Place funding coming their way. From parks and shopfronts to local connectivity, I have been inundated with incredible ideas to transform our corner of Glasgow. Will the Minister commit to giving my constituency bid her full consideration, and will she visit Glasgow North East to see the difference that the investment could make?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I would be delighted to visit Glasgow North East and am pleased to hear of the local enthusiasm for our Pride in Place agenda and my hon. Friend’s work in supporting this locally and championing her constituency. We are working closely with the Scotland Office on phase 2 of the Pride in Place programme to confirm the specific neighbourhoods and will be announcing that shortly.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

6. What the infrastructure requirements are for supporting the proposed new town at Tempsford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Pride in Place funding on the Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

We are providing £1.5 million from the Pride in Place impact fund to enable immediate work in Luton to develop community spaces and revitalise local high streets. Work is already under way on this, and I look forward to seeing the impact it will have locally.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I really welcome the £1.5 million Pride in Place impact funding awarded to Luton, and I have launched a survey with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to find out what people want to see improved in our town. Does the Minister agree that local people’s voices must be at the heart of shaping the changes they want to see, and that this Labour Government are putting power and investment back in their hands?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Yes, I agree 100%. May I just thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to bring the voices of her community to the very heart of this? Our Pride in Place strategy represents a new way for Government to work that puts power, agency and the voice of our communities front and centre. We expect all local authorities in receipt of Pride in Place impact funding to work with their MPs and their community to deliver the change that local people want and to focus on local people’s priorities.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

8. What mechanisms his Department has put in place to ensure that communities are consulted on the use of Pride in Place funding in the Slough constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

We are providing £1.5 million from the Pride in Place impact fund to enable immediate work in Slough to develop community spaces and revitalise local high streets. Local authorities must engage with their local MP and their residents. We have made that clear and we will continue to reiterate it.

[Mr Dhesi]

I have spoken to hundreds of my Slough constituents who are tired of having a high street where they do not feel safe, that lacks essential local amenities and that is devoid of community spaces, so I am delighted that this Labour Government have given our town, which has been neglected for too long, that £1.5 million Pride in Place boost. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the local council uses that money wisely and that it listens—not only to my good self, but to local residents about their priorities?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right to remind us about the neglect of our high streets under the last Government, and to reiterate that it is this Government who are putting power and investment into the hands of our communities to drive change. He is also completely right: local authorities must listen to their communities and ensure that investment is focused on their priorities.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

9. If he will provide additional support to local councils to help them increase levels of funding for social housing stock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Pride in Place funding eligibility criteria in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

Areas across Scotland, including Elgin, will receive up to £20 million of Pride in Place programme funding to transform their areas. Phase 1 places have already been identified, and we are working with the Scotland Office and partners to confirm additional neighbourhoods, which will be announced shortly for phase 2.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The Government are encouraging towns across the UK to apply for Pride in Place funding, but with the specific exclusion that any town applying should not be located in a UK parliamentary constituency with a phase 1 neighbourhood. Does the Minister appreciate that in my constituency of Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, this would exclude Nairn from applying because Elgin is already in receipt of funding, despite Nairn being in a different unitary authority and not even being in the same constituency prior to boundary changes? As a further example, it would also exclude Shetland from applying because Orkney already has funding. Does the Minister agree that this exclusion is nonsensical and discriminatory against large geographies, and needs to be changed?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure adequate levels of accountability of estate management companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. The whole of Cornwall, one of the most deprived regions in northern Europe, missed out on Pride in Place funding, which I can only assume was due to the “trusting your neighbour” indicator being treated as a marker of affluence rather than deprivation in the community needs index. Can the Minister confirm that Cornwall will not be disadvantaged because of that in the next tranche of Pride in Place funding?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

My hon. Friend is always a champion for Cornwall. To confirm, there were two things that drove the allocation: indices of multiple deprivation and our community needs index. For places that did not receive Pride in Place funding, within our strategy there is a whole suite of tools and levers that communities can grip in order to drive the change that they want to see. I hope we will see that in Cornwall.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

The Great Ayton allotments group received funding from the community ownership fund last year. As the deadline for disbursing the funds approaches, delays in a related planning application are threatening that funding. I thank Department officials for trying to resolve the issue, and I ask Ministers to support that flexibility, because the project means a great deal to the community of Great Ayton.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising the important work that has been done in his constituency. We will continue to work with that group, because we want to ensure that all communities have the ability to grip assets and drive the change that they want to see.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

For years, Derby residents have felt the full force of Tory austerity, with many services at breaking point. Does the Minister agree that Derby deserves better, and what can the Government do to ensure that the fair funding review delivers for communities such as Derby?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Is Surrey going to get a mayor?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are working with all areas to ensure that we are devolving power, whether to strategic authorities or mayors, to make sure that they can grip the economic opportunities and unlock the growth that we did not see under the last Government, but that this Government absolutely want to deliver.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Cheshire East council area has pockets of severe deprivation, centred largely around my constituency. Under the previous Government, local government funding allocations never really took account of those deprivations. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can rebalance funding towards the deprived areas in my constituency that have been left behind for too long?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 44—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.

New clause 2—Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils—

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).

(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”

This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.

New clause 4—Application of CIL to householders—

“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 205 (The levy) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.

(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).’”

This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.

New clause 5—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—

“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’

(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’

(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government

(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—

(a) principal local authorities within their area,

(b) public service providers in their area, and

(c) town and parish councils within their area.

(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”

This new clause would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.

New clause 7—Consideration of existing adult skills provision—

“(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider—

(a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and

(b) existing higher education provision in its area

when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.”

This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions.

New clause 8—Annual reporting on adult education funding—

“(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions.

(2) A report under this section must include—

(a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs;

(b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority;

(c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding—

(i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning,

(ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and

(iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs.

(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about—

(a) any further content of, and

(b) publication of reports under this section.”

This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers.

New clause 9—Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans—

“(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the strategic authority’.

(3) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that—

(a) the strategic authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan,

(b) the plan has been agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and

(c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries.

(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), ‘joint leadership’ means that—

(a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and

(b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined.

(7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the strategic authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations.

(7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may—

(a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement;

(b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination;

(c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making;

(d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement.

(7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area,

(b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs,

(c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and

(d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’

(4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—

‘“strategic authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.

This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.

New clause 14—Policy delivery in areas of competence—

“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—

(a) relates to an area of competence, and

(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor

must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.

(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—

(a) the relevant strategic authority, or

(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.

(3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “a constituent member” means any elected representative who is—

(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;

(b) acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”

This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.

New clause 15—Duty to ensure public trust and financial transparency—

“(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or combined county authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that information regarding the authority’s financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner.

(2) The mayor must publish a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions, and review this policy periodically.”

This new clause requires mayors of CAs and CCAs to ensure that financial information is accessible and understandable to local communities.

New clause 23—Transport authority functions: funding and support—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—

(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and

(b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”

This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.

New clause 24—Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (‘the strategy’).

(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.

(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.

(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.

(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and

(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”

This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.

New clause 25—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—

(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;

(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and

(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.

(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—

(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;

(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;

(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and

(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.

(3) In this section—

‘charging authority’ has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;

‘technical error’ means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”

New clause 28—Regional governance—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body.

(2) Regulations made under this section must—

(a) provide that—

(i) a regional governance body is a body corporate,

(ii) the name of any such body is determined locally, and

(iii) the structure and membership of any such body is determined following consultation with people who live in the relevant part of England;

(b) confer functions upon a regional governance body in relation to—

(i) education and skills,

(ii) transport,

(iii) health and social care,

(iv) housing and planning, and

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) in making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the promotion of effective and accountable regional governance,

(b) the identity and aspirations of the region concerned, and

(c) the principle of subsidiarity.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would enable the establishment of regional governance bodies in parts of England, such as a Yorkshire Parliament or Cornish Assembly, with locally determined names and structures, and allow them to be conferred with responsibilities in areas including education, transport, health and housing, where there is local support.

New clause 29—Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets—

“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—

(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).

(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”

This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

New clause 30—Visitor levies—

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.

(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”

New clause 31—Overnight accommodation levy—

“(1) An EMSA may impose a levy on any overnight accommodation provided within the EMSA’s area (‘the OAL’).

(2) The levy is payable by persons staying for one or more night in exchange for payment in any—

(a) hotel;

(b) guest house, or bed and breakfast;

(c) self-catering accommodation;

(d) short-term let;

(e) campsite or caravan park;

(f) any other premises that the mayor of an EMSA may designate.

(3) Before introducing or modifying an OAL the mayor of an EMSA must consult such as persons as they consider necessary, which must include communities, business and organisations working in or affected by the tourism industry.

(4) The mayor of an EMSA may determine the rate and structure of an OAL, including concessionary rates and exemptions where they consider it appropriate.

(5) The mayor of than EMSA may specify arrangement relating to—

(a) the collection of the OAL,

(b) the administration of the OAL, and

(c) arrangements for circumstances in which the OAL is not complied with.

(6) Receipts from the OAL are to be paid into the general fund of the EMSA.

(7) Monies received under subsection (6) may be used by the mayor of the EMSA for the purposes of—

(a) promoting, developing and managing tourism within the EMSA area;

(b) enhancing infrastructure for the purposes of benefiting tourism in the area;

(c) supporting cultural, sporting and business activity;

(d) preserving or improving heritage assets;

(e) supporting economic growth in the EMSA area

provided that, in the view of the mayor of the EMSA, such use is consistent with the EMSA’s local growth plan.”

New clause 32—Greater London Authority: decision-making—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—

(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;

(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—

(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;

(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.

(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out ‘at least two thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.”

New clause 33—Joint planning committees—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for local authorities which share a border to establish a joint planning committee.

(2) Joint planning committees under subsection (1) may only consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of the adjacent authorities’ border.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish joint planning committees for adjacent authorities to jointly consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of their adjoining border.

New clause 39—Regulation of waterborne transport services by regional mayors—

“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to waterborne transport services operating wholly within the authority’s area.

(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—

(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of waterborne transport services;

(b) requiring operators of waterborne transport services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);

(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;

(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);

(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for waterborne transport services, including imposing a fare cap;

(f) functions relating to accountability of waterborne transport services providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;

(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of waterborne transport services within an authority’s area.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—

(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),

(b) any local transport authorities affected,

(c) operators of waterborne transport services within the area, and

(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.

(5) In this section ‘waterborne transport services’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that such specification must include—

(a) ferry services, and

(b) water taxi and private hire transport services,

which carry passengers by water between two or more places within the area of the authority.”

This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate waterborne transport services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.

New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum—

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, before subsection (1) insert—

‘(A1) A mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year must be determined to be excessive if the financial year is the first financial year in which the authority has charged a relevant basic amount of council tax.’

(3) At the beginning of subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘In any other case, the’.”

New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors—

“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to ferry services operating wholly within the authority’s area.

(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—

(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services;

(b) requiring operators of ferry services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);

(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;

(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);

(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for ferry services, including imposing a fare cap;

(f) functions relating to accountability of ferry service providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;

(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of ferry services within an authority’s area.

(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—

(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),

(b) any local transport authorities affected,

(c) operators of ferry services within the area, and

(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.

(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.

(5) In this section ‘ferry services’ means services for the carriage of passengers or vehicles by water between two or more places, all of which are within the area of the authority.”

This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate ferry services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.

New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality, and climate targets—

“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority shall refrain from taking any action or decision that would contradict—

(a) the fulfilment of the carbon budgets and targets established under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) the achievement of the environmental targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) compliance with the limit values provided for in Schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) implementation of the programme for adapting to climate change prepared under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the requirements in subsection (1).

(3) Guidance under subsection (2) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”

This new clause places a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to operate consistently with the targets and requirements in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act, the Air Quality Standards Regulations, and the statutory climate adaptation programme. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—

“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows:

(2) In subsection (1), leave out “one of the members of the authority to be the mayor's deputy” and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.

(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’

(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”

This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.

New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers—

“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’) insert—

‘15A Mayoral special advisers

(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser

(2) A ‘mayoral special adviser’ is a person (‘P’) who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).

(3) The requirements are—

(a) P is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;

(b) the appointment will end not later than—

(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or

(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.

(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (‘the code’).

(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.

(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—

(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or

(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.

(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—

(a) engage in political activity; and

(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.

(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.

(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”

This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.

New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority—

“(1) The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1) (levying authorities), for the definition substitute—

‘In this Act, ‘levying authority’ means—

(a) the Greater London Authority;

(b) an established mayoral authority in England;

(c) a county council or county borough council in Wales.

(3) Omit section 4(c).

(4) Omit section 7.

(5) Omit section 8.

(6) Omit section 9.

(7) In section 10, omit paragraph (2)(c) and subsections (10) and (11).

(8) In Schedule 1, omit paragraphs 19 and 20.”

This new clause would allow an established mayoral authority in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement. It would remove the ability of county and district councils in England to do so, and would remove the existing requirement for such a supplement to be approved by referendum.

New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b) for ‘at least two thirds’ substitute ‘a simple majority’.

(3) In Schedule 6—

(a) in paragraph 8(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority; and

(b) in paragraph 8C(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority.’”

This new clause would require certain decisions of the London Assembly in relation to the mayor’s strategy and GLA budget to be taken by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.

New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions—

“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 59 (review and investigation) insert—

‘59A Power of the Assembly in relation to proposed mayoral decisions

(1) The powers of the assembly under this Act include—

(a) power to direct that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take is not to be taken while it is under review and scrutiny by the Assembly, and

(b) power to recommend that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take be reconsidered.

(2) The Assembly must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of proposed decisions and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.

(3) Before complying subsection (2), the Assembly must obtain the consent of the Mayor to the proposals and arrangements.

(4) In the proposals and arrangements published under subsection (2), the Assembly may make provision to require the Mayor to submit to the Assembly details of any decision the Mayor proposes to take.

(5) Provision under subsection (4) may include provision for deadlines by which any such details should be submitted to the Assembly.’”

This new clause would give the London Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the Mayor are not taken while under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly power to recommend that the Mayor reconsider a proposed decision.

New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, carry out a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority.

(2) The report must examine as a potential reform the scope for greater direct engagement with elected representatives of the London Borough Councils in decisions made by the Greater London Authority.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within nine months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions.

New clause 70—Duty to confer ESMA powers on Cornwall Council—

“(1) This section applies where Cornwall Council has applied to the Secretary of State for a power available to an established mayoral strategic authority in or under any Act of Parliament (a “relevant power”) to be conferred upon it.

(2) On receipt of an application, the Secretary of State must make regulations to confer the relevant power upon Cornwall Council.

(3) Where a relevant power has been conferred, any reference in or under any Act of Parliament to the exercise of the power by the mayor of an established strategic authority should be read to allow the exercise of the power by the leader of Cornwall Council.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”

This new clause would allow Cornwall Council to apply to the Secretary of State to be conferred ESMA powers and requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to that end upon receipt of such an application.

New clause 71—Requirement to establish and consult neighbourhood area committees—

“(1) The Secretary of State may not make an order or regulations under any Act of Parliament to establish, expand or confer functions on any strategic authority until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the strategic authority will, at the moment of establishment, expansion or conferral of functions, have in place—

(a) neighbourhood area committees which collectively cover the whole area of the strategic authority,

(b) mechanisms to ensure that the neighbourhood area committees are consulted on any decision the strategic authority may take that might affect the area covered by the neighbourhood area committee.

(2) A neighbourhood area committee must ensure that, when consulted by a strategic authority under subsection (1)(b), it responds to the consultation in accordance with any reasonable deadline set by the strategic authority.”

New clause 72—Visitor levies (No. 2)—

“(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a levy charged on the purchase of overnight accommodation.

(2) Following consultation, regulations under this section must—

(a) define the basis on which the levy is to be calculated;

(b) specify the process and consultation requirements for an area seeking to impose a scheme;

(c) set out reporting requirements for relevant businesses and mayoral strategic authorities; and

(d) specify the investigatory powers and penalties available to mayoral strategic authorities for the enforcement of a scheme.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on, and subsequently make, regulations enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation.

New clause 74—Power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable mayors and local authorities to carry out functions relating to the display of advertising.

(2) Such regulations must—

(a) transfer or otherwise provide for the exercise of powers under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mayors and local authorities; and

(b) provide that such functions include—

(i) a duty to consider the impact of advertisements on public health, and

(ii) the regulation of content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health or likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.

(3) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under an Act passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would provide mayors and local authorities with the power to regulate advertising, and include duties on their use of that power in relation to public health and health inequalities.

New clause 76—Duty to establish a London Combined Board—

“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a London Combined Board (“the Board”).

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) specify the Membership of the Board as—

(i) the Mayor of London, and

(ii) the membership of the Executive Committee of London Councils;

(b) make provision about joint decision-making between the GLA and the Board, including in relation to—

(i) powers exercised by the GLA on behalf of any London borough;

(ii) funding devolved to the GLA;

(iii) governance of any integrated settlement for London.

(3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) existing best practice cooperation within other combined authorities in England, and

(b) existing cooperation between the GLA and London boroughs.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a London Combined Board to ensure cooperation and joint decision-making between the GLA and representatives from London borough councils.

New clause 77—Proposals for alternative models for devolution—

“(1) One or more leaders of any strategic authority may notify the Secretary of State of—

(a) any changes to the boundaries and structures of a strategic authority;

(b) any changes to the governance of strategic authorities, including the relationship between a strategic authority and any local authority within its area; and

(c) any other changes to the structure of local devolution in its area

which the leaders believe would contribute to securing the effective exercise of functions either by the strategic authority, or by any local authority within its area.

(2) Before making any notification under subsection (1), the relevant strategic authority must consult—

(a) local authorities within its area;

(b) representatives of the community within its area, including businesses, education providers, health providers, and civil society, and

(c) any other persons that the strategic authority considers expedient.

(3) The Secretary of State must respond to a notification given under this section within three months beginning on the day on which it is submitted to the Secretary of State.

(4) A strategic authority may publish a notification made under this section, and the Secretary of State may publish a response to any such published notification.”

New clause 78—Abolition of PCCs—

“(1) In any mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer all PCC functions to the mayor and abolish the PCC.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to abolish the PCC and transfer their functions to the mayor in authorities which already have a mayor.

Amendment 175, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(d) Cornwall Council.”

Amendment 176, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) Cornwall Council, notwithstanding any requirement for the authority to have a mayor.”

Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development” insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”.

This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.

Amendment 37, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.

(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—

(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”

This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 104, page 2, line 31, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 32 and insert

“a referendum has been held in which residents of the council have consented to the designation.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State designating a council as a strategic authority.

Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.

Amendment 61, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.

Amendment 165, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may not designate a council if the council’s area is within, or is, the area of a National Park unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the area of a council which the Secretary of State is designating is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy.

Amendment 161, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “not more than 7”.

This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.

Amendment 162, page 11, line 29, leave out “not more than 7”.

See explanatory statement for 161.

Amendment 77, in clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”

This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.

Amendment 79, page 23, line 6, at end insert—

“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy].”

This amendment is consequential on NC24.

Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) one or more of the following—

(i) health and social care;

(ii) planning;

(iii) environmental concerns;

(iv) funding;

(v) sustainability measures;

(vi) education;

(vii) transport provision and

(viii) green and community spaces.”

This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.

Amendment 27, in clause 40, page 41, line 11 , at end insert—

“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.

(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—

(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and

(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—

(a) form of engagement used;

(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and

(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).

(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”

This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.

Amendment 75, in clause 43, page 44, line 21, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).

(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.

Government amendment 116.

Amendment 92, in clause 43, page 44, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 93 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.

Amendment 72, page 44, line 36 , at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 87, page 44, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.

This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

Amendment 88, page 45, line 3, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature,

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

Amendment 172, page 45, line 11, at end insert—

“107ZBA health inequalities strategy

(1) Each strategic authority must prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how it will operationalise the duty under section 107ZB.

(2) The strategy may be a standalone document or incorporated within another statutory or strategic plan of the authority.

(3) The strategy must promote health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in the strategic authority area.

(4) In preparing the strategy, an authority must have regard to relevant national and local strategies relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities.

(5) The strategy must set locally appropriate targets and policies designed to meet them, set for the end of a 10- year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published.

(6) The metrics may include, but need not be limited to metrics relating to—

(a) healthy life expectancy,

(b) infant mortality rate, and

(c) poverty (including the child poverty rate).

(7) The strategic authority must, once every five years, alongside its local growth plan, produce and make publicly available a report on progress against the strategy.”

Amendment 76, page 45, line 21, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).

(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.

Government amendment 117.

Amendment 93, page 45, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 92 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.

Amendment 73, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 89, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.

This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

Amendment 90, page 45, line 39, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature,

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

Government amendment 118.

Amendment 47, in clause 45, page 50, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) a draft of any such order is subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 48, in clause 46, page 53, line 43, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 40, in clause 49, page 55, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.

(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —

(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—

(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or

(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;

(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.

Amendment 36, page 55, line 21, at end insert—

“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,

(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and

(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.

Government new schedule 1—Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.

Government new schedule 2—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 81, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 15, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 9, page 81, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 10, page 82, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 11, page 83, line 6, leave out paragraph 8.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 12, page 83, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, leave out paragraph 16.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 169, page 85, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 54, page 85, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.

Amendment 166, page 85, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a new combined authority is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 170, page 85, line 40, at end insert—

“(1A) The order does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 105, page 86, line 28, at end insert—

“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed combined authority have consented to the area being established as a combined authority.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making an order to establish a combined authority.

Amendment 62, page 86, line 37, at end insert—

“(8A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.

Amendment 14, page 88, line 14, leave out paragraph 19.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 50, page 88, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.

Amendment 171, page 88, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if the area in the proposal includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.

Amendment 167, page 88, line 41, at end insert—

“(5A) If the proposed local government area or existing area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the local government area or existing area the Secretary of State proposes to merge is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 55, page 89, line 2, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 56, page 89, line 9, at end insert—

“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.

Amendment 51, page 89, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 12 on page 90.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.

Amendment 15, page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph 20.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Amendment 16, page 94, line 36, leave out subparagraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 16 to 21, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.

Amendment 17, page 95, line 21, leave out subparagraph (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 18, page 97, line 10, leave out paragraph 33.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 19, page 97, line 12, leave out paragraph 34.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 52, page 98, line 22, leave out paragraphs 37 and 38.

This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.

Amendment 20, page 98, line 34, leave out paragraph 38.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 164, page 99, line 27, at end insert—

“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a CCA is within, or is, the area of that National Park.

Amendment 106, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed CCA have consented to the area being established as a CCA.”

This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making regulations to establish a CCA.

Amendment 21, page 102, line 16, leave out paragraph 41.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 22, page 104, line 13, leave out paragraph 42.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 86, page 112, line 1, leave out Schedule 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.

Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 32.

This amendment removes restrictions limiting appointments by mayors to one commissioner per competence.

Government amendments 122 to 124.

Amendment 24, page 117, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”

This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.

Amendment 151, page 120, line 32, at end insert

“or,—

(c) prevent the commissioner from operating collaboratively with other commissioners across different areas of competence, recognising that the work of commissioners will often intersect and benefit from integrated working with a spatial lens to meet the needs of, and drive positive outcomes for specific places as a whole.”

This amendment broadens the scope of paragraph 4 of this Schedule to ensure that commissioners appointed by the mayor for the area of a combined authority are not only permitted to work incidentally across areas of competence but are also encouraged to do so collaboratively and with a spatial, place-based perspective.

Government amendments 125 to 134.

Amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 136, line 11, at end insert—

“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.

(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.

(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”

This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.

Government amendment 137.

Amendment 35, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, at end insert—

‘3 “(1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (4) insert—

4A “(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.

(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.

(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).

(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—

(a) the obstructing vehicle class,

(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or

(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.

(6) In this paragraph—

(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and

(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.

4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.

(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.

(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.

(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.”’

This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.

Amendment 74, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, insert—

‘3 “(1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—

“Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement

11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—

(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or

(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.”’

This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.

Government amendments 138 to 144.

Amendment 25, in schedule 12, page 174, line 24, at end insert—

“61DCB Density requirement

(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—

(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,

(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or

(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.

(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation.

(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”

This amendment would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.

Government amendments 145 and 146.

Amendment 71, page 175, line 22 at end insert—

“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—

“(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—

(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and

(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area”.’

This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.

Government amendments 147 to 149.

Amendment 26, in schedule 17, page 207, line 27, at end insert—

“7A After section 202, insert—

‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land

Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”

Amendment 69, page 210, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 13 and insert

“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.

This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.

Amendment 65, in schedule 19, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and

(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.

(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”

This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.

Amendment 80, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—

(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.

Amendment 159, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”

Amendment 173, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and

(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”

Amendment 174, page 214, line 30, at end insert—

“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”

This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.

Amendment 83, page 215, line 19, at end insert—

“107MA Funding and support relating for local growth plans

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—

(a) preparation,

(b) publication, and

(c) delivery

of local growth plans.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—

(a) strategic importance, and

(b) complexity

of any such plans.’.”

This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.

Amendment 66, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area covered by the authority, and

(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.”

“(2A) The Secretary of State must make provision to support a mayoral CCA in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”

This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.

Amendment 81, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—

(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,

(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and

(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”

This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.

Amendment 160, page 216, line 29, at end insert—

“(2A) The mayoral CCA must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”

Amendment 84, page 217, line 15, at end insert—

“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—

(a) preparation,

(b) publication, and

(c) delivery

of local growth plans.

(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—

(a) strategic importance, and

(b) complexity

of any such plans.”

This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.

Amendment 49, in schedule 21, page 224, leave out lines 6 to 12.

This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.

Government amendments 112, 135, 136 and 113.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.

This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.

We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.

Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.

Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. That is why we are going through a process in which local areas are coming up with proposals, and consulting constituent authorities and their communities. We will then make a decision based on those proposals.

It is very clear that this Bill is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but it is not one that we intend to use; it will be used only in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment, and all areas in that process are engaging. Proposals are coming forward, and we will make decisions based on those proposals.

At the heart of the reorganisation is an objective: to have local authorities that are more sustainable and that can deliver for their local people. That is the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In Committee, the Minister outlined that she wants this process to be a happy one, but may I ask her to confirm one point on the Floor of the House? If local authorities do not wish to go through local government reorganisation, this Government will force them to do so, won’t they?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The Opposition have some cheek to raise that point, because on their watch, local government was put under a huge amount of pressure. Reorganisation should have happened on their watch, but they ducked it; we are now gripping this issue and driving the change. We are not doing this for the fun of it, but because we are very clear that we need to deliver for local people. We need services that make sense and geographies that make sense—that can deliver the outcomes we want in places. We are going through a process, and all areas are engaging with that process in good faith. We will see their proposals, and my colleague in the Department will make a decision based on the criteria we have explicitly and transparently set out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make some progress on the things we will be debating today. In Committee, we amended schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill to state that combined foundation strategic authorities’ decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the local transport plan are key strategic decisions that all councils should agree to in the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Further amendments to schedule 1 will also require the consent of relevant constituent councils in matters that could result in a financial liability on that council.

Moreover, we believe that strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their areas. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those aged over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year will pass between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and that authority being able to exercise the six adult education functions. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise those functions.

Turning to local growth plans, we have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the Government agree with mayors. This reflects our original intentions as set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that their agreed priorities will be acted on, and that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.

I now turn to the more substantive amendments that the Government are making on Report to these parts of the Bill. The Bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule 4 allows non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purposes of economic development and regeneration. Our amendments remove that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use in the same way as local authorities of the general power of competence.

[Jim Shannon]

I will not be the only MP who has received correspondence from the Country Land and Business Association. That organisation is quite clear that it fears that rural regions will be left behind, and is worried about mayors taking unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that mayors will understand what uses of those powers will genuinely support rural businesses, which must not be left behind?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will be moving on to talk about community right to buy and assets of community value. We are clear that communities should be able to identify assets of community value and ensure that they are protected. We are looking to give communities greater power to take on those assets. We are clear that every community will have those assets that they value. This Bill will ensure that we give them the power and the tools to protect those assets.

I will move on to another key amendment that we are making on Report. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of our cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and the growth of our economy, yet for too long hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London. It will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.

The amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing policy for hospitality venues within London’s night-time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to “have regard to” when carrying out their licensing function. The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the Greater London Authority will become a responsible authority in the licensing process.

The amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London for borough licensing applications of strategic importance.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for outlining the new power that the Government are looking at. I had a meeting this morning with two of my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). In some areas, we are seeing licensing policies that are having a detrimental impact on local communities. Does the Minister agree that in the proposals she is outlining there is still a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard-working councillors are working with the community to determine which licensing applications come forward?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. We are clear that the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority, and such things as licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. This measure creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call things in, in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas of strategic importance. In so doing, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done—the mayor is elected—must be done with the support of the local community.

I will turn to planning and empowering our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance and to make mayoral development orders to better support growth in their area. Those powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance, our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing, so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made.

To be clear, we want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of mayoral decision making. Applications of potential strategic importance that a mayor is dealing with will often be significant developments with wider ramifications for the area, so it is crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial, such as where an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission and the planning matter has already been established. We believe that this provision, which creates options and gives flexibility to the mayor, could save up to several months, such as by avoiding an unnecessary repeated oral hearing period.

[Wendy Morton]

I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.

Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. We want pace in planning and pace in development. One of the frustrations for us on the Government Benches is that we inherited a system where the development and the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last Government. We are trying to grip that, and through these mayoral development orders, we think we can deliver pace and strategic clarity so that our mayors can designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, working alongside their constituent authorities.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister mentioned the hospitality sector earlier, and I briefly want to come back to that. Bath council and I are seeking the power for local authorities to introduce a modest visitor levy, alongside our proposed 5% cut in VAT for hospitality. Does she agree that a visitor levy on overnight stays would generate a new ringfenced revenue stream for the hospitality sector, which would be beneficial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Ruth Cadbury]

Yes, I will do. I welcome the lane rental measure, which the Government put in the White Paper and is now in the Bill. However, why do the Secretary of State and the Minister not trust other authorities? Why does it apply only to elected mayoral authorities? Would it not be fair for all authorities to be able to use lane rental, which is so important in improving roadworks?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister to wind up.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and, at times, rather lengthy contributions to the debate.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) asked if the Bill is ready—absolutely, the Bill is ready. What we are doing is exactly what he accuses us of not doing: we are listening, responding to the scrutiny we received in Committee in interventions on the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and making amendments where we think they make sense. That is the way in which we think that we should drive through legislation, but we are clear about the core premise of the Bill.

The hon. Members for Hamble Valley, for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) all played around the theme that this is a centralising Bill that is looking to impose on places. I categorically reject that. The Bill will implement the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation, which is something that the Conservatives did not do in 14 years. Let us take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by Members from across the House. This is a bottom-up, local-led process, where places have come up with proposals—[Interruption.] The proposals have come from places where there has been consultation with constituent authorities and local people. We are then judging the proposals that have been submitted against clear, transparent criteria that we have published.

Candidly, Conservative Members have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamble Valley says that he has two cheeks, but this is a serious matter. Frankly, we are not doing this reorganisation for fun, but because the Conservatives failed to grip the situation for 14 years. They under-invested in local government and stripped out capacity, so we now need to do the job of reforming local government so that it is fit for purpose and can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, I will make a little more progress.

We are clear that this work has to be done with consultation and engagement, and that is what we are doing. To the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on a proposed referendum, let me say that we think that is disproportionate. The approach we are taking to consultation and engagement is the right one.

On the point about a referendum, let me turn to new clause 2, on a referendum on mayoral precepts at the same time. We are really clear that the democratic lock sits at the heart of this matter. Mayors who are democratically elected by their people are no more immune to the impacts of raising taxes than we are as national politicians, so the democratic process will ensure that mayors are balancing the need to raise a precept and invest in their community against the need to protect their people from tax rises.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that devolution works best when it is predicated on strong local partnerships. The strongest mayoral combined authorities are the ones in which the constituent authorities work in lockstep with the mayor; that is the model we have seen in Greater Manchester. We are very clear that partnership must sit at the heart of this matter, and that is the approach we are looking to support and enable through this Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

This honestly feels like groundhog day. Once again, the Minister has come here and said that this Bill is doing local government reform and devolution from the ground up. Will she therefore answer my question once again? She has heard many Members tonight say that local authorities do not want to reorganise. If they do not want to go ahead with it, will this Government force them to do it? The answer is yes, isn’t it?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clear thing for authorities across the country is that they recognise the status quo is not working. Conservative Members are criticising, yet they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable, because we had 14 years in which the Conservatives stripped local authorities of investment and denuded their capacity, so local authorities across the piece recognise that reform is necessary. I come back to the fact that we are reforming for a purpose; we are reforming to deliver stronger services at the appropriate level so that local authorities can deliver the outcomes that their people want.

Let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Guildford raised. We recognise that if devolution is going to be successful, our mayors and strategic authorities absolutely need the resources to do it well. That is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where new responsibilities are placed on devolved authorities.

Critically, where we are devolving power—for example, to our priority areas—we are providing capacity funding. The principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors and the Opposition parties care that we get devolution right and that it is delivering for people across the piece.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

The hon. Member for Guildford pushed back on commissioners, and I disagree with her amendments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very hard job that we and their voters ask them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by and accountable to mayors, and they will be subject to scrutiny. They are there to bolster the capacity and expertise of the mayor. All we are doing through the Bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team with the right skills and expertise in order to deliver the priorities for local people.

Let me turn to the strong advocacy by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for the tourism levy. Our mayors are advocating strongly for this measure. They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.

Let me pick up on the issue of CIL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and other Members spoke very powerfully about. We recognise that there is an issue here, one that needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution; we will move quickly to do so, and we will set it out in due course. A number of Members also raised the question of the GLA powers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place, and the Bill does not change the current framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune]

Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.

Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.

Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.

Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.

I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.

Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and other hon. Friends for championing the issue. We are clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. That is why climate and environment are included in the competences that will sit with strategic authorities under the Bill. We already have mayoral strategic authorities that are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. We are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are in the vanguard and are pushing, and I imagine they will continue to build on this area as they accumulate powers and more levers over this area.

We support the intention behind the poverty and equality duty, as I said in Committee. We think it is a thread that runs through the Bill. Any mayor and any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and reducing inequality, and the functions within the Bill are the enablers of that.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will not give way, because I think Members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home. I will finish with Cornwall and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). He has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. We recognise Cornwall’s minority status and we will continue to safeguard that. We cannot accept the amendment, because it cuts across the powers that we want to put with mayors. I reassure him and other Members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity in the area.

[Andrew George]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will conclude. We are clear, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, that this Bill is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, our local authorities and our communities. The driver behind the Bill is the principle that if we push power out and locate it in local people, we can drive the change that people want.

I end by saying this: the Bill is a floor, not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started, putting power, agency and resources in the hands of local leaders and communities, because that is how we drive local change that can drive national change. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments to this Bill to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 43 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

Licensing functions of the Mayor of London

“Schedule (licensing functions of the Mayor of London) amends the Licensing Act 2003 to confer licensing functions on the Mayor of London.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This inserts new Schedule NS2 into the Bill conferring licensing functions on the Mayor of London.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils

“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).

(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Supporting High Streets

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert

“recognises the need to rejuvenate high streets following 14 years of decline under the previous Administration; welcomes the Government’s action to restore Pride in Place backed by £5 billion to support 339 locations to empower communities to drive meaningful change in their local area, including high streets; supports local communities being given new powers to tackle vacancies, and prevent new betting and vape shops in their areas, including the ability to auction off persistently empty premises through High Street Rental Auctions; further welcomes the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that will ban upwards-only rent reviews in commercial leases, helping to create fairer rental conditions; endorses the Government’s support for property owners; also welcomes that from April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rates multipliers; welcomes the Plan for Small Businesses which supports high street small businesses as the backbone of local economies and which commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%; and further recognises that the Employment Rights Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many small businesses already offer their workers to all.”

I will start with where I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Our town and city centres are part of our identity and our sense of belonging. When they do not meet expectations—when shops are shut and footfall is down—that can dent pride in place, hold back the economy and leave our communities divided. Put simply, they are part of the nation’s barometer of whether we—all of us in this House—are doing a good job. That also means that, when our high streets prosper, the country can too. Retail and hospitality form the engine of our economy. Every pound spent on our high streets supports jobs, renewal and living standards.

But, after 14 years of decimating our high streets, I think the Conservatives have some cheek in raising this debate and pretending they have solutions. The shift to online and out-of-town retail left too many high streets with increased vacancy rates, and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing about it. Austerity and cuts to local government robbed our public realm of investment, and they did absolutely nothing about it. The harshest pain of all was felt because of the cost of living pressures resulting from Liz Truss—remember her?—and her catastrophic mini-Budget, which Conservative Members supported every step of the way.

Where the Conservatives oversaw neglect and decline—for which they should hang their heads in shame—this Labour Government believe that the best days of the nation’s high streets are ahead of us. But to reach them, we need the full force of Government to make that a reality. Only by raising household incomes and putting more money in people’s pockets can we boost the demand that our high streets need.

To the Conservative party, who pretend that there is a quick fix, I say this: you crashed the economy; do not forget that. You put jobs and livelihoods at risk; do not forget that. You oversaw 14 years of decline for our high streets and our district centres; this Labour Government are dealing with the mess that you left behind. So, quite frankly, we will take no lectures from the Conservatives.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister regret the fact that unemployment has gone up every single month since Labour came to power, whereas, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800 more people a day—4 million in total—came into work? Surely she must recognise those facts, away from her—albeit rather brilliant and fiery—rhetoric.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Any economist will tell us that there is always a lag. What we are now seeing are the consequences of the last party’s failures. We are fixing the mess; we are fixing the foundations in order to repair, and I will give examples of that.

Growth is our priority for the nation’s high streets, but we also recognise that, historically, the effects of that have not been equally felt. That is why we are giving communities greater control over their areas, so that they can drive the change that they want to see. In September, the Communities Secretary and I set out the Government’s Pride in Place programme and strategy. We will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support across the 244 places that need it the most—places that were neglected by the Conservatives. It will be up to new neighbourhood boards to decide how that is spent over the next decade, but each area will be encouraged to use the funding to build thriving public places.

[Catherine Fookes]

Does the Minister agree that the £1.5 million that my constituency of Monmouthshire will get for our five high streets will make a huge impact and help deliver the change that we so vitally need in our high streets?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Through our Pride in Place impact fund, we are providing a cash injection to 95 places across the country. That will be spent by local authorities specifically to drive and improve high streets. That is a direct, tangible action that this Labour Government are taking against those 14 years of decline.

[Mark Pritchard]

I know that, as a London MP, the Minister spends a lot of time reading the Shropshire Star, so I am sure she will be aware of its recent report that, year on year, there has been a 15.5% increase in businesses in severe distress; across the west midlands, year on year, the figure is 11.9%. Does the Minister not finally get that raising taxes does not grow the economy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We absolutely understand the pressure that businesses are under, but that pressure did not happen overnight; it is the consequence of 14 years in which we have not seen productivity growth and 14 years in which the economy has not grown. We understand the economic reality and we are taking action to respond to it, but, candidly, it is pretty disingenuous for the Conservatives to pretend that the foundations that they left for the economy were not absolutely corrosive and decimated. That is the inheritance that we are building on.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her intervention time. In Harlow, we have a lot of sole traders—workmen and workwomen who are self-employed. One issue that they face is the long waits to actually get seen by the NHS, which has a huge impact on their businesses. Is it not right that we need to invest in the NHS, and that we should welcome the record investment that this Government have put into it?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that there is a fundamental link between public services that work and can support people across the economy and how well the economy does. This Labour Government have made the decision that it is right for us to invest in our public services, and right for us to invest in our NHS, because it is good for people, but also good for the economy. We do not resile from that decision.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I strongly empathise with the Minister’s articulate fury at the previous Government and the damage they did to our village and town centres. But will she acknowledge the fact that Cumbria Tourism, which represents the employers of 60,000 people in Cumbria, reports that the national insurance rise has seen 37% of those businesses cutting staff, 34% freezing pay and 33% halting recruitment? Is that not likely to reduce the tax take—as well as damaging businesses generally—and reduce our ability to support the public services that she says she is so passionate about?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We understand that businesses across all sectors are under pressure. We are working with the tourism sector, because it is absolutely vital to the growth of the wider economy, and with all sectors. This requires a whole set of interventions, whether that is what we are talking about today, in terms of our high streets, the action we are taking to support training and skills for the workforce, or the investment we are putting into the economy.

We recognise the pressure, but I come back to the fact that that pressure did not come overnight. If you decimate and under-invest in the economy for 14 years, you end up where we are now. The choice for this Labour Government is that we can now do the job of renewal. It takes time, and we recognise that, but that is a journey that we are determined to go alongside business on.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In a polycentric city such as Stoke-on-Trent, we have six town centres, as well as many other areas of trade. One big thing that affected us under the last Conservative Government—we also had a Conservative council in Stoke-on-Trent—was the closure of five of the six town-centre police stations, which made those town centres feel unsafe, and the complete hollowing out of our bus network, which meant that many people could not get to the town centres to spend their hard-earned money in the shops. Could the Minister set out what this Government are doing to reverse those terrible trends under the last Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out all the failures and mistakes that we are now having to fix. We are very conscious of that. That is why, through our Pride in Place strategy, for example, we introduced an action plan that was fundamentally about how we build strong communities, create thriving places and allow our communities to take control. As part of that, we are taking new steps to support high streets and town centres. That includes rolling out high street rental auctions, banning unfair upward-only rent review clauses in England and Wales, supporting property owners to establish business improvement districts, reforming the compulsory purchase process and land compensation rules to allow local authorities to shape their high streets, and opening a new co-operative development unit within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help our communities take greater control and ownership of their high streets. The problems in our high streets so often stem from the “we know best” attitude that we saw from the last Government over 14 years, so the answer must be to hand power to communities.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I emphasise the importance of the pride in place programme for places such as Ramsgate, where the vacancy rate in the high street has been an appalling 24%. We were left with the legacy of 14 years of Tory Government, and only because of the social and community energy in Ramsgate have we been able to turn that around, with the support of the pride in place programme.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. We feel that we are giving places the tools and levers that they need to turn around the legacy of the last Government.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is making great pace through her speech, but I want to bring her back to one point. She has made the case for all the peripheral things that the Government have done to try to help high streets, and for various other things. Does she not understand—I would like her opinion on this—that raising national insurance on small businesses, and reducing the time in which they have to pay, has damaged their ability to take people on and is really costing them, to the point that many have closed? Does she not agree that that single decision has done more damage to our high streets than anything that she talks about repairing?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

What has damaged the high street is 14 years of neglect. The Conservatives pretend that it was thriving for 14 years and that we did not see shops closing down, boarded-up shops and the decimation of our public realm. We will take no advice from them, because they had 14 years to respond, but they categorically failed.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it will be infuriating to many of my constituents to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) describe what the Labour Government are doing as “peripheral”? That presumably includes the growth mission fund, which is making a multimillion-pound investment in my high street in Kirkcaldy. The high street was left in a state of decline after 14 years of Conservative government.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that what we are doing is not peripheral—I was so incensed by that that I forgot to mention it. It is fundamental that we respond to the challenges in our high streets.

The key point that I want people to take away is that we are acting, whether it is through the pride in place strategy and programme or through the action that we are taking on business rates. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned business rates. From April 2026, eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 will benefit from permanently lower business rate multipliers. That will, critically, level the playing field between online retailers and high streets.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady talks a lot about footfall on high streets, and I think we all agree that more footfall benefits businesses. With that in mind, what consideration has she given to regenerating our towns and city centres by building on brownfield sites and setting proper housing targets in our city centres, rather than on the peripheries of cities?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are densifying. I return, however, to the 14 years for which the Conservatives failed on housing. Do they remember removing housing targets completely? Their carping on at us for making progress on our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes is for the birds. We are clear that we need thriving high streets, and that requires mixed use and a range of things in our strategy.

[Helena Dollimore]

The Minister is talking about the Conservative party’s record of damaging our high streets. As I mentioned earlier, in Hastings, £150,000 of levelling-up money was given to a Conservative donor, who ran off with it and left a boarded-up shop in our town centre. I did not hear from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whether the Conservative party will refuse to take any donations from Ms Chernukhin after she ran off with that money.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I hope that when the shadow Minister stands up, he will respond to that question and say whether the Conservative party will return the money.

In the end, we need investment in our communities. That is what we are providing, whether it is by reducing business rates or through the work of my Department for Business and Trade colleagues to deliver the backing your business plan, a long-term strategy for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the everyday economy. As part of that, family-run businesses on the high street will benefit from new tools to unlock access to finance, action to crack down on late payments—we know that is a massive issue for SMEs—and easier access to the business growth service.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

Hon. Members have mentioned retail crime. We have scrapped effective immunity for low-value shoplifting, and we are taking action to protect retail workers from assault. Alongside the Employment Rights Bill, which we are proud of, that will make retail a more desirable career choice, improve retention and make recruitment clearer. We are very clear that employment rights are good for workers, but also for businesses and for the economy.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The amendment contains a bit of an oxymoron, because it says that the Government’s plan for small businesses

“commits to cut the administrative burden of regulation for businesses by 25%”,

but it then goes on to mention the Employment Rights Bill. Will the 25% cut in regulation take place before or after the Employment Rights Bill becomes law, and where will that cut come from? In all the measures that the Minister has talked about, we have not heard about that one.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is incredibly telling that the hon. Member thinks that regulation consists of things such as protecting our workers, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts and ensuring that workers have sick pay. This is a fundamental part of the social contract. We are trying to ensure that when the economy does well, the everyday person does well, and that requires them to have basic rights and protections. We are very clear about and proud of that. Quite frankly, it is tragic that the Conservatives, who governed for 14 years in which workers were hugely exploited and the economy crashed, cannot see that.

Finally, before I make progress, I will reflect on energy bills. We understand that businesses are under pressure from energy bills. That is why we are driving forward our clean power mission, because we are clear that the shift to renewables will drive down bills. Alongside that, we are giving SMEs access to the Energy Ombudsman for the first time, strengthening their ability to renegotiate contracts through blend and extend, and helping businesses to reduce their use in order to reduce energy costs.

[Dave Doogan]

Does the Minister understand the immediacy of the pressure on small businesses? She may have the best of intentions, and I am sure that prices will unwind in five or 10 years, eventually resulting in lower energy bills for commercial enterprise across the United Kingdom. That will not happen this week, however, or even this year or next, and many of them will not survive. What is her message to them about this perpetual “jam tomorrow” culture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Amanda Martin]

There has been a lot of talk about hospitality, with people mentioning it as a great source of first jobs. Under the last Government, however, 7,000 pubs were closed—last orders were called on those pubs. Does the Minister agree that our plans for thriving high streets mean that Labour is the only party looking to ensure that more pints are poured for our hard-working people?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right—7,000 pubs.

Statistic after statistic speaks to the Conservatives’ failure, so rather than being smug and providing fake solutions, they should be far more humble about the state in which they have left our communities. It is now on this Labour Government to fix the mess they left behind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We have some concerns, which are reflected in the amendments I have tabled. As we just heard, countries approach this issue in different ways. Broadly speaking, it sounds like one of the reasons why Ireland did not see an impact on the market was that what was implemented was the end of upward-only rent reviews almost in name only; there were still many other mechanisms that achieved the same outcome, even if that specific one ceased to exist.

Our concern is that we risk creating a number of complex structures for rental agreements that in practice have the same consequence, but without the benefit of upward-only rent reviews, which is that landlords’ certainty about their position in turn encourages investment in our high streets, the availability of the units we want to see, and those units not being turned into residences or repurposed for things other than business. The loss of upward-only rent reviews as part of the toolkit of available options undermines the confidence to invest in our high streets, and in turn undermines the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that they remain vibrant and successful. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I am sure we will come on to in due course. The Minister may have something to say about that, but that is the Opposition’s clear position.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South for his thoughtful contribution. He is well versed, and has both reached out to business in his constituency and advocated his case persuasively.

We are very mindful of unintended consequences. We are also very mindful of designing this system in a way that strikes the balance between the investment that we absolutely want to unlock on our high streets and in our local communities, and the protections that we want to provide for tenants and to ensure that our high streets continue to thrive. I will take away my hon. Friend’s thoughts and challenges, and reflect on them as we go into the details of how we design this system in the best possible way.

I know that we will go into Opposition amendments in greater detail. However, the key point I want to emphasise at the start of this debate is that this is not a new debate and this issue is not a new one. We have known that we need to do something about this issue for well over a decade now. Huge amounts of work have gone into considering how we reform the system and there have been huge amounts of consultation over the years. So, we are very clear that something must be done, because the status quo is not fair and is not working for tenants, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises on our high streets.

We need to respond and to reform, but we will make sure that we do so in a way that strikes the right balance between the protections that we must provide for tenants and the investment that we obviously want to see in our commercial premises.

Amendment 375 agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 31

BUSINESS TENANCIES: PROHIBITED TERMS RELATING TO RENT

Amendments made: 376, in schedule 31, page 322, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 323 and insert—

“Part 1

Key terms

“Business tenancy”

1 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy” at a particular time if, at that time, Part 2 of this Act—

(a) applies to the tenancy, or

(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.

(2) For that purpose, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the tenancy because—

(i) none of the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, or

(ii) property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,

(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the “permitted business use terms”) which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and

(c) if the tenant were to occupy the premises in accordance with the permitted business use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), terms of the tenancy which—

(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for some purposes, but

(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying the premises for other purposes,

are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) must be construed as one with section 23(1).

“Business tenancy with a rent review”

2 (1) A tenancy is a “business tenancy with a rent review” at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) it is a business tenancy, and

(b) it is subject to rent review terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not).

(2) In this Schedule “rent review terms” means terms under which an amount of rent payable under the tenancy will or may change during the terms of the tenancy (“rent under review”).

Part 2

Triggering and operation of rent reviews

Application of this Part

3 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time, it is a business tenancy with a rent review.

(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—

(a) the tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms,

after this Schedule comes into force, and

(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.

Tenant to have power to trigger a rent review

4 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to be initiated (a “trigger action”), and

(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the trigger action.

(2) The tenant may initiate the particular rent review by giving the landlord notice in writing.

(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) may not be given after the time when trigger action may be taken.

Tenant to have power to take action to enable rent review to operate effectively

5 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) an action is necessary for a particular rent review to operate effectively (an “operational action”), and

(b) the rent review terms, or any other terms (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not), do not allow the tenant to take the operational action.

(2) The tenant may take the operational action.

(3) If the tenant takes the operational action, the tenant must give the landlord notice in writing of the action within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the action was taken.

Part 3

Rent review terms that are of no effect

Application of this Part

5A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) it is a business tenancy with a rent review, and

(b) the rent review terms—

(i) do not specify new passing rent, and

(ii) include elements 1 and 2.

(2) But this Part applies to such a tenancy only if—

(a) the tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

after this Schedule comes into force, and

(b) the grant or variation is not made under a contract entered into before this Schedule comes into force.

Rent review terms that “do not specify new passing rent”

5B Rent review terms “do not specify new passing rent” if they are such that an amount of rent under review that will be payable at a time during the term of the tenancy (the “new passing rent”)—

(a) is not known, and

(b) cannot be determined,

at the time when the tenancy is granted or varied so that it includes the terms.

Elements 1 and 2

5C (1) This paragraph sets out elements 1 and 2.”

This would provide for various definitions; for application of provisions to tenancies that are varied; and for the provision about the triggering and operation of rent reviews to apply to any business tenancy with a rent review (regardless of the particular terms of the rent review).

Amendment 377, in schedule 31, page 323, line 38, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 378, in schedule 31, page 324, line 3, leave out “relevant”.

Amendment 379, in schedule 31, page 324, line 13, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 380, in schedule 31, page 324, line 19, leave out “relevant”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 381, in schedule 31, page 324, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 325.

This is consequential on Amendment 376, by which the new paragraphs 4 and 5 would replace the existing paragraphs 8 and 9.

Amendment 382, in schedule 31, page 325, line 19, at end insert—

“Part 4

Sub-tenancy required to include rent review terms that would be of no effect

Application of this Part

7A (1) This Part of this Schedule applies to a tenancy (the “superior tenancy”) at a particular time if, at that time—

(a) the superior tenancy is a business tenancy,

(b) the superior tenancy requires or permits the grant of a sub-tenancy (the “authorised sub-tenancy”),

(c) the authorised sub-tenancy would, at the time of its grant, be a business tenancy with a rent review, and

(d) either—

(i) the superior tenancy requires the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, and that requirement can only be complied with by the inclusion of rent review terms which (on one or more particular rent reviews) would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3), or

(ii) the superior tenancy permits the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms, but rent review terms can only be within that permission if (on one or more particular rent reviews) they would produce, or would be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).

(2) But this Part applies to the superior tenancy only—

(a) if the superior tenancy was—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

before this Schedule comes into force, or

(b) if the superior tenancy is—

(i) granted, or

(ii) varied so that it includes rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent and include elements 1 and 2,

after this Schedule comes into force and the grant or variation is made under a contract entered into before then.

Modification of terms of superior tenancy

7B (1) The superior tenancy has effect after this Schedule comes into force as if it requires, or as the case may be permits, the authorised sub-tenancy to include rent review terms of any kind which (on each particular rent review) would not produce, and would not be capable of producing, the result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3).

(2) The actual rent review terms that are to be included in a particular authorised sub-tenancy are to be—

(a) agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under that sub-tenancy, or

(b) determined in such other manner as they may agree.

(3) Accordingly, the landlord under the superior tenancy may not require the inclusion of particular rent review terms in the authorised sub-tenancy (unless that is what is agreed by the persons who are to be the landlord and tenant under the sub-tenancy).

(4) This paragraph does not prevent a superior tenancy from being varied or modified by the parties to it (and accordingly sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to any such variation or modification).

Interpretation

7C (1) The following provision applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.

(2) The superior tenancy permits the grant of a sub-tenancy, or the inclusion of particular rent review terms in a sub-tenancy, if granting the sub-tenancy, or including those terms, would not breach the terms of the superior tenancy.

(3) References to the superior tenancy, and references to the terms of the superior tenancy, include references to—

(a) the terms of any agreement relating to the superior tenancy, and

(b) any document or communication from a party to the superior tenancy which gives or refuses consent for the grant of a category or description of sub-tenancy.

(4) “Superior tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 7A(1).

(5) “Sub-tenancy” means a tenancy that is inferior to the superior tenancy (whether or not it is immediately inferior to that tenancy).

(6) The “result that is prohibited by paragraph 6(3)” means the result that the new passing rent is larger than the reference amount.

Part 5

General provision”

This would apply to pre-commencement tenancies that require any sub-tenancy to include terms that would be of no effect by virtue of paragraph 6(3) (as they could result in the new passing rent being larger than the reference amount). It would enable a sub-tenancy to be granted without including such terms.

Amendment 383, in schedule 31, page 325, line 24, leave out “new passing”.

This is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 384, in schedule 31, page 325, line 27, leave out “, in relation to a tenancy” and insert—

““business tenancy” has the meaning given in paragraph 1;

“business tenancy with a rent review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2.

(2) In this Schedule, in relation to a business tenancy with a rent review—

“elements 1 and 2” means element 1 and element 2 set out in paragraph 5C;”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 385, in schedule 31, page 325, line 33, leave out “4(2)(b)” and insert “5B”.

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

Amendment 386, in schedule 31, page 325, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 326 and insert—

““rent review terms” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2);

“rent under review” has the meaning given in paragraph 2(2).

(3) A reference in this Schedule to rent review terms that do not specify new passing rent has the meaning given in paragraph 5B.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This is consequential on Amendment 376.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 387, in schedule 31, page 326, line 4, leave out “Put options:” and insert—

“Arrangements for renewal of tenancies:”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 388, 390, 389, and 392 to 404.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This group of amendments expands the scope of schedule 7B so that arrangements such as options and rights of first refusal are also within the scope of the ban. Arrangements of this type may allow the tenant to enter into a new lease on pre-specified terms, which could include upwards-only rent review provisions. Permitting such arrangements could therefore be used to avoid the ban’s effect. As a result, we cannot permit new leases such as those to be excluded from scope, as this would likely encourage gaming of the system and prevent businesses from being protected in the way that the Bill intends.

Government amendment 389 makes a minor change to clarify that the application of schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances, therefore allowing for arrangements to move in and out of scope. By doing so, this amendment ensures that different types of arrangements, such as options and rights of first refusal, are caught by the ban if they meet the stated criteria at the relevant point. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I want to make the same point again, but I will not go back and repeat it. We remain very concerned about the loss of freedom of contract that this represents. Clearly, this is consistent with the Government’s direction of travel. The Minister refers to protecting businesses, some businesses will benefit from this and others will lose out, including property investors who are critical to the success of our high streets and commercial sectors. They are facing rapidly rising business rates and increases in national insurance, all of which are hammering our commercial sector and resulting in a very large number of job losses. We see this as part of that picture. We encourage the Minister to think again, reflect and perhaps change direction on this matter.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My summing up will be very short. There is clearly a problem. That problem has been around for decades. Upwards-only rent reviews are an outlier internationally, and it is putting huge pressure on our high street. I absolutely recognise that we have to strike a balance between the investment that we want to see in our local economies and commercial property sector, but we also need to protect tenants. It cannot make sense to have a system whereby rents can only go up, irrespective of what is happening in the market, and cannot go down if the market goes down. That is an illogical system and one that is putting huge pressures on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones. There is a reason why all other advanced countries do not apply this system. Those countries all function well and have vibrant property markets. Critically, there are specifics around individual places and the reforms that they have been through, but the lesson across the piece—whether in Ireland or Australia—is that reforms are possible, and in the end we can still have both a vibrant sector and a property market that is far more rational from the perspective of tenants. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Amendment 387 agreed to.

Amendments made: 388, in schedule 31, page 326, leave out line 5 and insert “Application of this Schedule”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 390, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “to an arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 389, in schedule 31, page 326, line 6, leave out “if” and insert—

“at a particular time if, at that time,”.

This would make clear that the application of Schedule 7B to an arrangement can vary over time depending on the circumstances.

Amendment 391, in schedule 31, page 326, line 9, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

“2 (1) Condition A is met if Part 2 of this Act—

(a) applies to the tenancy, or

(b) has the potential to apply to the tenancy.

(2) In the following paragraphs of this Schedule—

(a) the tenancy to which Part 2 applies, or has the potential to apply, is referred to as the ‘existing tenancy’;

(b) the premises let under the existing tenancy are referred to as the ‘relevant premises’.

(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part 2 has the potential to apply to the existing tenancy if—

(a) Part 2 cannot apply to the existing tenancy because—

(i) none of the relevant premises are occupied by the tenant, or

(ii) the relevant premises are or include premises which are occupied by the tenant, but none of those premises are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant or for those and other purposes,

(b) the terms of the tenancy include terms (the ‘permitted use terms’) which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes of a business carried on by the tenant (whether the terms permit occupation for the purposes of business generally, a specific business or a specific kind of business) or for those and other purposes, and

(c) if the tenant were to occupy relevant premises in accordance with the permitted use terms (and taking into account all other circumstances), Part 2 of this Act would apply to the tenancy.

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), terms of the existing tenancy which—

(a) would prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for some purposes, but

(b) would not prohibit the tenant from occupying relevant premises for other purposes,

are to be regarded as terms which would permit the tenant to occupy relevant premises for the purposes which are not prohibited.

(5) Sub-paragraph (3) must be construed as one with section 23(1).”

This would replicate the new paragraph 1 of new Schedule 7A that is contained in Amendment 376.

Amendment 392, in schedule 31, page 326, line 17, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 393, in schedule 31, page 326, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 25 and insert—

“a tenancy renewal arrangement.

(2) In this Schedule—

‘new tenancy’ means a new tenancy of the whole or a part of the relevant premises;

‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ means an arrangement under which the tenant under the existing tenancy—

(a) can require the landlord or another person to grant a new tenancy, or

(b) can be required by the landlord or another person to take a new tenancy.”

This expands the scope of new Schedule 7B to cover any arrangement under which the grant of a new tenancy can be required, whether it is the landlord or tenant that can impose the requirement.

Amendment 394, in schedule 31, page 326, line 26, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 395, in schedule 31, page 326, line 27, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 396, in schedule 31, page 326, line 31, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.

This would ensure the defined term “new tenancy” is used.

Amendment 397, in schedule 31, page 327, line 1, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 398, in schedule 31, page 327, line 3, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 399, in schedule 31, page 327, line 6, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 400, in schedule 31, page 327, line 14, leave out “lease” and insert “tenancy”.

This would ensure the defined term “existing tenancy” is used.

Amendment 401, in schedule 31, page 328, line 22, leave out “put option” and insert “tenancy renewal arrangement”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 402, in schedule 31, page 328, line 35, leave out “(2)” and insert “(2)”.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 403, in schedule 31, page 328, leave out line 36.

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Amendment 404, in schedule 31, page 329, line 2, at end insert—

“‘tenancy renewal arrangement’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(2);”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This is consequential on Amendment 393.

Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

A real safety net should be put into the Bill. I do not think that we can pass the Bill without adding scrutiny and accountability provisions. The new clause is a very friendly way of ensuring that Ministers look again at scrutiny. I would hate the Bill to leave Committee without an assurance from the Minister that that will be looked at again and that something will be put into the Bill to match the increase in powers with an increase in scrutiny in the future.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I acknowledge the intent behind new clauses 3 and 15. We all agree that transparency, accountability and greater scrutiny are needed, and that there is room for improvement in our system.

On the specifics of new clause 3, all local authorities must publish annual accounts along with an annual governance statement. The local government transparency code 2015 requires local authorities and combined authorities to publish regularly on their websites information about spending and assets, including, as a minimum, all spending over £500, which must be published quarterly, and all land and building assets held.

All mayoral strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework. That sets out how mayors will be held to account by central Government, at local level, and by the public. As part of the local assurance framework, mayoral strategic authorities must describe their arrangements for enabling effective and meaningful engagement with local partners and the public. My argument is that we have the legislative framework, and that this is now a question of practice.

Everyone wants information about public spending and Government accounts to be as accessible as possible. It is as much a problem for central Government as it is for local government and lots of bodies and institutions. I would argue it is a question of practice and of improving the way we do things. Through digital technology and the ability to use different methods, we can make this information far more accessible. I do not think we need further legislation. We need to improve our practice and innovate and modernise so the public can better hold all of us to account. That is an endeavour across all levels of government and all public institutions, so the new clauses duplicate existing arrangements and do not really get to the heart of the issue that we all recognise we need to resolve.

I absolutely agree with the intent behind new clause 15. We have stated on the record that we understand the need to strengthen the accountability and the scrutiny mechanism for strategic authorities. We said this in the English devolution White Paper, my colleague said it in the House, and we are committed to that. I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them.

The challenge I have with the new clause from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is that the independent panel she is recommending would mean we have to wait over a year after Royal Assent to respond to this critical issue, because we would not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the panel. In some respects, the very thing that the hon. Lady is trying to force us to do may well end up slowing our ability to do.

[Siân Berry]

Is the Minister honestly saying that if there was a call from Parliament to review scrutiny within one year of Royal Assent, she would not be telling us that was too soon? The reason one year is written into the new clause is that is a very reasonable deadline.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We acknowledge this is an area we want to strengthen. As I said in the last debate, we are working to make sure that we are taking in view the scrutiny models that we apply, including local public accounts committees and the models proposed by think-tanks and other organisations, in the context of the big reforms to the local audit and assurance framework we are driving through. I ask the Committee to give us time to do the work properly, so that we design something that is fit for purpose and aligned with the big reforms we are driving through. There is no resiling from the belief that we need to strengthen the arrangements. I put that on record and am happy to give those reassurances. Let us get on with the work of figuring out how we do that in the best possible way, by engaging with strategic authorities and critical stakeholders, rather than put in the Bill a requirement that may, in fact, slow the pace at which we are able to develop proposals. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw her new clause.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Funding for Local Authority governance reorganisation

“The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.”—(Vikki Slade.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We absolutely recognise the funding pressures that local government is under, and we have been clear and transparent about them. They are a function, obviously, of the legacy that we inherited and that we are working incredibly hard to rectify. The long-established new burdens doctrine sets out that all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed by the relevant Department. That includes the overall cost to local government, including any one-off implementation or transition costs.

Suffice to say, but to reassure the hon. Member, my Department is working in the usual way to assess the cost to local government of any mandated changes to local governance models. We will go through the standard process to take a judgment on that. The principle that local authorities should be adequately compensated if there are new requirements or burdens on them runs through what we will do. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Member will withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I will try to deal with the two main issues raised by the new clauses, in reverse order.

We all recognise that last year’s Budget was a disaster for local government. The rise in national insurance alone was a £1.5 billion net cut, but the loss of funding to support neighbourhood plans, although small in the grand scheme of things, was one of the most challenging elements. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is at that neighbourhood level—in the locality—that the buy-in of our constituents for new homes is often first secured.

The inability to support that work any longer is particularly challenging for very small local authorities. Although they do not employ many people, so they were not as hit by the national insurance rise as the big local authorities that do social care, the town and parish councils that support those neighbourhood plans—and the district councils that support such work in the local areas—have been particularly hit by the loss of funding. Ensuring that funding is there to deliver the vision that we set out when we were in government for neighbourhood planning is really important.

New clause 5 is about the ability to deliver local elections. The Government are in a bit of a mess on this issue: the messaging on devolution is that there is no point in having elections to councils that are about to be abolished, which I think we would all agree with, but the legislation simply defers the elections for one year. That is what the laws that we have passed actually do, so as far as the law stands, all the councils set to be abolished are due to have elections on their current footprint next year unless the Government return with further legislation to cancel elections under different provisions or to defer them again. The risk highlighted by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole remains a live one.

Multiple Ministers and two different Secretaries of State have assured us at the Dispatch Box that there will be elections, but without giving any specific commitments. In many places, in the normal cycle of events, there will be district elections. If the new mayoral authorities come into being, there may be mayoral elections. If there are not, under the current legislation, those existing counties will go to the polls next year. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a clear assurance that the existing provisions that guarantee an additional separate grant to fund elections to take place will continue to apply, as has been established practice for a long time.

Will the Minister also tell us—or at least give us a steer—whether the Government intend to introduce further legislation to defer elections again, so they will not take place as scheduled next May in councils that are set to be abolished, or do the Government have a different intention? That may well affect how we vote on these new clauses; we oppose the deferral, delay or cancellation of elections, but we need to know the Government’s intentions so that we understand what we are voting for or against.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address the question directly, and then I will turn to new clause 5, on the cost of local elections, and new clause 43, on support for neighbourhood planning.

We like elections, and we think it is absolutely right that voters have the opportunity to exercise their democratic mandate. We have therefore proceeded with elections. It is important to clarify that we opted to delay them where there were specific requests from the local authorities involved, because they were going through the process not only of local government reorganisation but of creating mayoral strategic authorities. The concern was that the capacity, resource and transitional arrangements would be jeopardised by early elections. All reasonable Members will understand that it is right that the Government listen to constituent authorities that are going through what we all acknowledge is a difficult reform and transition process, and that we get that balance right.

Our principle will always remain that we want elections to go ahead, because it is critical that voters have the chance to exercise their democratic rights. We are balancing that with being fair minded, rational and reasonable. When constituent authorities, including authorities of both parties, tell us that there is a genuine transitional and delivery risk that we need to take into account, we are sensible and reasonable, and take that into account. That is the balance that we will continue to hold to.

[David Simmonds]

On a point of clarification, when the process of reorganisation was embarked on, local authorities were told quite clearly, in accordance with long-established practice, “If you are due to have elections but we are going to abolish your council as a result of this process, we will not hold elections to that council again, because it is not going to exist.” However, the legislation introduced to Parliament simply delayed the elections for 12 months. All those authorities, including Surrey, which was today announced as the pathfinder, are, as a matter of law, expecting to have elections next May, but on the undertaking of Government they are not expecting to have any further elections to the existing authority again. Are the elections to the county councils that are about to be abolished going to proceed next year, or are the Government going to introduce legislation to delay them again?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I think I have been very clear. The legislation is very clear, and Members of the House were all involved in agreeing it. We are proceeding with elections. The principle that has guided what we have done is that the preference is always to have elections, but if there is a reasonable, justified case that there is a risk to delivering our reforms, or that the risk to the transitional arrangements is a genuine, material consideration for those authorities, it is right, rational and sensible for the Government to listen to them.

The legislation is that legislation that we have. We are proceeding with elections, and certainly the Labour party is gearing up to speak to its voters and ensure they come out—no doubt parties across the piece are doing that. That is the mode in which most of local government is operating, and certainly we on the Government Benches are.

The cost of local elections is met locally. Again, I refer Members to the new burdens doctrine, which requires that any new responsibilities are assessed. That is how we will approach elections, which are locally funded. Broadly, we are not hearing about issues with constituent authorities that are undergoing this process at the moment, but we will continue to review the new burdens doctrine to ensure that critical elections are held with no detriment to the voters in those particular areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

What does the Minister say to parishes such as my own, Hertford Heath, that do not have any more funding to support the delivery of their neighbourhood plan? They are all run by volunteers, they do not have very many houses to collect a precept from and they do not have very many staff. What does she say about that environment? They are trying to be proactive with a plan and choose where they want development, so that they are not at the mercy of developers who want to build all over the green fields. What does she say to parishes that are working really hard to do the right thing by the Government and by their local community, without any funding to go with that?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Both the last Government and this Government have invested huge amounts in building the infrastructure. In the end, Governments have to make a judgment about where we put our funding and finances. We know that is difficult for particular communities, but we think there is sufficient infrastructure and sufficient people with expertise in neighbourhood planning. We will continue to work with them on how they innovate to provide a service for particular parishes.

The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is forcing me to labour the point that, because of the absolute mess that the Conservatives left us with after years of austerity, we are having to make tough judgments about what we can fund and invest in. It is not where we want to be, but that is the reality we have to confront. We had to make choices in the spending review; we are investing more in affordable housing, and in supporting our communities with homelessness. We think that those choices were right, and ultimately we had to make a judgment about prioritisation. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that it can innovate and continue supporting neighbourhoods.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point, as she referred to me?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have finished, and I have sat down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, I do not; we should keep the current system in place. I believe that, even though we are essentially going from three to two tiers, we are not actually going to one tier in this country, because mayors are being created as well. There is a direct link between the mayor and the local people, and there is a direct link between these new councils and local people. Again, I do not think the answer to simplifying the electoral system and making representation easier is to create more councillors from different parties in a ward. That is expensive and lacks democratic legitimacy, and I think the current system is perfectly acceptable. We are always going to be on the losing side on this one. Smaller parties often want to change the system to ensure that their parties have more victories and more legitimacy in democratic chambers. The Conservative party has a long and proud history of opposing proportional representation.

I remind the Liberal Democrats that they have tried and tested a change in the electoral system, and when they went to the country seeking it, they lost. Therefore, people have been asked whether they want to change the voting system in a national election. I think that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole would find that if there were referendums—we know that the Government are against referendums in the Bill—many people across this country would choose not to change the voting system in local government too. The current local government electoral system works, and it suits its purpose. People know who their councillors are; they are linked to them and know that they often represent an area that they deeply care for and are passionate about—even Liberal Democrat ones in Eastleigh. We oppose the new clause, and will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I will not withdraw the new clause. I wish to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I welcome that intervention. During covid, a lovely, very elderly Conservative lady on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council decided to take her laptop into the toilet with her. I think we all have such stories to tell. There are huge merits in online training and training in person.

We talked previously about audit training. There is compulsory training for our quasi-legal systems, including licensing and planning, but what about scrutiny, audit and even, “How on earth does a council work? How do I behave? What is the code of conduct?” Training on all those things is not currently required. It is not unreasonable to ask that when somebody takes on a responsibility—particularly when they receive an allowance so to do—they understand what is required of them. There should be a minimum training standard, across the board, but that is currently absent. Training is very variable from place to place.

My simple request is for the Government to agree to the new clause and produce guidance that allows local authorities to look at the relevant content.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will be brief because the Committee has discussed this question before. We absolutely recognise the importance of training, which is why the Government currently fund the sector support programme, which is delivered by the Local Government Association and open to strategic authorities and local authorities. That will continue and we will build on it.

It should be for strategic authorities and local authorities, as independent bodies that we are trying to empower, to decide the form of training for elected members. The Government will do our part to work alongside them and to give the LGA what is required, but we do not think that a one-size-fits-all requirement on strategic authorities to provide training is proportionate. The best way to do that is to build the infrastructure to enable and support training in an effective and sustainable way. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

[Vikki Slade]

It is not a requirement of all local authorities to be a member of the Local Government Association. I speak as a vice-president and former board member of the Local Government Association. The new clause does not dictate what the training should be; it dictates that there should be a requirement for training. On that basis, I would like to push it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

It is tempting to make reference to all sorts of detailed points of local government finance that we could bring up in a debate about allotments. However, I purely want to make a point about where this issue sits, which I think other Members have touched upon. The Opposition are big fans of allotments, just as everybody else is, but the local plan is the mechanism by which that should be delivered. We all know—particularly those of us, like myself, who have lots of allotments in our constituencies—that there are often waiting lists for some of the more desirable sites and also huge numbers of vacancies on others.

When allotments on their current scale were introduced in the 1950s, food was one of the biggest costs that households faced. Today, the UK has some of the cheapest food in the world, relative to household budgets. The UK and the US spend the lowest proportion of household expenditure on food in the developed world. Indeed, the proportions have reversed since the 1950s, and housing costs are now the highest factor.

One of the Opposition’s concerns about the purposes of this Bill, and about where the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was going, is that the focus on units and achieving targets will mean losing green spaces, particularly gardens and spaces outside people’s homes. When we pass this legislation, it is through the local plan that we will be able to ensure that we are not using allotments to plug a massive gap that has arisen because of those housing targets, but are instead building the types of homes that people want to live in, particularly those that include outside space. That is why, although we agree with the sentiment behind the new clause, we are not minded to support it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We understand the intention behind this provision on allotments, and we are big fans of allotments and nature-rich spaces. However, I would point out that a duty to provide allotments already exists and sits with local authorities, which is the appropriate level. In addition, the provision of nature-rich spaces is already being tackled through multiple Government initiatives, whether that is the access to nature programme or the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which places a duty on all public authorities operating in England to consider, from time to time, what action they can take to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

We recognise the need for green spaces and allotments for communities. We think that there is already sufficient provision in legislation, so the new clause is unnecessary. Actually, putting the duty at the strategic authority level is not appropriate; it should be at the local authority level. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.

[Siân Berry]

I take those points constructively, as they were intended. I hope that this issue can be looked at during future stages in a cross-party manner, so that we can put something together. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets

“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—

(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;

(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;

(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and

(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.

(2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).

(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).

(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is my pleasure to make the case for new clause 16, which would introduce a climate and nature duty into the Bill. I have been working with a tremendous group of campaigners who, like me, cannot see why the duties are not currently in the Bill. Those campaigners include the Climate Emergency Group, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition and Friends of the Earth. As I have previously argued, the Bill lacks strong safeguards to ensure that the new authorities embed climate action and nature recovery, and action on deadly air pollution in their work. There is a growth duty, but not yet any equivalent duty for climate mitigation, adaptation or nature recovery.

Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out the different targets that ought to be passed down from national Government to strategic authorities. Subsection (2) would compel local authorities and strategic authorities not to make decisions incompatible with the duties—in other words, not to make things worse. Subsection (3) is a really important part of the new clause and would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance describing the fair contribution that each area must make toward meeting the national targets. That is what we currently lack. There is nothing in the Bill that helps to achieve the national targets through the actions of the strategic authorities that we are creating, and that is an important gap. I am not idly making this point; reaching our national targets requires a contribution from the authorities with these important powers, areas of competence and actions. Leaving out how we will share out the contribution to the national target—leaving it out altogether—just does not wash.

The evidence from the allies I have been working with, and from monitoring of what goes on at council level, shows that every council scoring 20% or below in the climate action scorecards that get produced is in England or Northern Ireland. That is because we have had the duties passed down by the Governments in Wales and Scotland. It is our duty to ensure that this Bill fills the gap.

Precedents exist not only in Scotland and Wales, as I have mentioned, but in London, because this is done effectively under sections 42 to 44 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007. Each of them systematically passes on a duty for the GLA—the Mayor and Assembly combined—to act to address climate change. This has led to more action in London. It has meant that the Mayor has produced results. The legislation mandates the creation of a climate change mitigation and energy strategy. The strategy, the law says, will contain proposals for the contribution to be made in Greater London towards the mitigation of climate change. These are not hard clauses to write. These are not hard things to pass down, and yet these things are missing from the Bill. That is why we have put together new clause 16, which should be adopted. It could be adopted today, and I intend to divide the Committee on this issue.

We have had discussions about these issues before. We talked about clause 2 and the different ways in which air pollution might be included in the legislation governing the new strategic authorities, and the Minister responded in a similar way each time. For example, this was a typical response:

“The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy.” ––[Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2025; c. 327.]

It is no good giving these assurances—setting up a baker in a back room behind a curtain—for climate, pollution and nature action, when for so much else, the targets, accountability and duties, is clearly stated in the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an issue of fairness. Talking to each local area about what contribution each of them will make cannot be done behind closed doors. It requires a transparent process, which the new clause provides for.

The measure has massive and wide support not only from the kinds of campaigners that I associate with on a daily basis, but from more than 100 hundred businesses, which have twice signed open letters in support of such a duty. For them, it would provide the certainty needed to unlock support and drive green investment. The Local Government Association has made it clear that councils require further statutory duties, powers and resources to lead on climate action, while 150 councils responded to a climate consultation, with the vast majority in favour of these duties in England. The District Councils’ Network in its general election prospectus, London Councils, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and 88% of UK100 members all called for a climate statutory duty.

The Minister also said this in Committee:

“National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us.” ––[Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2025; c. 327.]

Those words need to be reflected in the Bill, and the new clause would do that very effectively. We have the opportunity right now to embed climate, clean air and nature duties for all local authorities and strategic authorities, and to make sure that they hit the ground running for our national environment targets. That would mean no delay for them to take action on clean power, warm homes, clean air and making space for nature. We know very well that there is willingness on the part of local authorities to act, so why would the Labour Government not use the Bill to codify that, and help, inspire and support them in further action?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member, who has consistently talked about the challenge of tackling climate change and the important role that local government has to play in that. We absolutely recognise the imperative of climate change and nature recovery, and the vital role that all levels of government, including our strategic and local authorities, can and must play in that endeavour.

Local authorities already have a statutory duty to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local authorities—for example, the Mayor of London—we have seen huge improvements. That is testimony to the fact that, when all tiers of government work together, we can tackle these big structural issues. My key point is that the existing tools and duties already support the things that the hon. Member is trying to achieve through her new clause. For example, we have talked before in the Committee about the local nature recovery strategies, the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and the Environment Act 2021. All of that requires public authorities to consider, take account and take action to conserve and enhance nature and biodiversity.

On the point about climate adaptation, I recognise that there is both an urgency and an imperative for us to take action, and Local authorities are at the vanguard of wanting to push this already. The Government are working with a number of local authorities that have come forward with climate risk assessments, and that is something we hope and expect to see at authorities across the country. In October we launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts to enable local authorities to do their assessments and think about adaptation strategies. We also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.

That is all to say that this Government recognise the importance of this issue, and we are taking action. Acting and working in collaboration with all tiers of government to respond to the climate change and the nature recovery challenges is the way we do that. Further duties at this stage would not add to that; what we need is action and collaboration, and that is what this Government are cracking on with.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The need for this new clause has become greater as the Committee’s consideration of the Bill has continued. The original legislation and amendments from the Government have set out that new mayors will have precepting powers that will apply to non-mayoral functions. That gives rise to a suspicion, particularly in the context of the Government’s frankly dire financial situation, that such powers will be used as a means of levying, through a mayoral precept, additional resources that will be funnelled not into the priorities of local government but—the Government having set out that they see these new authorities as the local delivery agents of central Government—into the priorities of Government.

It is a long-established principle—it has been implemented for a good, long time now—that there should be some degree of constraint, and that consent should be required before a local authority seeks to proceed with a council tax rise above a certain level: 5% is the current figure. It seems to us a reasonable principle that the new mayoral authorities should be subject to the same constraint to ensure that the tax rises, which would of course be inflationary, notwithstanding the impact they would have on household budgets, would be subject to a similar process of democratic consent, rather than being something that a mayor can simply proceed with without needing to go down that route. That is the objective of the new clause, and it will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say about it.

Our key concern is that these new authorities do not become a means of addressing shortfalls in other areas of Government spending or simply backfilling some of those costs. The Minister likes to talk about a financial mess, and it is noteworthy that the Government have borrowed over £80 billion in this financial year alone already. We heard the Chancellor talking about a £22 billion black hole, which she alleged existed after 14 years of Conservative Government. I use the term “alleged” advisedly, because the Office for Budget Responsibility, which did the calculations, swiftly came back and said that it did not stand by the figure used by the Chancellor. That is £22 billion after 14 years versus £80 billion since the start of this financial year alone.

It is clear that the country’s finances are facing an exceptionally challenging time and have deteriorated exceptionally fast. Local government, in particular, has a £1.5 billion black hole that has been created purely by last year’s Budget, as a result of the national insurance rise, notwithstanding any previous challenges that may have existed. There will naturally be a temptation to see an unlimited, uncapped and unrestricted mayoral levy as a means of tapping taxpayers’ pockets further. We need to make sure that that is constrained in a proper democratic manner.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[David Simmonds]

Given the significance of this issue, we will push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have spent a good deal of time debating the importance of housing and the delivery of housing targets. If we reflect on the construction industry news that came out yesterday, it is clear that there has been an absolute collapse in confidence in house building. Here in London, around 4% of the mayor’s housing target is being delivered, despite his having been allocated billions of pounds for that purpose.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

[David Simmonds]

I think the Minister will probably be aware that the net additional new homes target that we set ourselves in the last Parliament was 1 million new homes. While we were, frustratingly, slightly below that target, we none the less delivered, in round terms, 1 million net additional new homes in this country. The collapse, as the Minister well knows, has taken place since the change of Government. That is an unfortunate reality. We know that the Budget in prospect later in the year is a significant issue of a conspicuous lack of confidence and a desperate need to get construction activity going again.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is desperation in action, and we can see that happening, as can the whole world. We would like to see the Government succeed—we would like to see the country succeed in developing the new homes that it needs. However, it has been a continuous theme in our contributions to debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we must ensure that the 1.5 million homes that already have planning permission in England get built, rather than focusing on tearing up the green belt and on more permissions that also do not get built.

We know that in our capital city there are more than 300,000 new homes that already have planning permission, but on which work has not started. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, just as we have sought to in the past in respect of private sector developers where there is a failure, that where a local authority or a mayor is in charge of a development, they are required to build it out in good time. That is so that we do not see a repeat of the situation where well-intentioned changes to the planning system simply result in more unbuilt permissions, while people who need homes do not have access to them, because that is not what is being delivered.

The focus of the new clause is to ensure that the system does what it is intended to and actually builds the homes, as opposed to churning out more planning permissions. Given the Government’s desperate need to move somewhere in the direction of achieving their 1.5 million target, I am sure the Minister will welcome the new clause and ensure that the Government support it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I understand the intent behind the new clause, and the Government are absolutely committed to building the homes that people across the country need. But I cannot let it pass without setting the record straight: housing delivery plummeted because of action taken by the previous Government, including the scrapping of housing targets across the country, the under-investment in social and affordable housing and, dare I mention, Liz Truss—remember her?—who saw mortgage rates skyrocket. Those are the factors that have driven down housing stock, and we, again, are having to fix the mess left by the previous Government. I will take no lectures from them on house building, given their record.

We are determined to deliver the 1.5 million homes that we know the country needs, and we will work with strategic authorities and local authorities to do that. There are already provisions that will enable mayors to accelerate housing development and drive economic growth, and we are providing further tools through the Bill, whether that is the strategic planning powers, the ability to raise the community infrastructure levy, the extension of the ability to form mayoral development corporations to all mayors outside London or, importantly, the land assembly powers given to strategic authorities to unlock development. We are very clear-sighted about what needs to be done, and we are already equipping and empowering mayors to do that.

We already have examples of where this is working, such as the Olympic legacy in Stratford and the huge progress delivered in London through that. There are provisions in the Bill. Our challenge is that we have to fix the mess that we inherited, but we are absolutely determined to do that, and we will do it in partnership with mayors.

[David Simmonds]

Many interpretations can be placed on the facts, but it is very clear if we look at the numbers that Government borrowing costs are now significantly higher even than under Liz Truss. It has been a pretty disastrous period for Government finances. If we are to see the measures to which the Minister has just referred succeed, there must be some imperative around building. We cannot simply see a tranche of mayors granting permissions, assembling sites and failing to deliver in the way that Mayor Khan has in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The intent of the new clause is very much in line with the recommendations that Mr Speaker has recently made in respect of Members of Parliament. There has been a degree of concern about the intimidation and victimisation of politicians and the impact that has had on wider public debate. It has been a long-standing principle that a person needs to declare their eligibility to stand in a particular place, and in a local authority there are specific requirements connected to the local area that person is seeking to serve.

However, it has been a widespread view for some time that there needs to be a degree of confidentiality so that members who are concerned that they will be victimised are able not to have that data, that information, placed in the public domain. Once they have satisfied the local authority’s returning officer that they meet the requirements—with evidence, as is currently the case—their home address does not need to be placed in the public domain, creating risk.

We think the precedent that Mr Speaker set out in respect to Members of Parliament is absolutely right. The intent of the new clause is to achieve the same for our locally elected brethren. I am sure that to achieve that objective, the Government will be pleased to support the new clause.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

In light of the reassurance that we will be legislating on this important issue, which we agree on, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a poorly worded new clause that lays an additional burden on the Secretary of State—I am a fan on a personal level—as well as on the local authorities that are already going to have to establish something at a very early stage. I do not think it is going to deliver the increased engagement, I do not think it is measurable, and ultimately I do not think the new clause will lead to a better outcome, which is a better level of trust between a constituent and the mayoral combined authorities. That is why I do not support it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We all agree that we need stronger community engagement, and a big strand of what we are trying to do through the Bill is to ensure that our communities across the country have greater powers and voice. A new commission is not the answer. The answer is in the doing—us doing the job of enabling all levels of Government, including our national Government, to engage the public and our communities better.

There is a role for the LGA, supported with funding, in building local authorities’ capability to do community engagement effectively. We have discussed the neighbourhood governance structure that we are trying to build, and creating an effective locus for communities to exercise their voice and power, and to be interlocutors with local government. We are building the network for neighbourhoods, which will bring together communities and partners to share best practice, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is suggesting, and strengthen the capability of communities to exercise their voice and power.

Critically, we are already putting this into practice through pride in place. We are putting investment into communities, organising community leaders on to neighbourhood boards to make decisions about the things that matter. While I appreciate the need for greater community engagement, I think that rather than set up a long-winded commission, we should crack on with the doing. That is what the Government are committed to.

[Siân Berry]

A standing commission that offers regular advice to all the groups that are trying to innovate would be a boon to them, not a burden as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said. I believe that reporting back from “time to time” is completely normal language in Bills that set up an independent agency or organisation and we want to receive reports back; it definitely does not mean anything in particular.

I remind the Minister that there are risks if we do not do something to ensure that we stand by the important rights that people expect to be upheld. It is not just full of opportunity and excitement, as my previous speech implied; there is genuinely a risk that the new bodies—these unfamiliar, geographically drawn strategic authorities—will rejected by the public if the Government do not get this right. Trust is a crucial metric that we cannot measure ourselves—it just happens or not in other people. We need people to genuinely trust the new bodies. We cannot tell someone to trust them—they do or they do not. The Government must ensure that they are doing that right.

I do not want the reforms to fall flat any more than Ministers do. I think this provision is an important thing that could be done to ensure that they succeed better than they otherwise would. However, I am not going to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I have been working on the new clause with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. The new clause would require strategic authorities to prepare community wealth-building action plans and makes provision for partnerships with anchor organisations such as hospitals, colleges and employers, to support them. That would create the opportunity for organisations to come together to build collective action on things such as procurement, employment and the better use of owned assets in the local area. It would also grant mayors a right to request levies on private equity in local public services to limit extraction. The new clause is tailor-made for Labour Members, whose party outside government has long championed community wealth building.

In brief, community wealth building is the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. It puts people before private equity profits, and champions the kind of economic development activity that is overlooked by industrial strategies, focusing instead on the everyday economy, where most people—our carers, our cleaners, our builders—work. Community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of everyone, everywhere. Scotland has a Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill passing through its Parliament. England must not be left behind.

We have all heard about Preston’s remarkable success in this field. Analysis of Preston’s programme in The Lancet Public Health found fewer mental health problems than expected during the community wealth building programme compared with similar areas, as life satisfaction and economic measures improved. The analysis found that the approach can provide an effective model for economic regeneration, potentially leading to substantial health benefits. Community wealth building is also part of the economic strategy of my city of Brighton and Hove, with a consensus to work on it over successive administrations.

To further the case, I will quote comments on the London borough of Islington’s programme made in November 2024 by its director of inclusive economy. She said:

“As I say very clearly to our team, this is not about levelling the playing field. This is about tilting the table. In an economy like Islington, we have to focus our limited resources on those who are least served by this economy…It’s about sustainability, it’s about justice, and that idea of creating prosperity for everyone. The core focus is on being locally rooted—trying to make sure that the money we spend and the efforts we make are all rooted within Islington and our wider regional economy”,

and that such programmes

“make sure that the big businesses who are in our local economies are able to engage with a local supply chain and local employment practices so that we can create that virtuous circle at a local level.”

The Islington programme director also commented on how equality is helped, saying in the interview,

“Similarly, lots of investment money typically goes to male-owned businesses. We’ve set up a series of programmes aimed at supporting underrepresented entrepreneurs.”

They reduce rents in their affordable workplaces if the operators support local people’s employment and local businesses and work on the supply chain. She also gives the example of dedicated incubation programmes

“to make sure that we ‘tilt the table’ in the favour of people who are least served by this economy.”

She says that, in short,

“It is about trying to make prosperity local”.

Who in this room could disagree with that?

I hope that the new clause is taken in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and receives a positive response from the Minister.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am not entirely convinced that these measures are as baked in as she said. All these issues are vulnerable to election cycles. Something more specific along these lines, potentially within the requirements of the local economic plans, would help to ensure that people consistently see this approach taken across the country. The Minister talked about Labour mayors, but is she convinced? I am not sure that other mayors will take this on board, despite the proven benefits. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Local government data

“(1) LURA 2023 is amended in as follows.

(2) In Section 84, in subsection (2)(b), after “planning and development” insert “including in relation to economic conditions, transport, tourism and nature”.

(3) In Section 91 (Interpretation)—

(a) after “(g) Part 8 of GLAA 1999,” insert “(ga) Parts 2 and 3 of the Transport Act 2000”;

(b) after “(k) this Part or Part 4 or 6 of this Act” insert “ the Environment Act 2021, Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, Part 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026”.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause extends data standardisation powers contained in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to encompass Local Growth Plans, Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Local Transport Plans. Currently, proposals in these other plans may not constitute “development”, so would be outside the scope of existing powers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 34 is about something that I do not think Ministers have yet considered, but it would be of real benefit to the efficiency and transparency of these new authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created a number of new powers to standardise planning data, including local plans, planning software and the ways in which we can get information about planning applications and policies. The new clause would make sure that other activities of the strategic authorities were, from the start, set up to provide a similar level of data. We are talking about spatial data, spending data, data for inward investments, and data for the jobs created in association with different parts of economic plans. It would be marvellous to put that level of digitalisation of public data into the Bill, for the same Department mandated the planning data reforms that are being taken up extremely well.

We must do something about this either now or at the next stage of the Bill. We have seen provisions in the Bill—I have tabled other amendments on this—say things like, “Mayors must publish in such a manner as the mayor thinks appropriate.” That kind of wording is a recipe for PDFs inaccessible to organisations such as Natural England seeking to scrutinise or interact with these different strategic authorities around the country. Ministers themselves may want to know some data about what is going on in these local authorities, as well as the public at large—civil society. If we do not make things standardised, we will end up having to go through multiple inaccessible PDFs. Sometimes, those are Excel documents that have been turned into PDFs, and yet the Excel documents are not released. It would be tremendous for standardised, accessible data in API formats—searchable, integratable and comparable—to be produced as a matter of course through the Bill.

The measure would also help to support the goals of the Aarhus convention, which is all about transparency and being able to find out information. It would also be a gift to people who want to create things like accessible apps, websites and maps for pamphlets about the services in a local area. Those are the kinds of benefits that the Government talked about at the time of introducing the requirements on planning. They need to look again at whether they want things published in multiple different ways that become hard to integrate later, or whether they want things to be organised a little better from the start. The new clause is tabled in a constructive way. I hope that Ministers will ask their teams to explore the idea and talk to the people working on planning. It would be of huge benefit not to have to unpick a mess of data for these new authorities later on.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Siân Berry]

I implore the Minister to go away and look at this again. The courts have confirmed that transport schemes, such as the cycleway running along the Embankment, do not count as development. Therefore, the wider applicability that I think the Minister was asserting may not be in place without some kind of amendment to make sure that things such as the local economic plans, local growth plans, nature recovery strategies and local transport plans are fully covered by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It may need some changes that I think the Minister is unaware of at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

I think that there is scope within the Bill to find a path forward that would be acceptable to the people of Cornwall and would adhere to the Government’s devolution plan, particularly around a single strategic authority. I implore the Minister to keep working with Cornish MPs to find a solution that allows the Cornish people access to the highest level of devolution, but without a requirement to join a mayoral combined authority. On that basis, I will not support the new clause.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The new clause conflates two issues, and I will try to unpack them. On the one hand, there is the question of recognition of national minority status, which is particularly pertinent in the case of Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth has been a steadfast, impassioned and persistent champion and advocate for it.

My departmental colleagues and I have put it on the record that we absolutely recognise the unique status of Cornwall. We are looking for ways both to enhance the protections that are already there and, critically, to support the Cornish local authority in responding to the challenges that it faces and unlock the potential of the area. That is all on the record. We will continue to work, not just with members of the Committee but with MPs across Cornwall and the local authority, to take that forward. However, that is distinct from the ambition to create a regional tier of government. I remind colleagues that that was roundly rejected in a referendum. I know it was a couple of decades ago, but the question was tested.

There is a fundamental question here: if we are trying to drive the economic prosperity of places, where is it best to locate that? One model proposes that the best place is large regional blocs, while another model says that functional geographies around city and county regions are better placed to drive that. The large regional blocs model was tested with the regional development agencies, and we found that the connection to the local economy was weaker. Critically, the democratic link to people in those places was weaker. That is why the model did not endure, and why, unfortunately, the Conservatives undid all the good work that we did when we were last in power. Our strong view is that strategic, functional geography—city and county regions—is the best place to make decisions around transport, housing and planning, skills and travel-to-work areas. That is why we are conferring powers at that level.

If we seek to create another regional tier that is not about the collaboration that we are seeing, for example, with Northern Powerhouse Rail or our authorities in the midlands to deal with issues, predominantly to do with rail, that cut across functional areas, I worry that we will denude the very institutions that we are trying to strengthen, confuse the system, create more complexity and bureaucracy, and undermine the one thing we all want to achieve: stronger, functional economic geographies that can drive prosperity in places.

There are two issues here. I understand what the hon. Lady’s new clause is trying to do, but it is fundamentally wrong. We have tested that model, and we believe that functional geographies at the strategic authority level are where we can make progress. I point her to the evidence of the past decade, in which we have had mayors in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region driving growth and prosperity. That is the right geography. We need to build the power there. We should not confuse the matter. I ask the her to withdraw the new clause.

[Vikki Slade]

No, I am not going to withdraw the new clause. If the Minister reads it, she will see that I am not conflating the issues at all. I simply gave Cornwall as an example of where it might work. The new clause does not mention the word “Cornwall”. It allows for

“a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body”,

so it does not undermine the role of the strategic authority.

Let me give the Minister another example. Whether Cornwall is or is not included is up to the people of Cornwall, but Wessex, we presume, will come forward in the next wave of devolution deals. Wessex may be a functional geography in terms of our connectivity, but the south-west of England is the place that most of us identify with far more.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Lady talks about regional assemblies in the context of Cornwall. Can she explain the purpose of the local authority and the elected council in the model that she is proposing?

[Vikki Slade]

I refer the Minister to the fact that I gave Cornwall as an example of a place where people may want to set up a regional governance body. The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), initially in reference to Yorkshire, which has a number of mayoral authorities that want to work together. The people of Yorkshire feel that they have an identity as Yorkshire, and they want a regional assembly.

If the Minister would like me to withdraw my comment about the fact that that may work for Cornwall, she should feel free to ask, but I know for a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) believes that the new clause would benefit him in Cornwall, so I will not withdraw it. It is important to give people the opportunity to have something that they feel works for them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am sorry to tempt the Committee with the prospect of a nice pint in the Strangers Bar, but I will not speak to this new clause for very long. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). We have spent the afternoon talking about unique circumstances elsewhere in the country, but there are unique circumstances on the Isle of Wight, because of the nature of its geography.

Before I say any more on that, Dame Siobhain, may I, as one of the shadow Ministers, thank you and the other Chairs for your chairing, because this is probably the last time that I will speak in this Bill Committee? I also thank the Minister and the Government Whip, who has been so courteous during our negotiations through the usual channels; hopefully, she will do us some more favours going forward.

Even though we are not in government, I also thank the officials, because I have seen the churn of officials coming in and going out of the Committee Room in the last couple of weeks. Without them, politics would not be able to function, so I thank them for their work on the Bill. We mostly disagree with the Bill, but they are doing a great job for all of us.

The Isle of Wight is geographically unique, because it is only really accessible by boat, including ferries. Over the last 20 years or so, the two main ferry companies for the Isle of Wight, Red Funnel and Wightlink, have been passed between and traded by private equity groups. Just last week, Red Funnel changed hands in what was believed to be a distressed sale, with banks being owed tens of millions of pounds.

The people of the Isle of Wight absolutely rely on access to the mainland, and the island relies on mainland access to it, in order to supply it and to ensure that the people of that great place are well and are looked after. Under the pricing model of the last 20 years, however, peak car return fares have skyrocketed to as much as £400 a car, just for crossing a five-mile stretch of water. Timetables have diminished, so what was once a 30-minute service is now hourly or worse, and under-investment by Red Funnel’s owners means that its car ferry fleet is so old that it entered service before the maritime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), was born. Breakdowns are increasingly frequent, with some parts now so obsolete that boats are having to be withdrawn from service.

The Isle of Wight ferry service is a lifeline. There is no other way for the island’s 140,000 residents to cross the five-mile stretch of water to get on and off the island, including for key activities such as work, health appointments, education, visiting sick relatives, or being visited by relatives on whom they rely.

In the last debate on new clause 44, the Minister said that she believed that transport management structures should be run on a county basis. We agree with her; the efficiencies of scale mean that the mayor of Hampshire and the Solent should be able to run transport locally. The Government have a record of policies whereby we are seeing greater Government and regional involvement in the commissioning and running of our transport services, particularly through the bus Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I would argue that ferries should not be treated differently, especially when they are the sole mode of transport that people must rely on.

When my hon. Friend met the previous maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), however, the Government showed a distinct lack of action in this regard. My hon. Friend was promised that there would be a number of meetings—there have been meetings with the previous Minister—and that a body would be convened to discuss the matter, but that simply has not happened.

My hon. Friend therefore tabled new clause 49, which would give mayors the authority to regulate ferry services. It would apply not only to the Isle of Wight but to any regional structure that has ferries acting within its geographical boundaries. The functions exercisable by the mayor would include

“making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services”.

Labour Members should look at me with encouragement—perhaps I have had a conversion to the centre-left of British politics—because the new clause would also provide for the regulation of fares and a fare cap. I think that is acceptable in a situation where a single provider is flagrantly breaching the good faith of the people of the Isle of Wight.

I know that the Minister will resist this new clause—that does not surprise me; she has a job to do, as do I—but there is clearly a problem. I live just up the road from the Isle of Wight and the prices are crazy. The people living on the island rely on those ferries—they are used to supply medical services, to supply businesses and shops, and for family situations on the Isle of Wight—so the Government must step up.

The new clause makes a reasonable suggestion to the Government to give a mayor the power to control transport services within their region. I am delighted that the Conservative candidate for mayor of Hampshire and the Solent, Donna Jones, has said that she is actively pushing the Government for those regulatory powers. We support her in that so that she can come down very hard on the ferry services that are taking advantage of people who live on the Isle of Wight.

If the Government genuinely believe in devolution and in the control of transport—we have seen over the last 14 months that they believe in mayors being able to commission and manage transport services—that should include all transport services. I commend the new clause to the Committee, and hope that the Minister will give some encouraging words to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and to me. I have not spoken to my hon. Friend about this, and I am sure he will want to move the new clause on Report, but I wish to press it to a Division in Committee.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for those encouraging words. She is absolutely correct, and I hope she does not see this intervention as unfair, but can she use her good offices to speed that group along? When the then maritime Minister visited the Isle of Wight in April, he said that a DFT working group would be created, but that has not happened—there has been no meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have been involved in that working group on a cross-party basis but it has not met yet. Could the Minister use her good offices to push for that meeting?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will write to my counterparts in the DFT. The commitment to create the group came in recognition of a problem. We are committed to working with local stakeholders and Members representing the area to respond to that, so I am happy to write to my DFT colleagues to chivvy that along.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has gone further than I was expecting her to. I think it is now up to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East to table the new clause again on Report, alongside, if necessary, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Pending conversations with my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Community ownership fund

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—

(a) voluntary and community organisation, or

(b) parish or town council,

to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.”—(Vikki Slade.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister can either support all three new clauses, or reassure us on how we can ensure that strategic authorities and all the other partners work together to ensure that our skills strategy succeeds.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The English devolution White Paper set out clearly our proposals to strengthen the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans and highlights the intention to use legislation and statutory guidance as appropriate to achieve that. As a Government, we remain completely committed to that position, and we intend to bring forward legislation to do precisely that.

We are not, however, just waiting for legislation; ahead of that, updated statutory guidance will set out how we expect strategic authorities and employer representative bodies to work together on the next round of local skills improvement plans. That will include a requirement for both parties to confirm whether they are content with the plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Where they do not agree, Skills England, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, will help to resolve any issues. In that context, and given the direction of travel, I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw new clause 56, because it is not necessary.

On new clause 57, I point the hon. Member to schedule 10 of the Bill, in which strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their area. That will include considering existing provision and provision of different types in the area; but, crucially, it also allows them to consider a broader range of factors than the new clause allows for. We know that in practice strategic authorities are already considering a wide range of local factors—including where the labour market is, and where current and future demand is—as they design, develop and drive forward their adult skills strategy.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I know they are already doing it, but making it statutory ensures that it actually happens and can be scrutinised—that is why we want to do that.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The current devolution framework creates the basis by which effective execution of the powers that authorities have on adult skills will be driven forward. The legislative provisions exist; it is now in the doing. As a Department, we will both enable that working between strategic authorities and employers on the ground that I have talked about and, critically, make sure that we provide the tools that they need to strengthen their capability to do that well. It matters to us because effective skills, and developing the pipeline and the workforce to drive the economic change we want, are critical to delivering on housing and our warm homes plan. We are vested in ensuring that our strategic authorities have the tools that they require to do that and to do it incredibly well.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

Interpretation

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 243, in clause 72, page 73, line 15, at end insert—

“‘FRSA 2004’ means the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.

This would define the abbreviation “FRSA 2004” which is used in the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 244.

Clauses 73 to 77 stand part.

Government amendment 245.

Clauses 78 and 79 stand part.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 12—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—

“(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.

(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—

(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or

(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.”

This New Clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.

New clause 20—Right to apply to purchase derelict, mismanaged or inaccessible sporting assets of community value—

“(1) A community interest group or a parish council may apply to a local authority to purchase land to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to land that is a sporting asset of community value (as defined by section 86C of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act) and meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3).

(3) The conditions are that the land—

(a) has been left derelict for a continuous period of at least 2 years;

(b) is being, or has been, mismanaged in a way that significantly impairs its sporting value or public benefit; or

(c) has been unreasonably made inaccessible to the community, where it was formerly accessible for sporting purposes.

(4) For the purposes of this section land is—

(a) derelict if it is not actively used for its primary sporting purpose, or is in a state of disrepair that renders it unfit for such use, having regard to its previous use and condition;

(b) mismanaged if its condition or use is such that it fails to realise its potential as a sporting asset, due to neglect, poor maintenance, or inappropriate development, contrary to the interests of the local community;

(c) unreasonably made inaccessible if measures have been taken to restrict public access or use for sporting purposes without a compelling public or safety justification, where such access or use was previously permitted or established.

(5) An application under subsection (1) must—

(a) be in writing,

(b) identify the land to be purchased,

(c) include evidence demonstrating that the land meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3),

(d) outline the community interest group’s or parish council’s plans for the future use of the land for sporting purposes, and

(e) be accompanied by such fee (if any) as the local authority may reasonably require.

(6) On receiving an application under subsection (1), the local authority must—

(a) notify the owner of the land of the application within 14 days, and

(b) consider the application.

(7) The local authority may not reject an application under subsection (1) if it is reasonably satisfied that—

(a) the land is a sporting asset of community value and meets one or more of the conditions specified in subsection (3),

(b) the applicant is a community interest group (as defined by section 86D(2)(b)(ii) of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act) or a parish council, and

(c) the applicant’s plans for the future use of the land are viable and will in the opinion of the local authority further the social or economic well-being or social or economic interests of the local community.

(8) If the local authority decides to approve an application, it must—

(a) notify the applicant and the owner of the land of its decision, and

(b) facilitate negotiations for the sale of the land to the applicant at a price to be agreed or, failing agreement, at market value determined by an independent valuation.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision for, or in connection with, applications under this section, including (in particular) provision about—

(a) the form and content of applications,

(b) the evidence required to demonstrate the conditions specified in subsection (3),

(c) the procedure for considering applications,

(d) appeals against decisions of local authorities, and

(e) the process for determining the purchase price and facilitating the sale.

(10) In this section, ‘local authority’ has the meaning given by section 86Z4(1) of the Localism Act 2011, as inserted by Schedule 27 to this Act.”

This new clause creates a right for local residents and organisations to apply to a local authority to purchase sporting assets of community value that are derelict, mismanaged, or unreasonably made inaccessible.

New clause 52—Assets of negative community value—

“In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—

“92A Assets of negative community value

(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—

(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,

(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or

(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.

(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.

(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—

(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;

(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;

(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;

(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;

(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;

(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph ‘community group’ has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”

This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.

New clause 59—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.

(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—

(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,

(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),

(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section86S(4)), and

(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with anyone other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).

(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

When I spoke last week on why clause 60 should stand part of the Bill, I covered the provisions in the schedule, but I will restate my position. The schedule strengthens the existing assets of community value scheme in England and will give communities real power to take ownership of cherished local assets. Together with clause 60, the schedule is vital to delivering the Bill’s community empowerment goals and protecting assets at the heart of our local communities.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley set out the view of the official Opposition during the debate last week, so I will not relitigate that in its entirety, although I am sure he will be keen for me to emphasise the sheer cross-party commitment on assets of community value.

We know about the risk to assets that are at the heart of a community, from a village pub or cricket field through to community centres and business premises. We need a means laid out in the law whereby the value they add to the local community can be retained where necessary. That was enshrined in legislation by our party when we were in government, and in general we support the direction of the current Government in taking up those principles. We will listen carefully to the debate.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I will speak to new clauses 12, 20, 52 and 59. New clause 12 stands in my name, new clause 20 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), new clause 52 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and new clause 59 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

New clause 12 would give local councils a legal duty to oversee how land listed as a community asset is managed. That means that if the owner neglects or mismanages land of community value, the council can take powers to purchase compulsorily, take ownership and restore the land to community use, or to block planning changes that would further damage or undermine the land’s community value. Such powers are essential to protect local assets from being run down deliberately to justify redevelopment. By granting councils those powers, we enable them to hold absentee or speculative owners accountable and ensure that designated community assets are properly maintained and used for community benefit. We all have in our constituencies examples of land that has been mismanaged or assets left derelict. With the new clause, councils would become a genuine safeguard for assets of community value far beyond simply listing the assets. They would have real power to hold landowners and speculative developers to account.

New clause 20 would give community groups and parish or town councils a legal right to apply to buy sports facilities such as playing fields, leisure centres, gyms or pitches that have been derelict for two or more years, managed in a way that harms their sporting value, or unreasonably made inaccessible to the public. If the council agrees that those criteria have been fulfilled, it will be able to facilitate negotiations for a sale. As we spoke about in a previous debate, the abolition of district councils means that town and parish councils will be asked to take on more assets. It is therefore important that the safeguards are in place and that the unitary councils support them.

New clause 20 would save local sports facilities that have been locked up or left to decay by private owners by empowering local communities to bring them back into use. I had an example of that in my constituency a few years ago. A sports pavilion was built as part of the conditions for a new settlement, but it was locked—it was not used. When I became the councillor for the area, I asked why it was not open, and was told that the condition was to build a sports pavilion, not to manage it. The community managed to get the sports pavilion opened, and it is now a fantastic community hub and café, but it took a lot of campaigning from the community and parish councils, lots of grant applications and so on. It is important that we give councils all the tools they need. It is not fair that local sporting heritage and public access to sports facilities are lost due to neglect, speculation or profit-driven redevelopment. The new clause would put power back into the hands of communities to reclaim their pitches, courts, clubs and sports pavilions, and to keep sport where it belongs—in public hands and for the public good.

New clause 52 would create a new category complementary to assets of community value: assets of negative community value. Those would be properties or land that encourage, for example, antisocial behaviour, cause harm or disruption to community wellbeing, or have been vacant and derelict for at least three years with no attempt at restoration. I am sure we all have such assets in our constituencies. I can think of a couple in mine. Once the assets are listed, local authorities could take steps to secure temporary management or community stewardship. That would also contribute to wider community wellbeing. The councils could invite community groups to propose new uses or use compulsory purchase orders to bring the assets back into productive community use. New clause 52 would also allow local authorities to tackle eyesore or nuisance buildings that attract crime or vandalism. It is a way to contribute to the sense of place. We could speed up regeneration by giving councils and communities tools to deal with long-term neglect.

New clause 59 would give local councils greater power to protect and manage land that has been officially recognised as being of community value, such as local parks, playing fields, pubs or community halls. If a council found that such land was being mismanaged, it would have the power to compulsorily purchase it or, again, to refuse planning changes. The new clause would strengthen community protections against speculative neglect and misuse of valued local assets. For example, it would stop landowners from deliberately running down community buildings, green spaces or sports facilities so that they can later argue for redevelopment. The new clause would make councils stewards of community assets, rather than just record keepers of a list. It would give real teeth to the community right to buy, which obviously is welcome, and to the assets of community value system, which is set out in the Bill.

Overall, our new clauses would expand community rights and local authority powers from just protecting community assets by listing them to actively reclaiming and repurposing land that has been neglected or misused. We feel that the new clauses are drafted in the spirit of the community empowerment aspect of the Bill. They aim to strengthen local control and community ownership, especially where private ownership fails the public interest.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I completely agree with the importance of protecting community assets from unscrupulous owners, but it is not clear that new clause 12 is wholly necessary or appropriate, and I am worried that it would place an unreasonable burden on local authorities by requiring them to monitor the management of all assets of community value in their area.

The substantive provision of the new clause gives local authorities the power to intervene and take on assets of community value, but those intervention powers already exist where land has been neglected or mismanaged. For example, under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local authorities can take steps to clear up land and buildings whose condition adversely affects the amenity of the area, and we are refreshing the guidance to ensure that local authorities can make full use of those existing powers. For that reason, I do not think that new clause 12 is necessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon not to press it to a vote.

Regarding new clause 20, it is really important to make it clear that the purpose of this policy is not to compel landowners to sell their property without first disclosing an intent to sell under proposed new section 86M of the Localism Act 2011. There are already well-established legal mechanisms for the acquisition of land without the consent of the landowner—I refer again to the existing compulsory purchase order powers. Local authorities can use those powers on behalf of community groups or parish councils to acquire sporting assets of community value that are derelict, mismanaged or inaccessible.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The Minister talks about existing compulsory purchase rights for local authorities, but that is very different from communities wishing to list assets of community value and then coming together to go through the process of purchasing them. If the Minister wants to say, “Well, this isn’t needed because we already have that,” why is the Bill even bothering with assets of community value or giving communities the right to buy? This provision is designed to put the power in the hands of the community. We know that most of the district councils will not exist anymore, and the strategic authorities will not be interested in a little block of garages or piece of land. That is why the new clause is about the assets being in the hands of the community.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I completely agree that the community right to buy is about putting power into communities, but the new clauses would require local authorities to enable and facilitate. My point is that, in the instances where we need a local authority to step in, support and enable, there are existing powers to do that. We want communities to have the right of first refusal, and that is why we are including this provision. We want them to be able to designate vital local assets as being of community value, and combined with existing CPO powers, our view is that this provides the right set of provisions to ensure that the system works, and that it works in the interests of communities.

[David Simmonds]

I sympathise with the Minister’s argument, but does she agree that there is a general weakness in the Bill in that the opportunity has not been taken to tidy up the legislation, particularly the role of parish councils and parish meetings in this context? The point has been well made that it is often through those vehicles that we see districts and others going through reorganisation already looking to enshrine the community value of these assets. It is a missed opportunity if we leave it hanging so that the convoluted but robust powers that the Minister outlined, which can take years to put into effect, remain the only available route, when there is an opportunity for an alternative structure to deal with that now.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I take the hon. Member’s point. I also take the point that a process of asset transfer between authorities and town and parish councils is happening. Our judgment is that the provisions we are putting in place sit well alongside that and will enable the processes to happen, but we will keep that under review, because the end goal is to ensure that communities are able to say, “This asset really matters to us, and we want it for the use of the community,” and that we enable them to do that. As we do with any legislation, we will keep this under review ,and if it is not biting in the way that we intend, we will consider how to build and strengthen the provisions. None the less, the intent is very clear.

On new clause 52, I commend and share the ambition of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon to combat antisocial behaviour and eliminate vacant and derelict properties. We all have them in our constituencies; we know how much they are hated and the blight they cast on our communities. We are absolutely committed to creating thriving places and to reversing the decline seen in many of our communities. That is why, through our £5 billion pride in place programme, we are enabling communities to play a role in driving forward. Alongside that funding, we have ensured that local authorities have access to a suite of tools to meet the challenge, which we understand and we know is real. That includes powers to auction the lease of persistently vacant high street properties via our high street rental auctions and compulsory purchase powers, which we have discussed. Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 sets out powers to clean up land and buildings that may be affecting the amenity of the area and encouraging poor behaviour. The community right to buy will play an important role in ensuring that assets are used in a way that is appropriate and adds value to the community.

Finally, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are strengthening the powers available to the police and other agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. Every police force now has a dedicated antisocial behaviour officer to work with communities to develop an action plan and give residents a say. We recognise the problem that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has highlighted through new clause 52, and we have put in place a suite of things that will fundamentally get to the heart of that problem, which we know all our communities despair of and hate. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

[Manuela Perteghella]

We will not press new clauses 12, 52 and 59 to a vote, although we may reintroduce them on Report, but we will push new clause 20 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As you know, new clauses are debated now but decided later, so you will have the chance to test the opinion of the Committee at a later stage in our consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 27, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 61

Establishment of Local Audit Office

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 237, in clause 61, page 62, line 20, at end insert—

“(8) Subsection (9) applies to any sum received by the Office by way of penalty under—

(a) paragraph 2A of Schedule 1B (penalties against external registration body), or

(b) arrangements made for the purposes of paragraph 10 of Schedule 1C (penalties against registered local audit provider),

including any interest.

(9) The Office—

(a) must pay the sum to the Secretary of State, but

(b) may deduct any costs incurred by it in connection with the imposition or enforcement of the penalty, so far as those costs are not otherwise recoverable.”

This amendment makes provision about the destination of penalties enabled by Amendments 238 and 240.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 238 to 240 and 242.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

These amendments contain provisions relating to criminal offences and enforcement among audit providers, lead partners and external registration bodies. It is vital that the local audit system has the right levers to deter and sanction improper behaviour and to establish beyond dispute the Local Audit Office as the regulatory authority for this system. This is about maintaining stability rather than effecting change. The amendments maintain the existing criminal offences relating to misleading statements and wrongful holding out, and set out oversight powers over professional accountancy bodies similar to existing powers. We will also retain the principle that a professional accountancy body, where recognised as an external registration body, will be responsible by default for enforcement. An external registration body will be required to investigate and impose a sanction for serious breaches committed by audit providers and lead partners.

The LAO will supervise any enforcement activity conducted by an external registration body. This could include setting guidelines on indicative sanctions, depending on the type of breaches, and monitoring live cases. The LAO will have the power to reclaim responsibility for any particular enforcement decision if it is considered to be in the public interest. This will ensure that the LAO is the final authority on all quality matters. An improvement-led approach will be central to the LAO’s regulatory work, and we expect that any enforcement action will be considered only as a last resort. However, it is vital that these levers exist to ensure that the local audit system is accountable and responsive, rather than broken, as was expressed very powerfully in our oral evidence session.

[David Simmonds]

Again, the Opposition are broadly sympathetic to the Government’s direction of travel, but I will put a couple of questions to the Minister. I previously raised the issue that, in respect of local audit, there are a number of accredited accounting bodies to which professionals may belong. I have not seen a response, but I know that at the time there was some discussion about the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy being the identifying body. I seek an assurance that the Government have given due consideration to what will happen where that qualified individual of an appropriate status belongs to another professional body that sets accounting standards, rather than CIPFA, not least because accounting is often as much an art as a science, and there are differences of opinion as to how different accounting provisions might be made.

Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister can give some clarity to the Committee. Government amendment 237 requires that, when a penalty is imposed, the Local Audit Office must pay the sum of that penalty to the Secretary of State. Clearly, where there has been a failing in local audit, it is the specific local authority, or the general group of local authorities, that is the victim; they are the ones who have suffered a demerit or deficit as a consequence. It seems a little illogical that the penalty would be paid to the Secretary of State rather than those who have been directly affected by that failing. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that, where those failings have had an impact, and where penalties have been gathered to make some degree of remedy, it is the victims that see the benefit, rather than it essentially sitting in a Government office.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He raised the question of CIPFA, and I committed to clarifying that in writing. I believe we have done so, but I will make sure that we come back to confirm that. On his very good point about ensuring that the penalties are not gobbled up by the central state, we are moving towards a more centralised system, whereby the LAO reports to the Secretary of State, who is then accountable to Parliament. That is the mechanism through which this will happen. However, the principle is right: if fines are imposed, they will be used to bolster the system, which we know needs huge repairs. We know that over time, as we reform the system, we will need to ensure that we are investing in it. Whatever the collection processes for these fines, it is right and fair that they ultimately go towards bolstering the system and ensuring that it is improving.

[The Chair]

The Minister has been very courteous in saying that she will make the letter available to all members of the Committee. Will it include the guidelines she mentions? Shall we discuss that offline, rather than testing her on it now?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

indicated assent.

[The Chair]

I know that the Minister mentioned guidelines that will be published, and I just wondered whether they will be available during the course of our consideration, but let us think about that at the end of today’s sitting.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment 237 agreed to.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 28.

Government new clause 9—Review of audit and reporting arrangements at Secretary of State’s request.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The local audit system is broken. There is consensus about that across the House and within this Committee. It is fragmented and has significant capacity and capability challenges. The problems in local government reporting and the backlog of unaudited accounts have led to the disclaimed opinion on the whole of Government accounts for the past two years. This provides no assurance to Parliament, and puts public accountability and trust in the system at risk.

The Government are leading the most transformative programme of audit reform in over a decade. Clause 61 will enable the Local Audit Office, a new statutory and independent body, to be established by autumn 2026. The LAO will have an oversight, regulatory and appointing role in the local audit sector. It will cover a wide range of public sector bodies responsible for delivering essential services and managing public funds, as well as oversight of aspects of the NHS audit system.

The LAO will be instrumental in overhauling the local audit system and will play a crucial role in ensuring that reforms are effectively implemented to provide better value for taxpayers and support economic growth. The LAO will be vital to rebuilding transparency, accountability and public trust in local government, and will restore a crucial part of the early warning system for local authorities.

Schedule 28 sets out the core elements of the LAO’s constitution and governance to enable this new organisation to be established. Part 1 establishes the requirements for the board, as proper constitution of the LAO is critical to establishing its authority, ensuring operational readiness and enabling it to deliver its objectives. Part 1 also covers other provisions that are integral to the successful set-up and operating function of the LAO.

Part 2 of the schedule allows the Secretary of State to put schemes in place to legally and properly transfer employees who are currently performing functions that the LAO will be responsible for after it is established.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Sir John. I am asking for a genuine point of clarification from the Minister. The Library briefing says:

“If an MP were appointed”

to one of these boards,

“they would be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons”.

Why have the Government chosen to do that? There is no motivation behind my question; this is just for clarification.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is a very niche question. I will have to write back to the hon. Member to clarify.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not expect the Minister to know the answer this morning, but if she could write to me before the end of our sittings this week, I would be grateful. The reason I ask the question is that these are local audit offices for local authorities. The Secretary of State is appointing these boards, and there is obviously political oversight of those appointments, but it would seem sensible to have the expertise of someone representing the area. If this is a devolution Bill, appointing MPs would seem to be perfectly fine, so I am not sure why the Government are disqualifying them. If she could come back to me on that point, I would be most grateful.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to write to clarify that key point.

Everything that we are doing through these new clauses and this reform package is in order to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, fair and operates so that we can build trust and accountability within public bodies at the local level. Committee members will appreciate the importance of providing certainty to the people who have worked to maintain the local audit over the years, which is why we are putting in place these two provisions.

New clause 9 will provide the Secretary of State with a new power to require the LAO to conduct a review of local bodies’ financial reporting and audit arrangements. The LAO will have the power, through contract management and quality oversight, to monitor timeliness in the sector, and will have levers to hold firm account where audits are late. Those statutory reviews will address the accountability gap by providing a way to understand whether individual local bodies have adequately supported the audit process. We believe that those reviews are vital to restoring public accountability, providing assurance at each stage of the audit process and rebuilding our early warning system. They are an integral part of a much bigger reform that we think is both necessary and long overdue. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister set out the role of the section 151 officer in relation to the Local Audit Office? Primary accountability around local government finance is in the council tax fixing process. By law, it has to be balanced in-year. The audit process sits behind that, verifying that the information presented, on which that decision has been lawfully made, is true and accurate. The section 151 officer holds that legal duty in each local authority. Can she set out how the accountability that she has described, which revolves around the role of that individual, will be dealt with by the law, particularly given the role that the Secretary of State is taking on in the appointments process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are trying to ensure that there is a coherent system operating across all of local government. That is the core role that the LAO will play. The system is fragmented at the moment. There are multiple bodies, whether that is the NAO or other bodies, that are in some respects duplicating functions. The consistency and clarity that we need across our local public bodies is therefore not there.

The local government accounting system will remain as it is. Through guidance, but also through practice and working with the new LAO, we will try to ensure far better alignment between the functions held by local authorities, whether that is the accounting officer role or the audit committees, and the infrastructure that we are trying to provide at a national level. We do not think that the new clause will duplicate or undermine that system; it remains a core pillar.

However, we hope that the new clause will ensure that we have a national framework that works across the piece, that we are contracting auditors of the highest standards and that local authorities can use the insights from those audits to make sure that they are managing their public accounts effectively. We think it is complementary and supports our existing institutions. At the moment, it feels like the national infrastructure is undermining the efforts at the local authority level.

[The Chair]

With the courtesy that she has shown throughout the Committee, the Minister has agreed to write a further note to clarify some of those points. I am grateful for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 28 agreed to.

Clause 62

Local audit providers: registration and public provision

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me first clarify that no decision has yet been made on who will deliver public provision. It is important to state that. The Bill is drafted deliberately to allow flexibility, whether through the Local Audit Office itself, through a company that it establishes or in collaboration with the private sector. That said, I fully agree that if the Local Audit Office does act as the audit provider, it must be subject to robust and independent scrutiny to maintain trust and confidence across the sector. That principle is wholly right, and I think everyone would agree with it.

Clause 66 already requires the Local Audit Office to appoint an independent entity to scrutinise its audit work. We do not consider that amending the language from “independently” to “wholly independent” would change that position, although I recognise that it is a small change and I understand the intent behind it.

The expectation that the appointed body must possess appropriate expertise is inherent in the function itself and a statutory requirement for expertise would be unnecessarily prescriptive—it is in the practice, the guidance and the strength of the infrastructure and the institution that we are creating.

The LAO will remain accountable with the Department, and there will be robust mechanisms to ensure transparency and competence. That is a big priority for us as a Department, given the state of the system that we inherited. The Secretary of State will continue to use all the available levers to ensure we have a system and an LAO that is independent when it needs to be and of the highest standard and competence. I hope the hon. Member agrees that there are sufficient safeguards in place and will withdraw the amendment.

[Vikki Slade]

I believe the public would expect it to be very clear that someone was not “acting independently”, but were in fact independent, so I will push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 29.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 62 will establish a new framework for the regulation of local auditors, which will be overseen by the Local Audit Office. Independent reviews have been consistently clear that local audit regulation is too fragmented and lacks central co-ordination. The system is failing and, at the same time, audit quality requirements designed for corporate audits have driven up work on areas of accounts of little relevance to users. That contributes to delays and increases costs.

The clause enables the LAO to hold a register and regulate the sector directly, or to designate and supervise an external registration body to oversee the registration, quality monitoring and conduct of audit providers. Designation of an external registration body would reduce potential conflicts of interest for inspectors and monitoring. The LAO would retain overall authority for the audit quality and act as the final arbiter where enforcement action is required. We expect the LAO to continue the current model under which a professional accountancy body is recognised to register and oversee audit firms, although it will not be bound to do so. The framework will facilitate high-quality, timely audits and restore the confidence of local bodies and users.

Schedule 29 sets out the detail of the new framework for the registration, oversight and quality of local audits. It replaces the existing statutory framework, which aligned local audit regulation with corporate audit regulation, and had rigid statutory safeguards and regulatory functions delivered by a range of bodies. That reflected a move to the private market provision of the local audit, with the expectation that local bodies would individually appoint their own auditors. By contrast, the LAO will restore central oversight and public accountability to the local audit system, with mandatory and independent auditor appointments to all local authorities, as well as some other local bodies. The schedule streamlines and simplifies the regulatory framework. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I will briefly return to the question of accounting standards and how they will operate. As the Minister set out, the aim is to streamline and, broadly, to restore the Audit Commission district auditor-type system we have seen in the past, which itself had a number of issues. Clearly, when local authority councillors make their decision on fixing council tax—when local authority finance officers put that information together—they will always be mindful of the accounting standards that apply.

One of the issues is that there are a lot of different ways of approaching that. Some may use cash accounting and some will use accruals; some will use Sage and some will use Oracle. All of those have different characteristics in managing the system, and different auditors may have different views about which they prefer. Many of us will have experience of where a difference of opinion between auditors on the treatment of a transaction can have a significant impact, including by directly impacting the level of council tax that needs to be set.

I have not been able to locate a response from the Minister on the different types of accounting. Can she set out how the system will ensure sufficient flexibility to recognise legitimate professional differences between different types of accountants, authorities, businesses and systems? None of them is inherently wrong or incorrect; they just reflect different approaches to managing the finances of that local authority. Flexibility for local decision making should remain at the heart of what is supposed to be a devolution Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I apologise to the hon. Member for the lack of response—I will make sure we get one to him swiftly. Inevitably, different accounting standards will be used. We will set out guidance, and we will of course look to retain flexibility within that, so that local authorities can ensure that they are using the appropriate standards. We do, however, need a far more centralised and streamlined process, whereby the appointment of auditors is done through a central function—the LAO. Across the piece, there will be uniform and consistent standards that apply both to local authorities and public bodies. That is currently sorely missing, but within the system, there will be different accounting standards and professional body accreditation that individual auditors will apply to. For us, the key is consistency and clarity across the piece on the standards and norms that all professional accountancy bodies are using.

[David Simmonds]

The key challenge is that, unlike any other public body, local authorities are democratically elected. They are subject to an annual process of budget fixing, where they are legally obliged to balance that budget in year. That rule does not apply to any Government Department, or NHS bodies and so on, all of which have a conversation with central Government about how overspends, capital expenditure, borrowing and so on are dealt with, in a completely different way from local authorities. Could the Minister address that, and ensure that the Committee is fully aware of how those provisions will be considered?

Local authority finance is not the most exciting subject—[Interruption.] I hear murmurs of agreement—but ensuring investment for housing, children’s social care, adult social care, education and local transport depends on us getting this right. Rather than create a system that sets local authorities up to fail, we need to have that debate and put that right straightaway. Taking into account fully the specific, unique legal and financial impositions on local authorities in this audit arrangement is critical, so that decisions can be made locally in good faith and with the relevant level of local democratic accountability.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 63 is central to our reform agenda. It will give the new Local Audit Office responsibility for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as some other local bodies, such as police and fire bodies. Currently, such bodies can choose to opt into an appointment scheme overseen by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd or appoint their own auditor. In practice, more than 99% of bodies are opted into PSAA’s scheme, demonstrating the sector-wide support for a centralised appointment regime.

Centralised appointments significantly reduce burdens on individual authorities. The LAO’s position at the heart of the audit system will make it uniquely qualified to ensure that audits provide value for money, support market sustainability and effectively manage audit contracts. The clause will also establish a proportionate framework in which the LAO will make appointments, including requirements regarding when and how appointments are made. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

A number of these other local bodies are subject, in the Treasury’s eyes and legally, to different accounting rules. In particular, Government Departments have revenue and capital departmental expenditure limits, and the Treasury is happy to shift money between those annually: capital may be allocated to cover revenue shortfalls and so on. That is something that a local authority cannot do. Will the Minister set out how the appointment process will ensure a high degree of transparency, particularly at the local level, so that people can see the difference between bodies that are subject to the local authority regime of in-year balancing and the other local bodies that are subject to a separate regime, and why the levels of assurance and the nature of decision making may be different? I would be grateful for clarity and assurance on those points from the Minister.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I confess that I am not 100% clear about what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. I might partly answer his question by saying that the majority of public bodies—99%—are going through the Public Sector Audit Appointments regime anyway, because they see value in it. What we are now doing is taking that function, aligning it with the oversight of the entire regime and putting it in the Local Audit Office. That will make it streamlined and more effective. We are not fundamentally changing the decisions that individual local bodies are making.

If there was a big clamour for diversity in the market, that would be a different thing, but at the moment we hear from local public bodies that they want a centralised system. That makes their life much easier; it means there is a standard procurement process, which reduces the burden on them. It means that they get an auditor that is accredited and approved to be of a certain standard, and therefore they can be confident in that auditor. The system should make it easier for all our public bodies. At the moment, all our conversations suggest that they hugely support the direction of travel and have no concerns about it. Perhaps I have not understood the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are taking something that is happening by default anyway and making it better and standard, in a way that will work for all those public bodies.

[David Simmonds]

I am reassured to a degree by what the Minister says. I was personally involved in the setting up of the PSAA, although I do not have any direct interests in it. The market has clearly moved in that direction. My concern with bringing all these things into a central accountability stream that sits with the Secretary of State is that the legal and financial environments in which these bodies operate are quite different. If an NHS trust or a police organisation has overspent, it can ask the Secretary of State to reallocate capital for building, for example, a new police station to cover the revenue shortfall, but the local authority cannot do that.

The risk is that, if there appears to be a consistent standard, the judgments produced in respect of authorities that are operating within one legal and financial framework will be very different from those produced in respect of bodies operating within another. Given the Bill’s envisaged reorganisation of local government and the centralisation that the Minister has referred to, we need to retain a level of local clarity about what differences arise as a result of local decision making, so that council tax payers can see them, versus things that result from interactions with central Government via the Secretary of State.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Decision making at the local authority level will remain. Accountability to the constituents in the local authority will remain. We are not fundamentally changing that regime, and hopefully we are making it better by, for example, moving to multi-year budgets for local authorities and consolidating budgets, so that there is far more flexibility for them to manage the challenges that we know they have to manage.

That is complementary to what we are trying to do by creating a national audit system that is coherent, of a high standard and works, which is not what we have now. These arrangements will not undermine the decision-making ability of local authorities. They will mean that a proper accountability system is in place, so that we are better able to validate when authorities are either failing or in financial distress and put in place the measures that I have talked about, such as the best value regime, to get them out of distress.

Once again, the clause is not an attempt to run counter to the accountability system that local authorities must have for their people. It is an attempt to strengthen that accountability system, so that local people have an independent basis to verify what the local authority is doing. I think that Members across the piece will support that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Audit providers to nominate lead partner

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause will change the current requirement whereby local audits may be signed off only by a key audit partner—a senior auditor who meets specific eligibility criteria determined through statutory guidance. The current requirement for local audit sign-off is both rigid and unique to local audits. No other audit category places such a specific condition on the eligibility of senior auditors. That has restricted the pipeline of senior auditors to the sector and places a significant barrier to market entry. It can be difficult for a firm wishing to enter the market to recruit or develop individuals who can satisfy the specific criteria.

Under the clause, the requirement for key audit partners to sign off local audits will end. Instead, local audit officers will work with an external registration body to establish suitable competence requirements. The measure will empower the sector to draw on the best possible range of talent, while continuing to ensure that senior auditors are competent and understand the distinctive element of the local audit. I commend the

[David Simmonds]

The section 151 officer is the person in the local authority who has whistleblower protection; they have a legal obligation to ensure that the local authority has the information that it needs when setting its budgets, and that the information is true and correct. However, disputes about the treatment of financial decision making are also common, where a section 151 officer may have a lesser degree of comfort about a risk arising from a decision.

We talked earlier about assets of community value, and there are many MPs in this room who will have campaigned for their local authority and undertaken responsibility or an intervention to preserve an asset or local amenity. That leads to a debate about whether that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. The elected folk may be of the view that it is, but a section 151 officer may say that it does not stack up in financial terms. There needs to be a process for resolving that dispute, and that will revolve around the professional standards that the Minister has just set out. It would be helpful if she could set out what process of assurance there will be following a decision, so that we can all be clear that there is an adequate pipeline of people, as she has described, to undertake those roles, and that we do not suck out all of the expertise of section 151 officers, who are the only people who can undertake them. What consultation has the Minister undertaken with accounting bodies, such as the Association of Consulting Actuaries, CIPFA and all the others, so that they can ensure that the necessary degree of influence has been exerted to ensure that the training standards and process that will emerge from this will be sufficiently robust?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This clause will transfer responsibility for the code of audit practice from the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office to the Local Audit Office. The clause also unequivocally sets out that, as the standard-setter for local audit, the LAO will be able to modify auditing standards to reflect the needs of local public bodies—a point that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was making.

The LAO will review the interpretation and/or application of international standards on auditing, including where the requirements of specific standards should be interpreted for the local audit context. Currently, auditing standards are interpreted for corporate and local audit by the Financial Reporting Council. In the current system, it has not been possible to vary the interpretation of standards to better reflect the risk profile of local bodies.

It is vital that the LAO has the powers to interpret some standards differently for local audit. Otherwise, extensive work will continue to be required on areas of accounts that have little relevance to account users, contributing to timeliness and capacity issues as well as undermining value for money. Through its ownership of the code of audit practice, the LAO will be empowered to define appropriate audit requirements for different categories of body in the principal audit regime. This is central to delivering our commitment to a risk-based and proportionate approach to local audit that is focused on the needs of local bodies and account users. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister briefly set out some examples of things that are being undertaken but she feels are not adding value? We are all sympathetic, but it would be helpful to the Committee’s decision making if we understood what we are going to stop doing as a result of the decision we are being asked to take.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It is not wild or out there to say that the new auditing body we are creating should have full flexibility to ensure that the standards being applied are appropriate. The feedback we are getting from local government and public bodies is that the status quo is not fit for purpose, that it is onerous, and that its requirements do not align with their needs or, critically, the needs of the user. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the current system is fit for purpose? Is he suggesting that we retain it or that it does not require reform? If he is, he should stand up and say so.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister is perhaps being a little mischievous in responding politically to what was essentially a technical question. We all recognise that there are challenges. Broadly, the audit system suffers not from a lack of regulation but from a lack of capacity. Measures such as Public Sector Audit Appointments were designed to address that, but they have not been sufficient, despite being implemented in consultation with the sector. We therefore agree that an alternative approach is required.

The Minister has been clear to the Committee that she feels that many of the requirements imposed by the current system are unnecessary. She has returned a number of times to the point about there being things that do not add value and are onerous. It would be helpful if she set out what those things are so that our colleagues in local authorities can understand what will be removed from the requirements upon them and the Committee can understand what risks, if any, that poses to the public.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I dare not do the job of the Local Audit Office, or indeed trained auditors, and go into detail. This provision creates powers for the LAO to design a system that works for local bodies. As I said, the feedback that we have had from local authorities and public bodies is that the current system is onerous. It will depend on whether we are looking at a fire and rescue service or a local authority service, but it is absolutely right that we confer the powers on the LAO to look at the system and say, “We will change and adapt the standard so that it is fit for purpose.” I do not think that is controversial; I do not think it requires me to talk about it in great detail. We will issue guidance for the LAO and it will set the standards and what is appropriate. It is right that we give it the powers to do that in the Bill.

[David Simmonds]

The treatment of the dedicated schools grant, which has a huge impact on local authority budgets, is an example of an issue that comes up regularly on the Floor of the House. It is CIPFA’s view that, because it sits within a legal ringfence that has to be balanced each year, it is a budget killer for local authorities. However, ownership of that sits with a different Government Department that takes a different view about how it should be addressed. To me, that is a good example of something that is onerous and requires a lot of work, but in practice, the Government have collectively decided that they are going to deal with it in a different way and effectively ignore the rules that they imposed on local authorities to make it go away.

The Minister keeps returning to the point that she feels that there are elements of the system that are onerous and burdens that should be alleviated. It would be helpful if she briefly set out a couple of examples for the Committee so that we can understand what she thinks we should no longer look at so that we and our council taxpayers can at least understand the risk and reward associated with it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

If the hon. Member wants examples, one example—I am sure that we can give others based on the conversations that we have had with local government—is that pensions do not drive local government decision making and financial resilience, so the audit reviews focus on operational assets that may not be necessary, depending on the local body that we are talking about. There are clearly examples within the system.

I come back to the fact that we are not prescribing this; we are saying it is right that a new body that will have oversight of a regime that we all agree needs to be reformed should be able to make sure that those standards are commensurate with what is required by the local authority and public bodies as well as the user. That is not controversial; that is common sense. It is right that we create the provisions for that new body to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Audit committees

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 66, page 70, after line 28 insert—

“(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about—

(a) the membership of an audit committee;

(b) the appointment of the members; and

(c) the conduct and practices of the committee.”

This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I am sympathetic to the issue behind these amendments, although I am not convinced that this is the mechanism to address it. I will briefly explain why, and where this sits in the context of the previous debate. The Minister gave the example of the pensions audit as something that we could alleviate, but my personal experience would suggest that is a very poor example, and amendments 18 and 17 connect to it.

If we think back to the last big financial crash when the last Labour Government were in office, the local government pension scheme, which is currently overfunded, saw a huge fall in the value of its assets to the extent that it was then 30% underfunded. Local authorities across the country, which have a legal obligation to make up any such shortfall, were then faced with this question: to what extent will we have to make financial cuts to public services to bridge that gap at short notice so that, if the pension fund is falling short, council tax will bail it out? That is not something about which we could say, “You don’t really need to know about it, and you can safely ignore it.” It is something that, if it goes wrong, could be critical to the finances of that local authority.

When these amendments talk about local arrangements, I think they are seeking to enable flexibility in a local authority, for example, whose pension fund profile may be slightly different from its neighbours or outwith the norm, because it has a younger or older workforce than is typical, or because it has entered outsourcing arrangements. That flexibility would allow the local authority to have people on its audit committee who have the relevant experience to ensure that the audits and information reflect that, and that the decision making properly reflects those risks and does not unduly impact on council tax payers. Does the Minister have a good view or a strong reason as to why that element of local expertise should be disregarded, given the extremely significant financial risks associated with the example that she gave the Committee of something that she envisages the Government will stop requiring councils to do?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me deal directly with amendments 18 and 17. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon what I have consistently said: the governance regime of local government finance is not changed by the measures in the Bill. It will still stand, including the decisions that accounting officers and the finance director need to take, and the accountability to the local community still holds. We are shoring up the system of assurance so that it is fit for purpose, and to ensure that there is independent scrutiny that then feeds back into what the local authority does. That is how the system should be operating, but it is not currently, which is why we are driving through these reforms.

On the amendments, I recognise the important role that the Local Audit Office will play in overseeing the local audit system. Amendments 18 and 17, however, would delegate important policy and legislative functions from Ministers—who are directly accountable to the House, which is the way we believe it ought to be—to an independent body.

Given the central role that audit committees play in local financial governance, it is essential that responsibility for their statutory framework remains with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the overall integrity and effectiveness of the local government system. My Department will continue to work closely with the Local Audit Office and key stakeholders in the sector to ensure that audit committee requirements are effective, proportionate and well-functioning. We think, however, that parliamentarians would want the Secretary of State to be ultimately accountable, so that Parliament can hold them to account. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

On amendment 362, I fully support the hon. Member’s view that audit committee members must demonstrate the necessary skill, understanding and competence that we are asking of them. The committees are integral to robust local governance, playing a critical role in ensuring that public resources are used efficiently, transparently and in the public interest. Clause 66, however, already provides for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance in relation to audit committees. It is our intention that the guidance will include a requirement for members to undertake appropriate training.

Alongside that, we will continue to work with the LGA and CIPFA to ensure that training programmes support existing and new audit committee members. There is a job to be done to make sure that we have a pipeline of members, that they are fit for purpose and that we have the right training and capacity building in place. I hope that that assures the hon. Member that we are doing everything we can to ensure that training is fit for purpose, as we need audit committee members of a high quality and standard, and that we will continue to work with the relevant bodies to ensure that that is a reality.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 362, in clause 66, page 70, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.”—(Manuela Perteghella.)

This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 66 introduces a statutory requirement for all local authorities, excluding NHS bodies, to establish an audit committee with at least one independent member. Members will be aware that audit committees are the cornerstone of good governance and financial management in local government. They provide independent oversight of financial controls, risk management and internal audits, reinforcing transparency and accountability in the use of public funds.

Although many councils have already adopted audit committees as best practice, and combined authorities are required by statute to do so, it is time to standardise this requirement across the board. Consistency in governance structures is essential to ensuring that all local bodies are held to the same high standards of scrutiny and accountability.

In addition, the clause mandates that at least one member of the audit committee must be independent. Independent members bring impartiality, technical expertise and continuity, ensuring that scrutiny is robust and well informed. Where elected members may lack specialist knowledge in audit or finance, independent members can provide the professional insight needed to effectively challenge financial reports.

Mandating audit committees is a key pillar of our local audit reform programme. It is about getting the basics right. Good governance and financial management start at the heart of local authorities. The clause is a practical, proportionate and necessary measure to strengthen local accountability and ensure that every authority is equipped to manage public money responsibly, and I commend it to the Committee.

[David Simmonds]

I have a brief question for the Minister. One challenge is that most local authorities will have an arrangement, although it is not always called the audit committee; sometimes it is the finance scrutiny committee or the overview committee—there are lots of different arrangements. Could the Minister set out briefly what specific requirements, if any, she intends to impose on local authorities about who can be a member of an audit committee and what its composition is? Will it sit within the overall political balance structure that exists in all local authorities? I ask that just so that we understand where it will fit within the new arrangements.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will issue guidance when the Bill gains Royal Assent. The broad principle, which is applied across the piece with all our reforms, is that where there is good practice, we look to build on that. However, we will set out principles that we want to see standardised across the piece, to ensure that we have mechanisms that are fit for purpose and effective. To take the example of the independent member, we think that having that expertise massively helps, whatever function it is. However, where there are existing arrangements in place, our intent is to transition those to something that adheres to a set of principles that we will set out in guidance.

[The Chair]

I call Vikki Slade to speak to new clause 45.

[David Simmonds]

The only element where I have any disagreement with the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is over whether the legislation needs to be implemented for local public accounts committees to happen. There have been a number of measures in this regard, and I think of the Localism Act 2011, where there was a great deal of debate about the role of the local armchair auditor and the requirement for local authorities to publish all expenditure over £500—itemised—so that people can see what is being spent day to day, as a means of bringing about transparency.

In this debate about audit committees, we have already covered the fact that there are different local arrangements. Some have everything dealt with by a single, financially focused scrutiny and overview committee, while others do it as part of a wider context or in the context of individual service areas. So there are different approaches, and it is important that that local discretion continues to exist.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to have further legislation, but it is right that we bring the matter to public attention. One weakness of the Westminster-focused Public Accounts Committee is that it does not always grasp local nuance. Home-to-school transport in rural Lincolnshire or North Yorkshire is a completely different challenge from that in Greater London, where all local authorities are, effectively, levied so that public transport in the capital is free for children going to school. Such things are difficult to capture. When we hear that North Yorkshire spends £51 million over a couple of years taking kids to school, that sounds like an extraordinarily high level of expenditure, but it is driven entirely by local circumstances; it is not the result of inefficiency or negligence on the part of decision makers. The point is well made that we have to have that really clear grasp in decision making that comes from people understanding and knowing their local place.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for tabling new clause 45, and I have a lot of sympathy with what it tries to do. She rightly quoted the English devolution White Paper, in which we committed to explore local public accounts committee models. We consulted on the initial proposal for such a model in December last year, as part of our local audit reform strategy. The Government’s response on 9 April confirmed that they would explore how any model could draw on audit findings and interact with the Local Audit Office, once established. It is important to consider how that would fit with the reformed local audit landscape.

Mayoral strategic authorities are already expected to follow the principles and processes described in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. That includes the requirement to have overview and scrutiny committees and an audit committee. We absolutely recognise that there is scope for further strengthening the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities, and we are carrying out engagement with the sector on what that looks like. Although I accept the principle of new clause 45, the Government intend to do further work to ensure that whatever new regime or additional arrangements to strengthen the status quo we put in place, they work well alongside not only the huge reforms we are driving through in the audit system but what already exists on the ground, to ensure that we are not duplicating or creating confusion.

We need a little time to work that through and to think about the right set of reforms to put in place. However, the principle that we absolutely need to strengthen the status quo is one we completely accept and recognise the need for. I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to allow us the time to do the work properly, so that we can come up with a system that works alongside the reforms we are driving through. I therefore ask her not to press the new clause.

[Vikki Slade]

My resistance is because I wonder how long it is likely to be before the different stages of the Bill go through. What assurance do we have that the new clause does not disappear, in the same way as other things have disappeared on the journey so far? That puts me in a difficult position, because this issue is hugely important. Allowing the Government time and then seeing the new clause disappear would not give us the chance to have anything on the record. It is because enough organisations feel that they want to have it on the record that we have pushed it. I know that the Minister wants me not to push the new clause, but I need to for the benefit of all those organisations that have worked so hard on it and that want to see it go as far as it possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 67 paves the way for greater flexibility in how audit regimes are determined, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach that relies solely on the size of a local authority. We recognise that local authorities vary not just in scale, but in complexity, risk profile and the services they deliver for local people. This proactive measure will enable the Local Audit Office, working closely with my Department and the sector, to design and implement audit frameworks that are proportionate, targeted and fit for purpose. Although any changes to the classification of local bodies within the category 2 regime would require secondary legislation, the clause removes any ambiguity about the future basis for audit regimes. It makes it clear that size alone should not determine audit requirements; risk and complexity should also be considered. That flexibility will lay the foundations to reduce unnecessary burdens on smaller or lower-risk councils, while maintaining robust oversight where it is most needed.

On clause 68, fixing the broken local audit system for authorities is the intention behind all the measures we are debating in this part of the Bill. However, the Bill also provides an important opportunity to address specific challenges within the smaller authorities audit system. In recent years, Salisbury city council and Lindsey Marsh drainage board have surpassed the outdated financial threshold for smaller authorities—a limit that remained unchanged for more than a decade, despite significant growth in local budgets and financial activity. Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd has been unable to secure auditors for those bodies under the principal regime, leaving them without external assurance, and contributing to the wider audit backlog.

The principal regime demands significantly more complex financial reporting, which smaller authorities may not be well equipped to deliver. There is currently no transitional support for those moving into the regime, despite limited internal capacity and capability. Overall, those circumstances mean that auditors from the principal regime are reluctant to be appointed to those bodies, particularly given the wider capacity problems.

Clause 68 lays the groundwork for regulations that will allow those two bodies to be retrospectively treated as smaller authorities, enabling them to receive a limited assurance review. That is a more proportionate and practical solution than leaving them unaudited in the principal regime. It will help ensure that public resources are used more efficiently, both within local authorities and across the audit system, while maintaining robust yet appropriate external scrutiny.

[David Simmonds]

Broadly, the Opposition agree with the Government’s direction of travel, and this seems a logical thing to do. This kind of update is periodically required. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out, for the benefit of transparency in Committee, what the assurance process will be around risk. To reflect on where things have gone wrong, West Somerset district council—then the smallest local authority in England—was essentially not financially viable, but it was also the planning authority for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, so it was absolutely critical that it could do its job for the needs of national infrastructure. Its budget was essentially broken by the loss of a business rates appeal in respect of Hinkley Point, which cost its £6.5 million out of its already very small budget.

Sometimes there are risks that sit beneath what will be classified as smaller authorities, especially given our earlier debate about how reorganisation is seeing asset transfers between districts and parish and town councils as a result of the need to manage opportunities and challenges. Could the Minister therefore set out who will be accountable? Will Ministers sign this off? What is the role of the delegated legislation Committee in making these decisions? What will be the role of the Local Audit Office in deciding how risks are managed? We need to be confident that what may appear to be a low-risk environment does not produce a very nasty surprise.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

It will be the Local Audit Office, working closely with my Department, but we will obviously engage with the sector while doing that. As the hon. Member will understand, there is always a judgment call in this, and it is about balancing a set of factors. Our job is to ensure that the Local Audit Office has the capabilities and skills to be able to make that judgment, working with our respective authorities. Ultimately, if we get it wrong, it is for Parliament to haul up the Secretary of State and hold them to account.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Amendment paving way for separation of LGPS accounts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

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.

[David Simmonds]

In many ways, the clause reinforces the concerns that I set out earlier. The Minister said that this was an area where no value was being added and that it was the Government’s intention to reduce expectations. In fact, the clause increases expectations: it requires the publication of a separate opinion on the pension fund’s accounts. As I set out earlier, the concern we all recognise is that, where there is a shortfall, the local authority is required to make up that shortfall and, where there is potentially a surplus, it may choose to reduce the pension contributions that it makes on a regular basis, as is already the case. We have seen examples across the private sector in the past when that has been significant in both negative and sometimes positive ways.

The assumptions made about the pension fund are critical to the setting of the council tax, which is a statutory process. This is not the only set of relevant accounts that must meet that same test. Local authorities have limited but varying degrees of control over the parking revenue account, housing revenue account and dedicated schools grant, but all are ringfenced for specific purposes and all can create significant financial liabilities that fall on the council tax payer in the event that something emerges within them that had not previously been considered.

Although I understand that the Minister thinks that separating out the requirement makes life easier for some parts of the Government, it can none the less create significant issues in the council tax fixing process. Will she set out the Government’s thinking about how those risks will be managed? In particular, how will the legal requirement to set an in-year balanced budget be met, and how does imposing a requirement for an additional and separate opinion, with a separate timetable, represent a reduction of the burden on the local authority?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are having the same debate over and over again. Ultimately—I have said this before and I will say it again—it will be for the accounting officer and the finance director to make the judgment about their accounts in year and over a multi-year period. We are not changing that. Given that pensions are administered by a single body, it is bizarre that the system at the moment involves individual local authorities having to audit their pension funds.

[David Simmonds]

I invite the Minister to reflect that she may have inadvertently misled the Committee. Each local authority has a statutory duty in respect of its own pension fund. There are some pooling arrangements and common standards, but if a local authority in one place has chosen to invest in something that has gone down, it will have a shortfall that will not be replicated in the neighbouring authority that has invested in something else. It is not the case that there is one single scheme. Each of the individual schemes will have an impact on the local authority that employs those members; they are not part of some amorphous national scheme.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, they are not, but the auditing requirement at the moment is burdensome, as local authorities and, under the previous Government, the Select Committee have said. I think the hon. Gentleman is just asking a probing question, which is fine, but no one is telling us that this measure is a bad idea. No one is telling us that decoupling is not helpful. It will mean that local government auditing does not hold back pension fund auditing and vice versa. Everyone agrees that this is a simple provision.

[David Simmonds]

rose—

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will not give way; I am going to have to close down this debate. Critically, none of this detracts from the core function of the finance director, nor does it detract from the core function of local authority governance or local authority financial accountability. Everyone agrees that it will make the system stronger, so I struggle to understand the hon. Gentleman’s issue with it. No one says that the status quo is fit for purpose, and he himself has conceded that it is not. We are taking the existing system and providing stronger assurance and stronger audit to fix a system that is fundamentally broken, and I come back to the fact that it was broken under the Conservatives’ watch.

[The Chair]

The Minister has been very generous in taking interventions, and I have allowed them to be quite lengthy, if I can put it that way. She has made her position clear.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 241.

Schedule 30.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 70 introduces schedule 30, which makes minor and consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament—primarily, the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Despite the amendments being minor and consequential, this schedule is an integral part of the wider reforms that we are driving through, by ensuring consistency across legislation.

As we have said, the Bill establishes the LAO as the body responsible for appointing auditors for all local authorities, as well as certain other local public bodies. However, health service bodies will continue with their existing arrangements to appoint their own auditors. Government amendment 241 corrects a minor drafting error and omission from the Bill as introduced, by ensuring that all previous references to relevant authorities in the provision now apply only to health service bodies.

I ask that these minor and consequential amendments stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 30

Local audit: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 241, in schedule 30, page 311, line 10, at end insert—

“(b) for “body by a relevant authority” substitute “Office or body by a health service body”.”

This amendment makes a consequential amendment that was missing from the Bill as introduced.

Amendment 242, in schedule 30, page 316, line 28, at end insert—

“Offences of deception etc

32I False or misleading information

(1) It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to provide information that is false, misleading or deceptive in a material way—

(a) for the purposes of, or in connection with, an application under the local audit provisions, or

(b) in purported compliance with any requirement having effect under those provisions.

(2) In subsection (1), “the local audit provisions” means—

(a) Parts 2A to 5A of this Act (including any regulations under any of those Parts),

(b) an agreement under section 6B(5), and

(c) registration rules within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1C.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).

32J Wrongful holding out

(1) It is an offence for a person who is not a registered local audit provider to—

(a) describe themselves as a registered local audit provider, or

(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a registered local audit provider.

(2) It is an offence for a person who is not an external registration body to—

(a) describe themselves as an external registration body, or

(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are an external registration body.

(3) It is an offence for a person who is not a recognised qualifying body to—

(a) describe themselves as a recognised qualifying body, or

(b) hold themselves out so as to indicate, or be reasonably understood to indicate, that they are a recognised qualifying body.

(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).

(5) In subsection (4), “the maximum term for summary offences” means—

(a) if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, six months;

(b) if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This amendment creates offences, similar to those currently provided in the Companies Act, about misleading conduct in the context of the new local audit regime.

Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71

Rent reviews and “put options”: prohibited terms

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 71, page 72, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—

“54A Rent reviews and arrangements for new tenancies

(1) Schedule 7A makes provision about rent reviews.

(2) Schedule 7B makes provision about terms relating to rent in arrangements which require a new tenancy to be granted or taken.”

This is consequential on the amendments of Schedule 31 in my name.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 376 to 381.

Government amendments 384 to 386.

Government amendment 391.

Amendment 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.”

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Clause 71 and schedule 31 will ban the use of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases in England and Wales. Those clauses put commercial tenants at a disadvantage by keeping rents artificially high even when the market declines. In no other credible market would one party be contractually bound to accept only upward price changes, with no recourse to changing conditions. We saw in covid how damaging that can be. We have also heard at first hand from stakeholders and business representatives—including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Independent Retailers Association—about the adverse effects that upward-only rent reviews have.

An efficient and dynamic market for leasing commercial property is vital for growth and for the vitality of our high streets. Upward-only rent reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties that we have seen, ranging from high street shops to empty office floors. The UK is an outlier in continuing to permit those clauses. This ban follows the lead of countries such as Ireland and Australia. We absolutely recognise that the ban creates some initial uncertainty for investors. However, landlords will still have access to a range of lease models, such as stepped rents and inflation-linked leases, that offer predictability and flexibility; and we have committed to consulting on whether to permit the use of rent “collars” via secondary legislation.

It is important to remember that our high streets are more than retail spaces; they are the social and economic heart of our communities. The Government have set out ambitious steps to support high streets through our Pride in Place strategy. This measure is part of that. If we want new businesses to take a chance on a tenancy and if we want resilient high streets, it is essential that the leasehold market works efficiently. I urge that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Government amendment 375 is a technical amendment updating clause 71 in line with the amendments in schedule 31 tabled in my name. The amendment ensures that readers can continue to navigate the scope and effect of those provisions as intended when drafted.

I now turn to Government amendments 376 to 381, 384 to 386 and 391. These amendments work together to clarify the scope of the ban on upward-only rent reviews, ensuring that tenants are provided with protection when it is right that they receive it. Government amendment 376 brings forward a large proportion of these changes. In particular, the new part 1 sets out a new definition of “business tenancy”. It expands the scope of the ban so that a tenant who is still bound by the lease does not lose the protection of the ban simply because they have vacated the premises, have not yet taken occupation, do not intend to take occupation, or have sub-let the whole premises. It is right that tenants receive the protection of the ban in these circumstances. Without the amendment, it is likely that they would be deterred from sub-letting, which might in turn damage their ability to trade successfully.

Part 2 expands the tenant’s ability to trigger the rent review, so that it applies regardless of whether the lease contains prohibited terms. It also applies if the lease was granted in a compliant manner but was later varied to include non-compliant terms. Finally, paragraph 5A of part 3 provides for the ban to apply in circumstances where a lease is granted in a compliant manner but later varied to include non-compliant terms.

Finally, I turn to Government amendment 391 and to amendment 303. To further ensure that tenants are provided with protection when it is right they receive it, amendment 391 replicates new paragraph 1 of new schedule 7A, contained in amendment 376, in schedule 7B. Cumulatively, the amendments will ensure that the enacted ban is robust, clear and applies in the right circumstances.

Amendment 303 would require the Government to undertake a consultation on the impact of the ban on upward-only rent reviews before the provision comes into force. But that amendment is not mine, so I will speak to it later.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak about this issue. I thank the Minister, who has been gracious in giving me a lot of time to discuss upward-only rent reviews. I hope to use a couple of minutes to clarify a couple of points in the Minister’s statement that I do not think completely reflect the evidence that we have heard and, perhaps, the current position of the Bill. I say that in a constructive way, recognising that there is further opportunity to improve the Bill and make sure it delivers what we promised in the White Paper. As the Minister herself says, we have to protect high streets and small businesses, which can often be caught in really challenging upward-only rent reviews. She is completely right that the impact was seen particularly during the covid era.

I will talk about international evidence first and then come back to how we can improve; I recognise that the amendments start to go that way. The Minister mentioned Ireland in particular, which is often cited as one of the great examples of action on upward-only rent reviews; industry there was concerned that sectors would collapse, but actually there was a relatively minimal impact. I am sure that the Minister’s civil servants will argue that that is a great example of why the worries of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the British Property Federation, the UK Warehousing Association and agents such as Colliers, which have all written to me in the past week or two to share their concerns, are perhaps unfounded.

The scheme in Ireland was specifically brought in with collars and a floor, which meant that there was protection—that was at the point of introduction rather than through secondary legislation, which I think is important. It was introduced in a very different market with very different interest rates, corporation tax and other factors that drive corporate rents. The challenge with the way the legislation is written at the moment is that it has unintended—

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, and to see everybody on the Committee on this very sunny Thursday morning. I know everybody is delighted to be here, and I welcome the Minister too.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow certain functions of single foundation strategic authorities to be exercised only by the mayor of that authority. Amendment 309 would create additional boundaries for regulations that may provide for a function of a strategic authority to be transferred to the authority’s mayor. In essence, we believe that amendments 307 to 309—we will come to amendment 308 in the next grouping—would address the issue that single foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall currently cannot access the highest level of devolution, because the Bill only allows for combined or county combined authorities with a mayor to exercise the functions that the Government are putting forward.

Amendment 307 promotes fairness and flexibility by allowing foundation strategic authorities such as Cornwall to benefit from the same level of democratic leadership as combined authorities. That would empower local areas to choose a directly elected mayor if they wish, strengthening accountability and enabling them to access greater devolved powers, which the Minister has outlined as a key priority for the Bill.

Amendment 309 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer functions to a strategic authority’s mayor, and would ensure that devolved powers can be effectively localised and exercised by accountable leadership. The amendment would complement amendments 307 and 308, by giving mayors the tools they need to deliver on local priorities, ensuring that devolution works in practice, not just in principle.

I will move amendment 308 at a later stage, but together, our amendments would effectively let foundation strategic authorities have mayors and the associated powers of delegation and function transfer, putting them on par with mayoral CAs and CCAs, and I encourage the Government to support them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Let me take amendment 307 first. To be clear, the single foundation strategic authority will not have a mayor. That is not the intent of the provision or of the Bill and it is not in the Government’s plans. Invariably, however, we want to be sure that at every level we are devolving power. Certain powers will be devolved to single foundation strategic authorities, such as Cornwall, in order to enable it to respond to some of its issues. We are also clear that certain powers will be reserved to mayors, because a level of democratic accountability is critical to the exercise of such powers. That is the distinction that we have made throughout the design of the policy and it is built into the Bill.

Amendment 309 is out of the step with the Bill’s objective of streamlining the process for conferring and modifying the functions of strategic authorities and mayors. The Bill already puts in place sufficient guardrails when functions are transferred to mayors. When making functions exercisable by the mayor, it is already the case that constituent authorities will be consulted before such a change. Requiring the consent of those authorities will create an unnecessary barrier to enabling mayors to take on functions and to get on with the job delivery, which is what we need of them.

Finally, many mayors can already appoint political advisers—another piece of amendment 309—as agreed through the establishment of statutory instruments. The Bill will also allow mayors to appoint commissioners to support them in the exercise of their functions. That is the right balance to be struck to ensure that the mayor has what he or she needs to do the job that their constituents or voters require of them. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the Minister understands our motivation for tabling the amendment. We are not trying to score a political point, but to strengthen the Bill. I am reassured that the Minister has given us some reassurance that she sees that every kind of authority should be devolved and that the powers should be aligned with those. We may come back to this on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 308, in schedule 23, page 237, line 30, at end insert—

“Functions moving from mayors to deputy mayors and strategic authority members

5A (1) Regulations may provide for the mayor of a strategic authority to allow any function of the mayor to be exercised by—

(a) the deputy mayor,

(b) a member of the relevant strategic authority,

(c) a committee members of the strategic authority appointed by the mayor.

(2) Regulations may create requirements for the committee in sub-paragraph (1)(c) including—

(a) requirements about the membership of the committee,

(b) requirements about the appointment of a chair of the committee,

(c) requirements about the process by which the mayor may appoint members to the committee,

(d) requirement about the committee’s voting procedures,

(e) requirements about information which must be disclosed by the strategic authority to the committee.”

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority, or a committee of a members of the relevant strategic authority.

This amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an extension to my earlier amendments 307 and 309, as I said. In essence, it would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow a mayor to delegate the exercise of a function to a deputy mayor, a member of the relevant strategic authority or a committee of members of the relevant strategic authority. Allowing mayors of strategic authorities to delegate functions would ensure consistency with existing mayoral models, making government more effective and responsive. The amendment would provide practical flexibility so that mayors can share responsibilities appropriately and ensure that local decisions are made at the right level.

I expect the Minister to resist the amendment, but I look for some reassurance on whether we can ensure that the Bill brings some standardisation, an efficient transfer of functions and efficient exercise of the functions proposed. I am interested to hear her thoughts, but at this stage we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, depending on what the Minister comes back with.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Again, I understand the intent behind the amendment. I would say that mayors are already able to delegate the majority of their functions to deputy mayors and to members of constituent authorities. In the evidence session, for example, Councillor Bev Craig from Manchester was responsible for the economic development portfolio in Greater Manchester. Such functions are already in place. In part in recognition of the fact that local councillors, in particular leaders and cabinet members, have busy paid jobs, we want to increase the mayor’s pool of support, which is why we are creating the ability for the mayor to appoint and to delegate functions to the commissioners. That will give the mayors options. We are not specifying how the mayor should do it, and ultimately each mayor will figure out what works for their area and the mix between deputy mayors, commissioners and lead members, but this provision will increase the pool and the options available to them.

[Paul Holmes]

We are content with that answer, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Twenty Third schedule to the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The schedule is introduced by clause 50. I have already spoken about why the clause should stand part of the Bill. As I explained previously, the schedule is essential to providing Government with the powers to add new functions to the framework. That will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers they need to deliver for their local people, which is what all this is about. I commend the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 23 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government want to ensure we have a national health service that is fit for the future, and we are doing huge amounts to repair the damage to the national health service done by the Conservative Government. That is a core function of what we are doing. It is therefore right that certain core functions, such as the NHS constitution or university clinical training, remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This clause retains the existing limits on the devolution of health functions in England. Protections against devolving health functions are not new—they have been in place since the Government began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities—and the Bill maintains them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I was going to stay quiet, but unfortunately for the Minister I was inspired by her speech, so I hate to disappoint the Government Whip by speaking very briefly. The Minister, quite rightly—it is her job—outlined that she wants to rectify some of the supposed damage done to the national health service over 14 years, but I gently remind her that waiting lists are increasing and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking at possible strike action while putting forward a reorganisation that he cannot afford.

I look to the Minister for some reassurance regarding whether wider health policy, such as that reorganisation and some of the local functions of integrated care boards, which we know are changing, may affect the provisions in the clause. Could there be some effect on the ground that may create delay or necessitate some changes to the clause in the longer term?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Obviously, the NHS is going through huge reform. We are working closely with the team in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that reforms sit alongside our plans for devolution. A big part of what we are trying to do through our health reforms is to provide community-based healthcare, and there is a big opportunity for local and regional government to work alongside the NHS to deliver integrated services that work for our communities and are user-led. We are making sure that every stage of the reforms, including the changes to the ICBs, is done in lockstep with what we are trying to do across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Incidental etc provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This is a simple provision. When functions are conferred on, or modified for, strategic authorities in the future, the Government will sometimes need to make technical changes to other pieces of legislation to ensure that the functions conferred on strategic authorities work as intended. That is why the Bill includes this technical clause—it is just a technical clause—to allow the Government to have the power to make technical changes to existing legislation when necessary. The clause will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors are able to effectively exercise the functions, as intended by policy. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Transfer of property, rights and liabilities

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We understand the overarching aims of this clause, and the debate does not necessarily have to revolve around whether or not it should happen, but we tabled this probing amendment because we understand that the legislation is essentially applying TUPE regulations regardless of whether they legally apply. We want to challenge that and probe why, if TUPE regulations need not legally apply in cases of transfer, the Government have insisted that TUPE regulations have to go into this regardless. Can the Minister answer that key question?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

TUPE regulations are there to ensure that staff are not dismissed for the sole reason that functions are being transferred from one public body to another. We believe that they are fundamental to protecting staff, which we want to make sure happens throughout this process.

In line with the Cabinet Office guidance, this clause tries to ensure that the regulations apply when we have public bodies moving to strategic authorities. The amendment, as drafted, risks creating uncertainty for staff and disrupting the smooth transfer of functions.

TUPE regulations are there for a reason—to protect the workers that are fundamental and critical to delivering any public institution. When we are going through the process of creating these strategic authorities, it is important that we embed those TUPE regulations. That is why I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for her full and direct answer, and I understand it. I take it she accepts that TUPE is being put into this clause regardless of whether there is a legal necessity for it to apply. Has she had any correspondence or lobbying from the trade union movement to make sure that it is included?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

To answer that question directly: no, although it helps that I am a new Minister. The clause is in step with long-standing Government practice. It mirrors provisions that have been made in previous legislation by the previous Conservative Government, including in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It is standard practice and it is done by all parties. It is there because we need to protect staff.

[Paul Holmes]

I feel very reassured that the Government are following the excellent judgment of the last Conservative Government. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 221, in clause 53, page 58, line 16, at end insert—

“(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This would make regulations under clause 53 subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Prohibition of secondary legislation removing functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Strategic authorities will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government could easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is sovereign, and the Government will always be able to table primary legislation to redesign how functions are delivered. However, the Bill makes sure that Governments will have to make that argument in Committee and on Report, as we are doing now. It must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. We want this to be locked in because we fundamentally believe that this is how to deliver for communities across the country. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this or any future Government to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation, so that they can be exercised again by central Government.

I commend clause 54 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

This is a difficult one for us. I am not saying that the Minister is trying to bind the hands of future Governments, but it does feel like the Government are trying to make this increasingly difficult. We would argue that any elected Government have a mandate to make legislative changes as they see fit. I wonder whether this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Of course, we accept the need for parliamentary scrutiny, but an elected Government should be able to use any mechanism they want to use. I ask the Minister once again to consider whether she thinks this is really necessary. A Government who might want to remove some of the functions would have a democratic mandate to do so, and arguably very good reasons for doing so when future structures need to change. I would like to challenge her on whether she thinks this is absolutely necessary, which may depend on our forcing a vote on this issue.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. My view is that devolution is a fundamental shift in power and a rewiring of how we govern the country. At the heart of the devolution process are a lot of democratic processes, where people vote for a mayor on the basis of what they say they will deliver for their community. To make a fundamental change, it is absolutely right that a future Government must get the consent of Parliament to rewrite it. That is the premise on which we think about the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and devolution, and it is what we have done in the context of Scotland and Wales. These are fundamental shifts in power, and it is right that there has to be a full democratic process within Parliament to reverse them.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government. I come back to the fundamental point that this is not about reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake; it is about creating better-functioning unitary councils that are more sustainable and better able to deliver the high-quality services that their residents want and fundamentally deserve.

Schedule 24 enables the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise. We are committed to working in partnership with local areas. Therefore, this will be used only where areas have failed to make progress following an invitation. It also includes new merging provisions to enable existing unitary councils that believe structural change would be beneficial to submit proposals for reorganisation. That aligns the process for reorganising single-tier areas with the current process for reorganising two-tier areas.

With devolution and local government reorganisation progressing concurrently across the country, mechanisms are needed in the Bill to ensure these reforms work in harmony. The first mechanism is the ability to convert a combined county authority into a combined authority. This is a straightforward and common-sense provision. When local government reorganisation takes place in an area covered by a combined county authority, we need a streamlined way to convert the authority into a combined authority.

The second mechanism is the ability to abolish a combined authority or combined county authority if local government reorganisation renders that authority obsolete. This mechanism would be used only in very limited circumstances: if a new unitary authority covers or includes the whole area of an existing combined authority or combined county authority. Any local government reorganisation proposal requiring the use of this abolition mechanism will need to consider how it would impact future devolution in the area, as per the Government’s reorganisation criteria. That ensures these areas will not be left without a viable pathway to devolution.

I commend clause 55 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

Clause 55 essentially goes to the heart of the Bill. As we argued when we voted in the House against local government reorganisation, the thing in this Bill that most people out there—our voters—will notice, aside from the devolution aspects and the creation of mayors, is the bread-and-butter transactional services that people see on the ground. That will be the biggest impact the change will have on their daily lives.

We oppose clause 55 because we believe the Government have no democratic mandate to deliver local government reform. It was not in their manifesto, they did not ask the British people to vote for them on the basis of local government reform, and we fundamentally have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth looks shocked at my proposition, but if he can refer me to where this was in the Labour party’s manifesto, I will happily withdraw that point. I suspect he cannot, because it was not there. That is a key aspect of why we oppose the clause.

The other reason why we oppose the clause is because there is no overwhelming evidence showing that services or local government would be more efficient with larger organisational structures and a larger population being encapsulated into unitary authorities. I am a big fan of unitary authorities—I declare an interest in that I am a former lead member of one, and I was very happy to be so—but we have to accept that the nature of devolution means that a standardised model is not adequate for everywhere in the country. In some areas, it may not be what is best or wanted by local people. That comes back to the democratic deficit we believe the Government have in announcing these LGR proposals.

I know the Minister is relatively new in post, so she will not have had as much communication with local authority leaders as her predecessor did—that does not reflect on her or her ability; it is just the nature of her period in post. But, in previous sittings, she outlined and indicated to this Committee that there is overwhelming excitement from many local authority leaders who welcome LGR and the new mayors proposed by the Government. She will also be aware that this has caused a huge amount of disruption to local people and the working of local authorities, at a difficult time for their operational capacity and capability, with reduced budgets. This is not needed.

For example, there are now three proposals to Government in my area. One is from the 12 district councils, which absolutely do not want to be abolished. There is unified agreement on that, except from Gosport borough council, which has opposed everything completely. There is a county council recommendation, lauded previously by the Minister, which is not supported by MPs who represent the area. And there is another proposal that is contested. One of my Hampshire colleagues has just entered the room, and he takes the same view as me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. There were unique circumstances where everything was going bankrupt, so strict action had to be taken. This Government are proposing, unilaterally and without any consultation with those who do not want it to go ahead, to change local government structures across the whole of the United Kingdom without democratic legitimacy.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Does the hon. Member recognise the state of local government—the absolute mess and the financial vulnerability of local authorities—that his party left us with? Unique circumstances, absolutely. We are having to fix the mess we inherited. We absolutely want local government to be successful and to thrive, but it is on its knees after 15 years of austerity. That is why we are having to take the action we are taking.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister is seriously suggesting that a complete and wholesale reorganisation across the whole United Kingdom is the one answer to making sure that local government can operate on a sustainable footing, I do not buy that at all. There are many things that this Government could do to make local government much more efficient and to deliver for people. First is an uplift in funding.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are doing that.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, the Minister should speak to the many council leaders across the country who do not agree that it is enough.

If the Minister is seriously saying that abolishing 90% of elected councillors in rural areas across this country will somehow be the miracle cure for local government, and that is what is driving these measures, then I am sorry but this Government need to go back to the drawing board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is interesting that the Government have moved away from that, particularly because I have not met one person who thinks that reorganisation into large unitary councils is a good idea.

If it is good for parts of the country, I hope that the Minister can explain why London and lots of the metropolitan boroughs in the north are not being compelled to reorganise. If this 500,000 figure is the sweet spot and the Government have loads of evidence to back that the claim that this will make services more efficient and put councils on a better financial footing, why is it good for only certain parts of the country, and not the whole country?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their robust contributions. I will say a few things. First, we acknowledge that any process of change or reform is difficult. The Government do not underestimate the challenge of the process, but I come to why we are doing this. I made an intervention earlier to point out the state of local government that we inherited. Any one of us will know the huge pressures that local government are under. Fifteen years of austerity and rising demand has made local government increasingly unstable. The status quo is not tenable or sustainable. We have to do something systemic, because we have a systemic issue in local government.

Reforming and reorganising local government will deliver better services, because we can locate services at a level that works for residents. This is not reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake. It will be tough for our areas, but we are doing it because we are trying to ensure that local government services can work for their residents. It is about sustainability. We need to ensure that we have a model of local government that is fit for purpose and can be sustained in the future, because they provide absolutely vital services for residents. It would be completely reckless of this Government to see the state of play that we inherited and say, “We’re going to sit on our hands and not do anything.” That may be the Conservative way, but it is not the Labour way. We are clear that we have to help drive through a process of reform, and we are doing that because we want to ensure that local governments are fit for purpose to deliver those services for their residents.

There is a fundamental point about accountability and accessibility to residents. If we talk to any of our residents, they will say that they barely understand how local government works—who is responsible for what. Creating structures and systems that work, and that our communities can interact with and cohere with, is absolutely right.

We are very clear: this is not a one bullet solution. It absolutely is not. We know that local government reform needs to sit alongside other things that we are doing. We recognise the funding pressure that local government are under. That is why we boosted local government funding last year, and why we are delivering a real-terms increase to local government funding, despite the tough fiscal inheritance from the last Government. We are moving to multi-year budgets because we think that the system of year-by-year funding for local government is madness. We are making that reform. We are also moving towards consolidated budgets. Having lots of silos and funding streams has made it hard for local government to be strategic and to drive integrated services; we are reforming all of that. We are clear that this measure sits alongside all of that.

The final bit is our funding review. We understand that there are huge pockets of deprivation across the country—I come back to the Conservative party, which had a Prime Minister who boasted about the fact that he took money away from deprived areas to give it to affluent Tunbridge Wells. We will not do that. We are trying to recalibrate funding so that we can reduce deprivation and drive improvements across the country.

On the process—just to be clear and put it on record—we have not put a gun to any heads in councils; the Secretary of State has invited councils to put forward their proposals. Areas are now going through a process. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley talked about three proposals in his area; that is because we are making it bottom-up and saying, “Have a conversation about what model works best. We have a set of criteria to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Consult your residents and your stakeholders, and put that proposal to Government.” That is the process that we are undergoing at the moment.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister says that there is no gun being held to local authority leaders’ heads. Can she therefore outline, in a clear way, what would happen to a county or district authority that said that it did not want local government reorganisation and refused to engage? They would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

They have been invited. There is a backstop power, but we do not think we will need to use it because the conversation now playing out across local government is that, yes, this is hard, but everyone recognises that the status quo—standing still—is not feasible or sustainable.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. She is being very generous, especially as I know that I have spoken for a while. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that Government Back Benchers are so delighted with my speaking.

I ask the Minister again, because she has not committed to this in clear language: if a county council leader or a number of district councils refused to engage with the Government’s process on local government reorganisation, they would be forced to reorganise, would they not?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

That is not where we want to be. That is not where we think we will end up. We have invited places and, to the credit of local government, everyone recognises that change is required. What is now happening is that places are making decisions about the best proposal to deliver the outcomes that they want for their constituents. This process has been hard—of course it has—but, throughout it, every single local authority has understood that the status quo will not deliver for their residents. That is the thing that is driving the impetus for change.

I will say a few words on the 500,000 population figure because Opposition Members have mentioned it. That is not a hard and fast number. We have said that it is a benchmark. If we think about other authorities that have gone through the process of local government reorganisation over the past 20 years—the likes of Somerset or Cornwall—500,000 is the sort of number that they have gone for, and we have seen that their reorganisations have delivered improvements in services and in the way that they operate. Places can go below or above that number. Ultimately, it is for places to figure out the best configuration of their locality to deliver for their residents. We have been clear and consistent about that point.

I want to address the specifics on London. We are open to a conversation with any part of the country that wants to talk about reorganisation. London, with its boroughs, obviously has a different configuration locked in legislation. It is distinct from our two-tier areas, which is why we are not focusing on it. But we are very open to a conversation about London, where we tend to have big authorities that are delivering some of these integrated services anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady in that we need responsibility, bearing in mind that amendment 51 would give the Secretary of State the power in this case to enforce that flexibility. A problem in the proposed local government reorganisation is that it focuses overly on the role and consent of county authorities, but the voice of district councils has not been listened to in this approach, as I outlined earlier when quoting Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, who was leader of the District Councils’ Network.

I know what the Minister will say to our amendments, and I respect her position in doing so, but the Conservative party believes that devolution can mean so much to so many if done with the bottom-up approach that the Minister insists is hers. We want some words of encouragement that she may look—although I know she will not—to reduce the restrictions on a single tier for larger geographical areas. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, as it is a probing one. However, I have it on the good authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley that he will table similar amendments on Report. We will listen to the Minister’s response with great enthusiasm.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me say three things in response. First, there is already flexibility in the creation of boundaries and geographies for unitaries to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they work for the communities they need to serve.

We are clear that, on the other side of local government reorganisation, councils must be the right size to deliver the high-quality services that residents deserve and need. Judgment on proposals will be driven by that fundamental question. Splitting up existing unitaries, further fragmenting and disaggregating services, does not feel like it would be in the interests of the residents concerned in delivering better and more efficient services, or value for money for taxpayers and those residents.

Clearly, we must have a reform process that fundamentally delivers those outcomes. There is now a process to do that. We will look at the various proposals and, ultimately, the test is: will the proposal deliver local government that is fit for purpose and deliver for our communities? Voters across the country want that and respect it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for what she said. I absolutely knew what she was going to say—that comes as no surprise to us in the Opposition—but this is about what we discussed before. She said that it would not necessarily be to the advantage of local people were we to allow the splitting of unitary authorities, but she is missing the fact that some people want that. I think that the non-uniform approach to local government works. I still believe that this is a community empowerment and devolution Bill. One size fits all across the UK is not the way that the Government should be going. I will withdraw the amendment, but I have no doubt of further amendments of this nature on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)