Local Government Finances: Surrey

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for opening this debate on the important topic of funding for local government in Surrey and for the thoughtful, constructive and eloquent way in which he made his remarks. I also thank him for acknowledging that we have inherited a very challenging context. I do not intend to do any party political back and forth, but the reality is that the inheritance was incredibly tough. We are working at pace to rectify that, in an impossible context for everyone involved.

We share the hon. Member’s view that local government is on the frontline of delivering services to the people of this country. It can do so only when central Government works with it in partnership to overcome the shared challenges that we face. Our local government reforms, including funding reforms and reorganisation, will enable local councils that are empowered to deliver local services and equipped to drive economic growth and to work in the interests of their communities. That is a shared goal and a shared priority, and we will work with anyone across any political party in order to deliver it.

I turn first to the local government finance settlement. I put it on the record that this is the most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable. That is a core priority against the really tough backdrop that local authorities across the country are having to navigate. We are delivering fair funding, targeting more money to the areas that need it most and then putting in place multi-year settlements for the first time in a decade. That will give councils the certainty to make the longer-term calls so that they can take a more preventive approach and do less crisis management.

For the local authority in Surrey, by the end of the multi-year settlement period in 2028-29 the provisional settlement makes available almost £1.5 billion of core spending power—an increase, in totality, of 7.3% compared with 2024-25. We acknowledge that there has been a cut in the core grant but, as has been the case for the past decade and a half, we look at the totality of core spending power, and it is going up. That does not in any way negate the fact that it is a tough context for local government to have to operate in, having had to operate in a really tough context for the past decade. However, we are trying to give sufficient flexibility in the approach that we are taking to enable local authorities to weather that.

For the first time since 2013-14, the Government are updating the relative needs formula, which forms part of how local authorities’ funding allocation is calculated. That has involved using more up-to-date data, including the indices of multiple deprivation published in 2025, as part of our assessment of needs. We know that that is leading to a redistribution across the country that is tough for some authorities to absorb, but we think it only right and fair that we target more support to those authorities and communities that have huge levels of need and deprivation. I say that as an MP representing a London constituency. London is taking some of that hit, but we see that as fair across the country, because in the end what we care about is supporting the communities that need the most help.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are simplifying and consolidating 36 revenue funding streams worth over £56 billion over three years, which we hope will provide greater flexibility, stability and certainty for local authorities.

We recognise that funding reform is just one part of the story. That is why we are committed to simplifying local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary authorities. I think the end goal that Members across the House are trying to get to is consistent. There is common ground: we want authorities that are sustainable and strong and can deliver for constituents. The Secretary of State has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, that Surrey will move towards two unitary councils: east Surrey and west Surrey.

The question of debt was raised, and rightly so. We are very alive to the pressure facing the new unitaries because of the historical debt. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says, we have announced an unprecedented commitment to repay, in principle, £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27. That is the first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required and how we can work with the new west Surrey authority to resolve the debt issue. We are clear that residents are at the heart of this, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that we are delivering for them. We are committed to working together to make sure that they are protected and have the quality and level of services that they deserve.

[Gregory Stafford]

From what the Minister says, it sounds as if she accepts that the remaining debt is still unsustainable to be dealt with at a local level. Is she teasing us with a future announcement of further moneys, or is it more of a general ambition?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I would do no such thing as tease with announcements that sit with the Chancellor. What we have said to partners on the ground in the local authority is that this is a shared problem and we are committed to working together to find a resolution. We understand the pressure that the historical debt will place on the new authorities. It is incumbent on all of us to find a way through that ensures that, on the other side of it, we have local authorities that are sustainable, can survive and can deliver the quality of services for the local residents that is required.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

I think the Minister said a moment ago that she would work with the west Surrey authority to resolve the issue. At what stage in the process does she anticipate a decision and resolution? The west Surrey authority will not be an operational statutory unit until spring next year. We have elections to the shadow authorities this year. As I understand it, those shadow authorities will not have any powers until vesting day, when they are transferred to the full-fat authority, so the current county council and the district and borough councils will still have statutory powers.

Is the Minister saying that there will be no debt resolution until the west Surrey unitary authority is set up? Is she saying that there will be a resolution when the shadow authority is in place, or will we have a resolution before the elections this May? That is really important for our residents, who need to know what set-up the councillors they are voting for will have to deal with. Can she guarantee, or even say that it is her ambition, that she will get this resolved before we get to those elections?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are already working with all the authorities involved. That is why we put in place £500 million for Woking local authority. We have been working with it historically, and we will continue working with it to resolve this. I cannot give a timeframe, in part because resolving this requires all parties involved to come together to understand the scale of the problem and, critically, how we can work together, using the levers available to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman hears that there is a shared commitment to resolving this, and we will work with the constituent local authorities to get a resolution.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I acknowledge the pressure that social care is creating for the local government finance system; that is squeezing vital services. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned planning, but we see this issue across services that are not non-statutory. Ultimately, the core thing that local government can deliver is effective services that build our communities and hold them together, and we all want to preserve that. That is why we are driving through pretty punchy reforms across children’s social care, for example. That is the biggest transformation in a generation; there will be an historic £2.4 billion of investment over the multi-year settlement period in the Families First partnership programmes. We are building a national care service based on quality care, backed by £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.

We will bring forward a full White Paper on special educational needs and disabilities, because we understand that there is pressure, and the impact that has on local government finances. We must find a way to deliver the best possible services for children and families who need support, and must do so in a sustainable way.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has been extremely open in her responses so far. One side effect of the financial pressures that Surrey faces as a consequence of special educational needs is the so-called safety valve agreement. That has had consequences for a proposed school in my constituency, Frimley Oak Academy, for which money is designated. The Department for Education agrees that it should go ahead, but as a result of the safety valve agreement, Surrey cannot go ahead with it, because of that school’s ongoing operational costs. That is an example of financial constriction having a material effect on the provision of a vital educational offering. Will the Minister perhaps take that point away, and inquire whether the situation could be freed up to ensure that the school can come to my constituency?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am happy to take that point away, and either my Department or the DFE will write back and provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me address the question about devolution and the devolution process, and the move towards a mayor. We are absolutely committed to devolution. I have spoken to the leader of Surrey council and made it clear that we want to move forward. For us, the first step is creating a strong strategic authority that is empowered to start driving economic change and can bring constituent authorities together for strategic decision making. We want to move forward with that at pace, so we will work with the new unitaries, and with partners on the ground, to build a strong economic footprint, and build the institution that allows us to move to the next stage of devolution.

[Gregory Stafford]

The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with her time, but I do not want her to miss the opportunity to respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about a Surrey mayor. Will she confirm whether we will get a mayor in Surrey before the end of this parliamentary term?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Ultimately, that will be a local question. The process is always to put in place a combined authority first and foremost, and to get that working. The big lesson that I have learned from my many years working in the space of devolution—a lesson that we see when we look across the Greater Manchester combined authority—is that if we first get strong institution working in partnership, so that the combined authority can hold power and deliver economic development functions, it makes the mayor far stronger and more effective.

The first stage for us is working with the constituent authorities to move forward with the strategic authority. We want to do that at pace, and to ensure that we are equipping it with the powers that it needs, so that it can start driving economic prosperity for the area, take on strategic planning powers and transport powers, and start investing in the local community. We can then move through the stages of devolution. The commitment to devolution in Surrey is absolutely there, and we will work with partners to deliver that.

I thank all hon. Members for the powerful points that they have raised, and for their passion, commitment and advocacy for Surrey. I hope that they have heard, in this debate, that the Government are absolutely committed to fixing the foundations of local government finance, against an incredibly difficult backdrop. We are ready to listen to the concerns of any local authority about the ongoing reforms. We know that they are difficult and punchy, but we are making the reforms because we think that they are necessary if we are to get local government back on a sustainable footing. We are determined to work together, across party lines, to deliver our shared goal of services that work for constituents in every part of this country. The Government are absolutely committed to that.

Question put and agreed to.

5.10 pm

House adjourned.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

I am grateful to Members of both the Commons and the Lords who have so diligently scrutinised the Bill throughout its passage. I thank the noble Lord Khan of Burnley for taking the Bill through the other place and for being so thorough in his approach.

Before I address the Lords amendment, I would like to take a moment to remind the House why we introduced the Bill in the first place. There is a long-standing cross- party commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We do this to mark a profound and dark moment in our history, to remember the sheer loss of humanity and to continue to learn the lessons day after day, generation after generation. This simple three-clause Bill was introduced in February 2023 to enable us to make progress in delivering that.

The Bill does two things: first, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre; and secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent. The Bill does not provide the Government with planning powers to build the memorial and learning centre; those are being sought through the separate statutory planning process.

On the face of it, Lords amendment 1 looks uncontroversial, and I have no doubt that it is well intentioned. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment. In short, the amendment seeks to deal with matters that are not part of this Bill and are more properly dealt with elsewhere. Following debates in the other place, there have been constructive discussions with those leading support for the amendment to consider how best to proceed. In the light of those discussions, I want to assure this House that the Government’s aim in establishing a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, in line with the cross-party consensus since 2015, is to increase understanding of the Holocaust and of antisemitism. There must be no question of the learning centre deviating from that purpose.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I declare a sort of interest, in that many members of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I understand the meaning of the term “Holocaust” to be the Nazis’ mass extermination of the Jews during their period in power, both in their own country and in the countries they occupied. I have not followed the progress of the Bill as closely as I should have done, but I get the impression that there is some move away from keeping it specific to that terrible crime, towards widening it to cover massacres in general and other terrible racial crimes. I think the intention behind the Bill and the museum was that it should be about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their associates. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the situation?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I can confirm that that is the case, and I will be very clear and explicit about both the intention and what we will do to enshrine that intention.

The learning centre will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against Jewish people. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading curator, supported by Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator, and by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure that the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal to Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.

Delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being supported by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. We value the work of the foundation, which has been steadfast in its determination to build the memorial and to create a learning centre in which the story of the Holocaust is told powerfully, unflinchingly and honestly. We aim to make sure that the body responsible for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre has the independence and permanence that the Holocaust Commission sought. We will provide the operating body with governing documents that are clear and specific, leaving no doubt that the learning centre has been established to provide education about the Holocaust and about antisemitism.

We will also ensure that there are appropriate processes for the appointment of governing body members, and provide support so that they have a clear understanding of their role. The governing body will be permitted to hold fundraising and commemorative events and public lectures, as long as they are appropriate to the intent and purpose of the learning centre. It will be for the trustees to determine what activities are consistent with the aims of the memorial and learning centre.

I hope that I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. No additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitable risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.

The better way to proceed is to put in place clear and robust governance arrangements for the learning centre, and to place on the trustees the responsibility for ensuring that the facts of the Holocaust and the long history of antisemitism are explained clearly and honestly, for this and future generations. Our aim must now be to pass this Bill and to move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

If the hon. Member will let me, I would like to finish.

When all in the House agree on something, the question is whether the designs have been sufficiently scrutinised. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is to make a commitment to transparency and to communicating the pressures, which I foresee will emerge, in a very timely way.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I rise to thank hon. Members of all parties for their contribution to this important debate. I appreciate that although the Government’s commitment to establish a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre has cross-party support, there are strongly held views in many quarters about how that vision is made a reality, and we are committed to listening and to engaging as we move forward.

I would like to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for the work that his party did to initiate this important scheme and the Bill, and for maintaining cross-party consensus and working constructively with us to find solutions to move forward. He was right to focus our minds on the purpose of the Bill and the key mission of the learning centre.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) was right to remind us of the need for pace and urgency. This process was initiated in 2015; it has taken far too long to get to this point. As he pointed out, as we delay and take time, the hope and ambition that the last survivors could see the construction of this memorial and learning centre moves further out of sight. We are determined to move at pace with construction, should we get the support of the House, to conclude it while the last remaining survivors are still here.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) gave a powerful contribution highlighting the reason for the Bill and the need constantly to remember, so that “never again” is not a hollow slogan or empty words. She was right that we are having this debate in the context of a rising tide of hate and division across our country. The collective task before us is to make sure that we move, deliver, remember and learn for this generation and future generations.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is timely to remind us all that if we held a minute’s silence for every person killed in the Holocaust, we would be silent for 11 and a half years. It is right and proper that we have a national memorial. Can the Minister reassure the House? Antisemitism is not confined to history; it is happening daily. Whether it be attacks at football matches or in our streets, around us our Jewish friends face hostility simply for being Jews. As this centre remembers the Holocaust, will it also deal with the antisemitism prevalent in our society today? Will those Jewish friends feel confident that they will not be attacked when they go to the centre?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are seeing increased antisemitism. We see case after case in all our communities. I spend a lot of time talking to the Jewish community and our faith leaders. I hear the fear, anxiety and worry. The Government are absolutely committed to responding to that and to making sure that we take action so that our Jewish friends in this country feel safe and feel that they can live their lives without fear of attack or prejudice. That is a collective ambition across the House, and one that we have to work day in and day out to deliver. Remembering, and remembering where this can take us, is part of that journey, which is why the Bill and the memorial centre are absolutely key.

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for paying tribute to his constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff, her legacy and her impact. There are so many survivors who have made such a huge contribution and have continued to give and continued to remind us. I hope that, collectively, we deliver this Bill for them and deliver the construction of this site.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is right to point out that there have been issues about the location. There have been large debates about this. I gently point out that there has been extensive consultation throughout the planning process; 4,500 responses were submitted to the planning application and a planning inquiry was held publicly. We have consulted, and we have heard and listened. The issue of the location is increasingly settled, but we will continue to work with the community and the council to get the design right. Critically, we will protect the garden, as the site will take up only 7.5% of the area of Victoria Tower Gardens. We will do a huge amount of work to make sure that the memorial centre is aligned and consistent with that public park. Critically, we are doing work to enhance the park, including the playground.

Let me end by reflecting on the contribution from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and his plea for transparency, which we hear. There is consensus and we want to maintain that consensus. That requires us to continue listening and engaging, and to keep the House updated. Any construction has difficulties going through planning but also delivery. Our commitment is that, because all Members have worked together to get to this point, we will continue to update the House.

I close by underlining the Government’s determination to ensure that the learning centre remains firmly focused on education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. We will ensure that that determination is embedded in the future governance arrangements for the memorial and learning centre, so that there can be no dilution of or digression from that intent. We do that, as Members across the House have highlighted eloquently and passionately, to ensure that we remember that dark moment and learn the lessons of history so that it can never happen again. I hope we can now move ahead as quickly as possible to establish the Holocaust memorial and learning centre with the consent and the support of Members across the House.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 1;

That Miatta Fahnbulleh, Deirdre Costigan, Laura Kyrke-Smith, Mark Sewards, Peter Prinsley, Sir James Cleverly and Zöe Franklin be members of the Committee;

That Miatta Fahnbulleh be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 September 2025 (Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on the Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 4.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I am proud to have secured a £20 million investment in the “pride of Corby” project—that is £2 million a year every year for the next 10 years—but it is crucial that local communities determine how and where the investment is spent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money must be spent on exactly what the community actually wants, with residents properly consulted and local people as the decision makers?

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

My hon. Friend is completely right. We are clear that communities must be in the driving seat. That is why we have asked for neighbourhood boards to be set up, to determine the priorities that the investment goes into. The one requirement we have of local areas is that there is a bigger conversation in the community so that everyone is involved in shaping what is invested in and reviving their area.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

When the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said that residents of Birmingham do matter when it comes to the bin strikes, I agree with her—but so do neighbouring constituencies, where we often get the blight of additional fly-tipping as well as having constituents who work at the council. Will she personally undertake not just to get people round the table, but to get this sorted out once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Several prominent buildings in Stafford have been left vacant for long periods, with landlords allowing sites to fall into disrepair with no intention of bringing them up to standard. Labour-led Stafford borough council is trying to act proactively to tackle these eyesores, but what advice and support can the Government offer to good councils that are seeking to address property hoarding and to unlock sites for regeneration?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear that we want to boost the power of communities to revive their places. This is why we are rolling out high street rental auctions, stronger and more streamlined compulsory purchase powers, the community right to buy, and Pride in Place, and we will work with any council that wants to take back control of its place and revive its communities.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The main cemetery in Dewsbury is approaching capacity following the increase in burials since the covid pandemic. The local authority has been aware of this issue for several years. However, there remains significant uncertainty and concerns are becoming increasingly urgent. The issue is of particular cultural and religious significance, with only two burial plots remaining for Muslim burials. What steps will the Secretary of State take to support local authorities in addressing burial capacity shortages in Kirklees?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are conscious of the pressure in parts of the country around cemeteries and burials, and we understand the urgency. I ask the hon. Member to write to me with the specifics of the issue in his patch, and we will respond in due course.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The local housing allowance covers just over half of private rents for social tenants in York, as private rents are so extortionate, so will the Government review the broad rental market area, which does not work for our area? It has not been reviewed properly since 2008.

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—]