English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C but proposes amendment (a) in lieu of those amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, insists on its amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu, and proposes amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am pleased to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I thank Members from across the House for their constructive engagement in getting the Bill to this point. This Bill matters because, if we are to transform our economy, drive up living standards and deliver better public services in every community, a fundamental change is needed in the way that the country is run. This landmark Bill will deliver just that. It represents the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation.

I am glad that we have found a way forward on several of the issues that we most recently discussed—namely, the role of strategic authorities and mayors in rural affairs, agents of change in the planning system, and the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses on the remaining issues: the ministerial power of direction in schedule 1, the prioritisation of development on brownfield land, and the models of governance in local authorities. That is why the Government have today tabled three amendments, which I will now outline.

On the question of the ministerial power of direction in the Bill, I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. I repeat for the record that we on this side of the House believe strongly that the Government have a duty to drive economic growth, unlock investment and deliver better outcomes for our communities. To deny communities that opportunity would be to hold them back. That is why we originally put in place a backstop power of direction for the Secretary of State to use in exceptional circumstances—I emphasise “exceptional circumstances”—but to be clear, the approach that we are taking in practice is to work with local leaders to forge enduring local partnerships and strong local institutions with their consent.

However, we have heard the concerns and strength of feeling from some noble peers about the scope of the powers previously included in schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying the progress of the Bill and of showing that communities can benefit from the powers that we all wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral strategic authority.

In addition, I am happy to commit that the Government will not seek to use the remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that have been discussed at length. As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, our policy and our practice are very clear. We are working with local leaders and we will continue to work with them to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their area. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions I am making here today put that commitment beyond any doubt.

I shall turn now to the issue of brownfield land. The Government consider Lords amendments 89B and 89C to be unworkable. They would undermine effective plan making, constrain proper consideration of local circumstances and introduce inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform can be pursued, and it is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place.

Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of the recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development and to further reinforce a brownfield-first approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making powers to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.

This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues that are also on the face of the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and clearly desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s clear commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

I now turn to the matter of local authority governance. As hon. Members will know, the Government have set a clear default position. Councils that are currently operating the committee system and are not otherwise protected should be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. That remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns expressed in the other place and in this House that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could create challenges for some councils, their members and officers—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals.

The Government amendment we are bringing forward today responds to those concerns. It allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. This provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution, so that it is not required to undertake a significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform, but it does provide a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points that have been raised over the pace of change.

To conclude, the Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and I thank the noble Lords and this place for their contribution in helping us with that. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on brownfield land, local authority governance and the ministerial power of direction. I urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept these concessions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I will be brief, as most of the arguments have already been well stated.

We acknowledge the Minister’s argument yesterday that this Bill represents a step forward, not the final destination, and that consistency is needed to make the system function, but it is important that, in seeking that consistency, we do not lose the very flexibility that makes devolution truly meaningful. We remain supportive of our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords and their efforts to strengthen the Bill. I place on record our continued backing for a number of those amendments.

Lords amendment 36 addresses our central point. It is not devolution to mandate a single model of governance from the centre. Local areas must retain the ability to choose what works for them. I thank the Minister for concessions that she has made in relation to Liberal Democrat amendments; we are grateful that the Government have taken note of the importance of communities having the right to choose their own governance, and ensured that choice is better protected.

We have already seen why flexibility for local authorities matters. In Sheffield, the council moved away from the leader and cabinet model to a committee system following real concerns about transparency, accountability and council overreach. That change was driven locally by councillors responding to their communities. As my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley set out in the other place, the consequences of concentration of power in a small executive can be profound. In Sheffield, decisions to fell thousands of healthy street trees were driven through by a small group without the scrutiny of a wider number. In Sheffield, there is now a plaque that says:

“In recognition of the courageous campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council, and as a reminder to all that such failures of leadership must never happen again.”

That is a stark warning of what can go wrong when power and authority are too concentrated in the hands of too few.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the Government on this matter, because we are a party that believes in real community representation and local governance decided by local people. We will always fight to ensure that communities have a genuine say in how their areas are run, and that decisions are not handed down from Whitehall. If consistency comes at the cost of local voices, we are not strengthening devolution; we are narrowing it.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 98. The Liberal Democrats believe that placing limits on powers over structural changes is vital if local democracy is to have genuine autonomy. I thank the Minister for what she said about that. Likewise, we have sought to remove powers that would allow Ministers to direct the creation or expansion of combined authorities, including the imposition of mayors, without meaningful local consent. Members on both sides of the House agree that meaningful devolution cannot mean structures delivered and sent from Whitehall with limited local input. If local government is to have real autonomy, consent must be meaningful and Parliament must retain its proper role. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on that.

On Lords amendments 89B and 89C, we strongly support the prioritisation of brownfield development. The Liberal Democrats are grateful to the Government for listening to calls for better protection of greenfield land, and for taking steps through the Bill to encourage the prioritisation of brownfield. That will help to ensure that development is happening in the right places, on land that needs to be developed on, and in consultation with the communities that surround it. This is not about opposing growth; it is about delivering that growth sustainably and making the best use of land that has been developed before.

Although I accept the Minister’s argument that some flexibility is needed to meet housing demand, if it results in greenfield and green spaces becoming the default, we will have failed and got the balance fundamentally wrong. Green spaces are essential to community wellbeing. They support mental and physical health, provide space for recreation and contribute to the identity of local places. Once lost, they cannot be replaced. If brownfield land is not properly prioritised, development pressure will fall on those spaces. We therefore welcome this step in the right direction by the Minister, but we will continue to ask the Government to go further on prioritising brownfield.

When taken together, the three amendments do not frustrate the Bill, but improve it. They move it closer to what devolution should be—rooted in local consent and accountable to local communities. We are glad that the Government have taken heed of the priorities that the Liberal Democrats have put forward, and we will continue to work constructively to ensure decisions are made with local people and not done to them.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement and their insightful debate on these issues. In the remaining time, I will respond to some of the particular points that have been made.

I want to put on record my thanks to Opposition Members for the constructive way in which they have approached the debate, so that we can progress the Bill. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and I will continue to disagree on whether this is a centralising Bill or a radical shift in power. I still fundamentally believe that the Bill marks a huge step in transferring power outside Whitehall, but, candidly, we will demonstrate that through our actions and through the impact of Bill. What drives us is the impact that this will have in our communities, and we have strong measures that will help us to ensure that we are putting communities in the driving seat so that they can shape their place.

I hear the points made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on local government governance. The example of Sheffield is one that many of my hon. Friends have advocated for on behalf of their communities, which is why we made the original concession. We think that we have found the right balance. We are clear that if we are to empower local authorities in the way that we want to, they need strong governance in order to make decisions for their communities that will impact on those communities. The reason we are trying to support the shift in governance arrangements is to ensure that we have enduring local authorities that can fundamentally deliver. We think that we have achieved that in the concessions that we have made.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have found it hugely heartening that there is a clear point of consensus across the House that if we are to deliver change in our communities, we must push power out into our communities, into the hands of local leaders, into our neighbourhoods and to people who know their patch best. I hope this Bill represents the start of a journey that will fundamentally change the way that Government works and how we, in this place, serve the communities that we are here to represent; where the principle of devolution by default, underpinned by a clear framework, is locked in; where local leaders are empowered to drive economic change and improvements in living standard across their patch; and where communities are put in the driving seat and given powers to shape the places in which they live and work.

I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this legislation represents the floor, not the summit, of our ambition for devolution. I look forward to working with my hon. Friends on the Government Benches and with hon. Members from across the House as we build on the provisions in the Bill.

Finally, I would like to thank my brilliant team of officials who have worked on the Bill—Hannah, Carrie, Guy, Jenna, Marie, Alice, John, Rachel and Wendy—as well as my private office team—Molly, Simon and Lucy—who have all done an absolutely heroic job in taking a mammoth Bill through the House. With that, I commend the Government motions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59

Local authority governance and executives

Resolved,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

Clause 92

Commencement

Resolved,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, insists on its amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu, and proposes further amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary, asking whether Jonathan Powell was subject to scrutiny vetting before or after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the Chagos negotiations. I have not yet received a response. Given that Morgan McSweeney appeared to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that the vetting process began only after Powell was later appointed as National Security Adviser, how can I secure an official answer from the Foreign Office to this basic question before Parliament prorogues?

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill on 21 April 2026.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 265.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh):

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

On the question of reviewing the legislative protections of public recreational space, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 36, 90 and 155, insists on its amendments 155A to 155F to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement with Amendment 155, and proposes further Amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 37 and 91, does not insist on its amendment 37A in lieu, and proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 94B and 94C.

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 but proposes Amendments (a) to (h) to the Bill in lieu of those amendments.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I am pleased that we have worked constructively throughout the Bill’s passage to ensure that the Bill is as strong as possible. We have engaged in good faith with Members from across the House and incorporated their feedback. With that, I turn to the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to add “rural affairs” as a distinct area of competence in clause 2 of the Bill. As I have said before, there is no difference in policy intent here; the Government’s position remains that those matters are captured in the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed by noble Lords in the other place. As we extend devolution beyond the predominately urban centres of England, it is right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether urban, rural or coastal. The Government are therefore prepared to accept the addition of “rural affairs” and “coastal communities” to the list of subjects included in the areas of competence.

Hon. Members will know that the Government’s objective is for every part of England to benefit from devolution, and that we want this to be fundamentally a bottom-up process. For the benefit of the House, I will repeat the Government’s commitment not to commence the ministerial powers of direction to establish non-mayoral strategic authorities or expand existing strategic authorities without local consent for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This is the approach that we have taken in conversation and engagement with local authorities in order to form foundation strategic authorities, and this is the approach that we continue to take. At the same time, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by some in this House and in the other place about the backstop powers set out in schedule 1. We therefore propose removing the power for the Secretary of State to establish a mayor in an area without local consent.

On brownfield land, the Government fully agree on the importance of prioritising the development of brownfield land. As previous stated, planning policies and decisions are, and should be made, under the national planning policy framework. It remains the right place to set clear expectations on how and where developments should come forward. I have previously set out that imposing a legal requirement in the Bill would risk undermining effective plan-making and local flexibility in supporting sustainable development. The Government consider the amendment passed by the other place to be impractical, as it would undermine effective plan-making, limit consideration of local circumstances, and create inconsistency between the requirements for spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and strategic authorities, and those prepared by upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities. I therefore invite hon. Members to reject the amendment in lieu on brownfield land.

Let me turn to the issue of local authority governance arrangements. We remain firmly of the view that executive models of governance—in particular, the leader and cabinet model—provide the clearest and most transparent decision-making in local government. We continue to believe that our approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent model of governance across England’s local authorities and respecting local democratic mandates and decisions where a committee-run council has adopted its governance model more recently. We have got the balance right; we have listened and adapted, and we do not intend to go further. I invite hon. Members to reject the Lords amendment.

I recognise the strength of feeling about the role of town and parish councils in neighbourhood governance. The Government have considered Lords amendments 37 and 91 carefully, and we cannot accept an amendment that would undermine the principles of autonomy and localism. The creation of new parish councils is for local authorities to decide on, based on their community’s needs. Central Government should not intervene and direct that any particular model of neighbourhood governance is right for a place.

However, we have proposed a further amendment, building on our previous commitments. The new change requires local authorities to engage with town and parish councils where appropriate regarding parish representation under neighbourhood governance arrangements. That makes it clear that parish councils, where they exist, have an important role to play in neighbourhood governance. Again, we absolutely recognise the role of town and parish councils—I have made that point consistently throughout the passage of the Bill. We believe that our amendment strikes the right balance, alongside our commitments to reviewing and updating the guidance on community governance reviews, and to publishing a neighbourhood governance framework.

While I thank my noble colleagues for their insightful comments on the “agent of change” principle, I continue to hold that the most effective way to ensure the proper consideration of that principle is by strengthening existing mechanisms. National planning policy is not wishy-washy, as some have suggested. The framework carries significant weight in the planning system, and we are already in the most ambitious period of planning reform for a decade. I recognise the concerns that have been raised with me throughout this debate, and it is clear that the principle is not being effectively implemented. We already propose updating policy to address these issues, and I have committed to reviewing the guidance, in order to help disseminate best practice. Again, there is no fundamental difference in the policy intent; we are talking about the mechanism for taking it forward. We believe that the changes that we have in train will ensure that important businesses are protected from the effects of new development. With that, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

The Bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result of the scrutiny in ping-pong so far, and we are incredibly grateful. We are pleased to be able to offer concessions on rural affairs, coastal communities, the power to direct a mayor, and town and parish councils. However, the Government are not prepared to accept any of the other Lords amendments that we have discussed today—not because there is fundamentally a difference in policy, but because we are thinking about the most effective mechanism for ensuring that these policies bite. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position and accept the Government’s concessions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 37 recognises that reality. The Government’s amendment to consult parish councils where they exist is not good enough, because if they do not exist, they do not exist. The Lords amendment would go further and help make those organisations exist in the first place. If we are serious about devolution, about identity of place and about rebuilding trust in local government, we should be supporting the Lords amendment. I am disappointed that we will not have the opportunity to vote on it.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement on the Bill and their insightful contributions to the debate. I am glad that our concessions have secured support. I thank both my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and hon. Members across the House for their feedback and insights, which have led to these concessions—[Interruption.] Thank you. Since the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) piped up, I will start with him.

There is the consistent theme of the hon. Member accusing the Government of making this a centralising Bill and, in a way that is becoming tradition, I must push back on that. I remind him that this is the biggest transfer of powers out of Whitehall and Westminster to our local leaders at regional level and to our communities. I also remind him that his Government had over a decade to drive through wholesale, consistent devolution in the way that this Government are doing, and they did not take up that opportunity. We had a decade of slow, ad hoc, piecemeal transfer of power to our communities and our local leaders. We do not agree with that approach.

In the Bill, we are doing two things. We are setting out a framework for clear economic devolution to our regions that makes devolution by default the norm and creates a mechanism by which that can happen without individual deals being negotiated. Critically, we are also building the power of our communities, whether through strengthening the community right to buy so that communities can take hold of assets of community value or through the creation of neighbourhood governance so that we have a tier of local governance that ensures that communities have the power and voice to drive the change they want to see in their place and shape their neighbourhoods and communities.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested to hear the Minister explain how we can ensure that town and parish councils, particularly existing ones, are integrated into the new local government settlement. They are particularly important when unitarisation is happening, increasing efficiencies of scale and enabling more strategic deployment at the kind of scale that is important. However, there is a concern that if those local parish and town councils are not integrated into the local government settlement, we will have a reduction in democratic accountability.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question and for being a clear, consistent and passionate advocate of town and parish councils. I will pick up her point, but I want to start with her forceful and effective contribution about coastal communities and the amendments that we are proposing.

The Government have heard the concerns that rural affairs will be marginalised with our new devolution framework. As we extend devolution beyond the urban centres of England, it is absolutely right that strategic authorities look to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wide range of geographies, whether they are urban, rural or indeed coastal communities.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful for the steps that the Government have taken today in recognising the importance of rural and coastal communities. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made reference to my constituency earlier in this regard, and I thank her for doing so. The Government clearly realise how important it is to recognise a rural and coastal communities in this Bill. Has the Minister now had her mind changed such that we should recognise rural and coastal communities with their own Cabinet position?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Polly Billington) made about commissioners and the governance arrangements. We are clear that strategic authorities absolutely must think about how they drive the prosperity and wellbeing of their rural and coastal communities. The structures—and, indeed, the policy framework—that they put in place to do that will be in the gift of local leaders and the mayor. That is right, and that is the basis of devolution. What we are trying to do through the Bill—I think we have achieved it through the amendments and the existing provisions—is to ensure that there is a clear framework that strategic authorities and mayors are working towards.

We as a Government absolutely recognise the important role that coastal and rural communities play. We are committed to doing our part to support strategic authorities, to ensure that they are dealing with issues from housing through to transport and the infrastructure that we need, in order to ensure that our rural communities thrive. Members across the House have our commitment that we will do that, so that local plans reflect the composition of different parts of the country, and that we are putting in place the building blocks to ensure that none of our coastal or rural communities are left behind.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I understand the temptation to distinguish between urban, rural and coastal communities, but does the Minister recognise that urban communities such as mine in Sunderland are also coastal communities? By the limitations of geography, our economic activity is limited by 180°, and there are particular issues regarding transport links, economic geography and so on. Does she agree that it is not a binary distinction between urban, rural and coastal, and that many city council areas such as mine, as well as combined authorities, need to be considered as coastal communities as well?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Indeed, the reason that the Government originally resisted this amendment was on that very point. Ultimately, we believed that the framework and the set of competences that we had set out were broad enough to capture the complexities of different areas with a mix of urban, rural and coastal. However, we understood the strength of feeling in the other place and we have made this concession. Now it is for our local leaders, through the context of devolution, to ensure that they come together to put in place a plan that can deal with the specifics of their area.

Let me turn to the points on town and parish councils that hon. Members have raised. I have been consistent through the passage of this Bill that we absolutely recognise the importance of town and parish councils. I would like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), who has been a consistent advocate for town and parish councils, both in Committee and in the House. Our amendment in lieu provides that regulations made under clause 60 may provide for parish councils to be represented on neighbourhood governance structures. This locks in the importance of town and parish councils within the new neighbourhood framework that we are putting in place. It places beyond doubt the expectation that local authorities should engage with parish councils about parish representation under that framework.

[Vikki Slade]

Can I just clarify the use of the word “should” rather than the word “must”? Where these bodies exist, they must have a right to be included; this is not just a “should”. I worry that the word “should” will allow a mayor or a larger authority to have the power over what is, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) commented, possibly the most important level of local government.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I absolutely agree that communities are a fundamental level. Part of the reason we are putting in place a neighbourhood governance structure is to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet made, which is that at the moment the neighbourhood structure is not built within our framework for local government. We believe that communities must be empowered, and this is an important step to rectify that. Where we disagree, however, is that I think it is wrong for Government to impose on places any particular neighbourhood governance structure. It is absolutely right that it is left to local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them.

Town and parish councils exist across 80% of our geography, so in many areas they will be the default, but in other areas they may not be. We are criticised for being centralising, and I have pushed back against that constantly. I think it would be hugely centralising to say that, irrespective of what your community wants—whether it is an area or ward forum, a neighbourhood forum or a structure that already exists—central Government think you must have this model and this model only, and that is not the approach we are taking. Yes, we recognise the importance of town and parish councils, but we ultimately think it must be left to communities and local areas to decide the right neighbourhood governance structure for them that represents what the community wants and can be the voice for the community to drive the change that they want to see.

[Vikki Slade]

I am grateful to the Minister for letting me come back on this, because the missing link is not necessarily that it is a town and parish council structure; it is that 20% of the country has nothing, and there is nothing in place to ensure that those people have something. In the area that I represent, a huge cost has now come to the local area because there was a failure to put anything in place. Whether it is a town or parish council or another neighbourhood governance, the current structure does not provide for there to be anything.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is completely right. There is a gap, and we are putting in this provision for a neighbourhood governance structure across the country to address that gap. Many areas that do not have town and parish councils will have other mechanisms in place. I point to my borough of Southwark, where we have area committees that work really well and represent the community. The key principle here, however, is that it must be for the community to determine the right structure that represents their area and can be an effective voice. We cannot and must not dictate from central Government.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As someone who was a parish councillor in a previous life and now represents a seat that has no parish level of governance whatsoever, I wonder whether the Minister sees a role for arbitration over where there is conflict between what that local mechanism might look like—for instance, where a residents association encroaches on another set of streets that might be considered another part of a residents association. Where do the Government see their role in facilitating resolution so that those powerful local bodies can exist in a way that is representative, fair and equal?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We as a Government are committed to putting in place a neighbourhood governance framework, and that framework will set in place the key principles. It will be a guide for what effective, strong neighbourhood governance looks like. We will put in place regulation and guidance to support local authorities as they go through the endeavour of working with their communities to put the right structure in place. We have done a huge amount of work with the sector, and have taken evidence, which has informed the principles, but one of the big messages we got from everyone across the sector is: “Whatever you do, do not dictate what this looks like; build on what exists, and ultimately leave it to communities and local areas to come up with the right model for them.” When the sector speaks, we listen.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

If the Minister reckons that Ministers should not dictate what local government structures should be, will she let areas that have two-tier government, and that want to keep their district councils, keep them? My area does; it wants to keep Conservative-run Broxbourne district council. Why is she mandating that we go to unitary authorities, when she is clearly saying, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that she does not want to dictate what local government looks like across the country?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I have had this debate many times with the hon. Member. His Government were in power for over a decade and oversaw the decimation and denuding of local authorities through a sustained period of austerity. His Government saw that local authorities were not sustainable, yet did not act. It falls to this Government to recognise those failures. We care about having strong local government that can deliver services for communities. Local government reorganisation is neither easy nor fun—it is hugely time-consuming, and we know that it is a difficult endeavour for our local authorities—but it was a necessity because of the previous Government’s failure to act for nearly a decade and a half. They saw the failings and issues in local government and did not respond; we have not done that.

We were clear that, ultimately, we would ask local areas to come forward with a range of proposals, based on a set of criteria. They have done that, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness is judging the proposals that have come forward against the objective criteria that have been set. What we would not do—I will never concede on this point—is nothing, because that would have left local government collapsing at the very time when our communities need it to be working.

I reassure hon. Members that we think that we have struck the right balance, particularly on town and parish council governance. We are clear that town and parish councils have an important role. We are driving forward community power—something I am fundamentally passionate about and committed to—but we have balanced that with the imperative that national Government must not dictate the structure; that must be left to local areas to decide.

I would like to pick up on “brownfield first”, raised by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). I continue to stress that the Government fully agree with, and support, the principle of “brownfield first”. There is no difference in policy intent here, and there never has been. We have demonstrated our commitment by strengthening support for brownfield development in national policy in December 2024, and we proposed further changes earlier this year. I have been clear that the NPPF is the framework under which planning policy and decisions are and should be made, and it remains the most appropriate tool for supporting brownfield development.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that brownfield sites should be prioritised for development. On the NPPF, how can we further ensure that the right type of housing goes on brownfield sites? We are talking about social rent housing, and housing for older people who are rightsizing, and for first-time buyers; there is a huge shortage of that housing, across the country.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is completely right: we need to build more homes. We are absolutely committed to doing that, but they have to be the right homes for communities. That is why this Government are investing £39 billion to ensure that we have the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. We must build homes that our communities can afford, and that are appropriate for our communities.

[Gareth Snell]

In Stoke-on-Trent, we are outside a mayoral combined authority, but have oodles of old industrial brownfield. We are itching to get our hands on it, but we do not have those compulsory purchase powers that sit with Homes England. Once the strategic combined authorities are up and running, how soon will we be able to use those powers to purchase that land, so that we can build the houses that the Minister talks about?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are as impatient as my hon. Friend is to get building on brownfield land, so we are working closely with all our authorities and strategic authorities to ensure that they have the power and tools to do that. We recognise that a big barrier to building on brownfield land is funding. This Government committed a record amount—£5 billion over the spending review—to supporting the remediation of brownfield sites, so that we can unlock the development that we all want.

The Opposition, who are pushing this amendment, accuse us of centralising, yet the amendment would, by its very nature, remove flexibility, whereas the Bill allows our local leaders, be it at regional or local authority level, the flexibility to deploy policy in a way that makes sense for their area. The amendment is fundamentally centralising, and we would be much better off trying to achieve “brownfield first”, an objective that we all agree on, through a policy that gives local leaders the flexibility to apply policy in a way that makes sense for their area.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Will the Minister elaborate on funding for brownfield sites? In my constituency, we have Riverside Sunderland, the most ambitious city centre regeneration project in the UK. That is only possible because of £30 million of Homes England funding, which will create more than 800 homes. Does she agree that it is somewhat hypocritical for parties that voted against that funding to say that they favour a “brownfield first” or “brownfield only” policy for building?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I could not have put it better myself. If we believe in “brownfield first”, which we do, then it has to be enabled. That requires funding, which requires political will, which we Labour Members have, but which is sadly too often missing from the Opposition.

I turn to agents of change. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the subject, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), who talked knowledgeably, articulately and persuasively on this question. I reiterate our strong reason for maintaining the view that a policy approach is best suited to addressing issues of implementation, when it comes to the agent of change. As with “brownfield first”, there is no difference in policy here. I absolutely agree with the points and concerns that have been raised. National planning policy exerts a significant influence on the planning system in two principal ways. Plan-making authorities must have regard to national policy when preparing development plans that form the basis for decision making, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National policy itself is a material consideration, meaning that the NPPF can have a powerful and immediate effect on planning decisions, allowing policy changes to take effect quickly.

Furthermore, the new draft framework aims to improve delivery across the planning system by setting out much clearer policies for plan making and decision making. It makes it explicit that the decision-making policies should not be repeated in local plans and provides for these policies to bear on the system from day one. That is why we have not taken forward statutory national development management policies at this stage, although we are keeping that decision under review.

[Alex Sobel]

Would the Minister and colleagues be prepared to look at the idea that grassroots music venues and nightclubs should be in the local plan, so that planning committees and planning officers have to have regard to them? This is clearly a gap. If they are in the plan, this will not move on to a statutory footing, which is something that she is obviously concerned about.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Local plans can include community facilities, and we are committed to looking at ways, through the local plan, that we can strengthen the policy intent that we all agree that we are trying to achieve. First, we intend to work closely with local planning authorities, once the new NPPF is finalised, to ensure that the policy is fully understood and implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, there is a discrepancy between planning considerations and what is actually enforced. We recognise that discrepancy and are looking at what more can be done to ensure that local planning authorities are enforcing planning conditions related to this important issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is very exercised by this issue and is grateful for all the contributions that have been made by hon. Friends. He is content to meet to discuss what more can be done, but I hope that Members hear the Government when we say that we agree with the policy intent and that the national planning policy should be strengthened—we are undertaking that. We think there is an opportunity to make more progress through the local plan, and we are committed to working with local authorities to do that. We have committed to working with Members from across the House to ensure that this bites in the way that Members are keen for it to bite.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank the Minister for those welcome words, the acknowledgment that there is no policy difference here, and that she will keep statutory guidance under review, should that be necessary. Will she commit, on behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning, to a meeting before the publication of the final NPPF, at which we could give serious consideration to explicitly mentioning issues such as noise reduction and insulation, when it comes to grassroots music venues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am always very happy to commit my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to any meeting that my hon. Friends would like. We are very keen to meet in advance of the NPPF biting.

May I also say a word about support for the music industry? My hon. Friends have talked with great passion about the music industry in their constituencies, and have shown that they care about it. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK music industry as part of our industrial strategy. We will soon publish a music plan, drawing together all that the Government are doing to support the music industry, which is a vital part of our communities, cultural heritage and local economies. That includes a £30 million music growth package over three years from 2026, to support domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before she drifts off into the music industry in any great detail, may I respectfully remind the Minister that she must confine her remarks to the Bill and the Lords amendments thereto?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I got far too excited about the music industry. Suffice it to say that the Government recognise its importance. That is why the debate about the agent of change is so important, and why we are committed to playing our part in supporting that aim.

I turn to the Bill and the amendments. Let me pick up on the amendments relating to the removal of the Secretary of State’s directed powers. The Government have committed to not commencing powers to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities for a period of two years following Royal Assent. That will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have also listened and responded to concerns expressed in the other place. We recognise that it will be important for non-rural authorities to have the opportunity to build capacity and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For that reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. We believe that that strikes the right balance, but I encourage Members from across the House to judge us by our actions.

[Ms Billington]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say that it will be necessary to have local consent to take these matters forward. In these conversations about devolution, I make the observation that lines drawn on maps in Whitehall rarely work. It is therefore extraordinarily important to have local and public consent to taking forward these kinds of devolutionary powers. Otherwise, we will end up with a local government settlement that does not meet the needs of local people.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what happened under the approach adopted by the Conservative party in government. It created random boundaries and involved ad hoc devolution that did not treat our local leaders as equal partners who know their communities and can drive change. That is not our approach.

I ask Members to consider the approach that we are taking by setting up strategic authorities. We have gone to places and asked, “What is the local partnership that works for your place? Which geography means that you can drive the outcomes that your community wants?” We are not dictating from Whitehall; we are leaving this to local areas. That matters, because devolution works well when we have strong institutions, predicated on partnership between local authorities that understand their place and are willing to act collectively for it. We will not use the approach of imposing on places; rather, we will ensure that there is local consent. That is why the amendment works.

[Gareth Snell]

I will be brief. I completely understand the principle that the Minister is outlining of not wanting to force areas to have something that they do not want. She talks about consent, but what does that actually look like? In some areas, the board will have one or two intransigent members who will not allow progress—they could hold up a majority view that is in favour of a combined authority. What is the Government’s role, if they are removing their ability to tell parts of the community that they do not have the right to hold up something that a majority of local component units want?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The role that we will play is to work with our local authorities. Ultimately, the common thread is that we are working in service of and on behalf of communities, and it is for both national Government and local leaders to make decisions on the geography that makes sense for local economies and that works for their community. We will always advocate for the community in those conversations to ensure that we get the right partnership that can deliver for places.

[Andrew George]

The Government are promising that they will not impose things without local consent. The other side of that argument is that local authorities in areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly want to press on with devolution much faster than the Government seem willing to allow. Will the Minister account for that in the way in which the Government proceed on this matter?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I was just coming to the hon. Member’s earlier contributions. We absolutely want to move at the pace at which our most ambitious and fastest-moving places want to move. We recognise the unique circumstances in Cornwall. I have spent a lot of time with hon. Friends from across Cornwall, who have been very passionate, effective and robust advocates for their place. I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall and seeing some of the issues, as well as the huge amount of work and innovation. We have invested £28.6 million in the current industrial growth fund—creating 300 jobs and an additional 1,000 jobs in the supply chain—because we understand and recognise the economic potential of the area. We are committed to working with the council and with Cornwall MPs to take that further. We have set out the framework for a devolution deal, we have set out the progress that we are making to recognise minority status, and we are committed to moving further in the days and weeks to come.

The Government’s approach to local authority governance arrangements has been pragmatic. We are ultimately trying to reach solutions that we believe will bite and work in places. I remind Members across the House that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the cabinet and leader model, and it is an effective model that allows strong decision making for communities. In areas that already have a democratic mandate for an alternative—whether committee or mayor—we have created the space for those structures to continue. But we are very clear that we are having to fix the mess of the last Government, which did absolutely nothing for local government and allowed a decade in which local government was denuded—I come back to that. Our job now is to ensure that we build strong local authority institutions, because we are localists: we believe in devolution, but we need strong institutions to do that. That means both having structures that work for the communities they represent and in which, critically, decisions can be made to improve the lot of their place.

We believe that the cabinet and leader model works. We think that we have found the right balance. I implore Members across the House, particularly given that 80% of local authorities are already deploying the model that we are talking about, that we are keen to make progress and allow our local authorities to move forward.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] No one is more pleased about that than me. In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill. I hope that they see that we are a Government who are absolutely committed to pushing power into our places and our communities. It is beholden on all of us to make sure that this Bill does get Royal Assent, because this is the first step towards fundamentally changing the settlement between this place—between Government—and our communities, who do not feel that they have power and agency, and who do not feel that change is being driven in the way that they want. We have to rebalance that. This is the first step, and I implore Members across the House to support the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords Amendment 2 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Lords Amendment.

After Clause 37

Brownfield land priority

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 89B and 89C.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 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 2.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 4, 13 and 26, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 36 and 37, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendments 41, 85 to 87, 89 to 91, 94, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendment 155, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1, 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 25, 27 to 35 and 38 to 40.

Lords amendment 42, motion to disagree, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 42.

Lords amendments 43 to 55.

Lords amendment 56, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 56.

Lords amendments 57 to 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 117 to 119, 122, 124 to 154 and 156 to 170.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver change, but to deliver change that people can see and feel, we must empower our communities. We are therefore determined to build a different type of state where local leaders and communities with skin in the game are given power and control to shape the things that matter in their place and in their lives. Our English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is a critical, bold step in delivering that. It will drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and our communities in a generation. It sets a floor for devolution, and we intend to build on the foundation set out in the Bill to give communities the power and control they are demanding to drive the change they want to see in their place.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the election campaigns for the Surrey West and Surrey East unitaries are ongoing as a consequence of this legislation, but we still have not had an announcement on whether we will get a mayor for Surrey. That will be critical for protecting our green belt if the Conservatives do not retain power after the elections. Can she update the House on the importance of protecting our green belt and getting a mayor for Surrey who can do so?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The question of unitarisation is being dealt with. Applications have been made and the Government are going through the process and looking at the objective criteria. No doubt the hon. Member has had many conversations with the Minister for Housing and Planning on these matters. I will, however, try to focus the hon. Member’s mind and attention on the key premise of this Bill, which is community empowerment and devolution, and on the Lords amendments we are discussing.

Before speaking to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friend Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation to all peers who contributed to its scrutiny. I will begin with the Government amendments that were made in the other place. Following the insightful contribution of peers, Lords amendment 1 adds culture as a distinct area of competence within clause 2 of the Bill. By doing so, the Government are sending a clear signal on the role that strategic authorities can and should continue to play in supporting cultural initiatives, as well as recognising the important role that culture in its many forms plays in enriching quality of life and supporting local economic growth.

We are also improving the operational flexibility of the commissioner model introduced by the Bill. Lords amendments 3 and 5 increase the potential number of commissioners to 10, and Lords amendments 125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135 allow more than one commissioner to operate in a single area of competence.

The next group of important changes that the Government made in the other place concerns local accountability and scrutiny. The Government committed to exploring a local Public Accounts Committee model in the English devolution White Paper. We recognised that greater powers of local scrutiny are needed to reflect the increased scale of responsibility that will be devolved to mayoral strategic authorities through the Bill. To that end, Lords amendments 7, 137 and 138 introduce local scrutiny committees, which replace overview and scrutiny committees in mayoral combined and combined county authorities. Local scrutiny committees will provide an enhanced scrutiny regime with stronger oversight, a broader remit to reflect the scale of mayoral responsibilities and greater teeth to hold mayors to account.

On Report, the Government introduced amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and created a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. That included an amendment to create a new duty on the Mayor of London to determine and publish a new strategic licensing policy.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being so responsive to the concerns about strategic licensing that I and colleagues in London have shared with her. May I confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for an application to be treated as being of potential strategic importance solely by reason of its location within a London plan designation or a London mayoral policy area, and that instead, in deciding whether a licensing application is of potential strategic importance, the Government intend for regard to be given to the residential character of the immediately affected area and to the evidence of the local licensing authority?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking an important question, and for his ongoing engagement in this area. Let me take his question in the context of what we are trying to do through the Bill. The Government are really clear, and Baroness Taylor made it very clear in the other place, that we recognise that licensing authorities are often best placed to make licensing decisions, based on their local knowledge. In that context, the evidence provided by licensing authorities will have a significant role in both the design of the policy and the determination of potential strategic importance.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

One area that has been talked about is the ability of scrutiny bodies to take decisions, and the challenge in London is that there has to be a two-thirds majority to make a decision. The suggestion was made that this could be changed and be brought in line with other authorities, so that we have simple majority voting. Does the Minister agree that we have missed an opportunity to do that?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will come back to that point, because it relates to an amendment that I would like to speak to, but I want to fully address the point that has been made about call-in powers with regard to licensing.

My hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) have provided clear, insightful feedback and constructive engagement, and they have done a fantastic job of representing the concerns of their constituents. Let me reassure them on all the key points that they have raised. It is important to put on the record that the amendment will be embedded in the Licensing Act 2003. The licensing objectives that seek to protect and safeguard local communities will apply, and the mayor will be required to have regard to them when exercising the powers conferred through the amendment.

The Government are incredibly clear that there must be the right balance between encouraging the growth of hospitality and the night-time economy, which we want to do, and protecting the needs of local communities and their places. The safeguarding and reassurance that are required are locked into the way that we have designed this policy. As I have said, local licensing authorities will continue to be the default decision makers, so the mayor must have regard to the evidence that they provide to determine the decisions that they make. Finally and crucially, where cumulative impact zones have been designated by boroughs, this will remain the case, and the mayor must have regard to the cumulative impact assessment.

We hope that we have designed this policy in a way that provides a balance between growth, residential amenities and safeguarding the protection of local communities. As we design the detail of potential strategic importance, we are committed to working with Members from across the House, as well as our licensing authorities, to ensure that we get this right.

On pavement parking, which affects communities across the country and disproportionately harms people with mobility or sight impairment, as well as those with prams or pushchairs, who rely on safe, accessible pavements to move around independently, this Government are committed to creating safer, more inclusive streets. Lords amendments 41 and 158 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under which English local transport authorities are able to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements in their area. The regulations will include details on how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, on which vehicles would be excluded and on permissive exemptions.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Given that the new powers are being handed to local transport authorities, will there be funding to enforce the new measures and the obligations that councils are getting?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have a policy that wherever there are new powers—whether they are conferred to local authorities or combined authorities—the new burdens principle is in place. In designing this policy, we will work really closely with local authorities to ensure that we are doing enforcement in a way that bites for our communities in the way that they want to see.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Any progress on banning pavement parking is progress, so I absolutely welcome that. Will guidance be given to local authorities on how that could work? We have a ban in Edinburgh, which has been transformative, so hopefully we can look there for examples of how it could work. The Minister mentioned exemptions. Will the Government mandate any exemptions centrally, or is it entirely up to local authorities to make that decision?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will be learning insights from Edinburgh and the other places that have applied the provision, and we will be providing further details and guidance on how it could work. In doing that, we will try to strike a balance between setting out an overall framework that enables places to put this in place and allowing places to use their discretion and local knowledge to make sure it works in their interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

I think the Minister has slightly brushed over Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. This is an excellent Bill, but I do think it is disappointing that the Government are rejecting Lords amendment 41. If we want to properly protect our beloved music venues, pubs and cultural institutions, we need measures with teeth. The agent of change principle works in Scotland, where it is in statute, but such measures do not really work in England at the moment.

I had hoped that the Government would table an amendment in lieu on this issue, and I guess there is still time, but if not—and I know the Minister will say that the Government are looking at the national planning policy framework—could I encourage the strongest possible protections in that for the venues I have mentioned?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

As my hon. Friend says, Lord amendment 41, with Lords amendment 95, would place the agent of change principle on a statutory footing in the planning and licensing and statutory nuisance regimes. While I and the Government respect the concerns raised in the other place and those he has raised about how in some cases new homes are adversely affecting existing businesses and cultural venues in their vicinity, we are not persuaded that the amendment is necessary, given the changes to the planning system already in progress.

The agent of change principle is already firmly embedded in national planning policy, and both the licensing and the statutory nuisance frameworks give local decision makers the flexibility to factor it in, where relevant to the circumstances of particular cases. Furthermore, we are already considering changes to strengthen this duty, because we recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend has made.

As the House will be aware, we recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework that would strengthen this policy and ensure that the principle is effectively applied to protect businesses while building the houses the country desperately needs. Today, I can commit to publishing updated planning policy guidance on the agent of change principle, following the publication of the final national planning policy framework. This guidance will ensure consistent application of the principle and a fair approach across local planning authorities. I hope that will be enough to satisfy my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 41.

Lords amendment 42, moved by Lord Banner, fixes a current gap in the law where land held on statutory trusts was previously appropriated or disposed of without complying with the statutory advertisement requirements under the Local Government Act 1972. The law currently provides no legal mechanism to resolve this situation, resulting in difficult and protracted legal wranglings. While this will apply in only a very small number of cases, the Government do not believe that historic procedural errors should be left unresolved, especially when that risk is preventing the delivery of environmental improvements, or improvements to community facilities.

The amendment creates a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene in these rare cases to determine whether the land should remain in a statutory trust or be disposed of. Crucially, the amendment does not—it does not—weaken protections for public recreational land. It introduces a rigorous evidenced-based process overseen by the Secretary of State, with strict qualifying conditions and robust publicity requirements. It has a broad public interest test at its heart, which includes environmental and heritage considerations. By providing a clear route to fix the gap in the law, the amendment ensures decisions about land previously held for public enjoyment are taken in the interests of the public. For those reasons, the Government support the amendment.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

With respect, may I correct the Minister? There is a process by which the gap can be corrected. The land could be re-conveyed to the local authority and then the correct process carried out. Does she agree that the weakness of Lord Banner’s amendment is that the local authority has no role to play? In the process that should have been used, the local authority has a role to play. This is moving from localism back to centralised Government making decisions. Is that not wrong?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the issue is still the responsibility of the local authority. The amendment is trying to get to those specific cases where the local authority has not applied the proper process to dispose of land and then we are in limbo; it creates a mechanism by which to resolve that. There is a process in place for local authorities to choose to dispose of land, or maintain it in statutory trusts. That is not affected by this amendment. This is trying to get to those situations where it has not been discharged properly. There is currently a gap in the legislation, which we hope this amendment responds to.

[Mr Kohler]

Then there are two remedies: to re-convey the land to the local authority to do it correctly, or to bring an amendment that gives the local authority a role to play. The local authority has no role to play in this amendment; that is why it is moving from localism to ministerial fiat. That is what is wrong with the amendment.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Whether it is in the planning system or in other systems, in instances where we have a contentious situation and disagreement because a local authority has not discharged its responsibilities in disposing of statutory trusts, at the moment we are in limbo. The amendment creates a mechanism by which that can be resolved. We are very clear that strict criteria and safeguards are put in place. Ultimately, the Secretary of State will opine and come to a decision based on what is in the public interest. The ability of the community to make representations is very clear and very firmly built into the way we are designing the policy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to make progress. I move on to amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill. For that reason, we cannot accept them. Let me be clear about precisely why, starting with Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 2 seeks to include rural affairs as a stand-alone area of competence for strategic authorities. Peers in the other place highlighted the distinct challenges facing our rural communities, from public transport through to employment opportunities and affordable housing. The Government recognise those challenges and agree with many of the points made in the other place. However, we cannot accept the amendment because we consider it unnecessary.

The areas of competence have been deliberately framed in broad terms, allowing a wide range of activities to fall within scope, including matters relating to rural affairs. From transport through to local infrastructure and housing, the existing areas of competence already allow for strategic authorities to address rural needs where relevant. Crucially, this is now being borne out; York and North Yorkshire combined authority, for instance, is already piloting affordable rural housing. There is no disagreement on policy; the Government recognise the role that strategic authorities can play in supporting our rural communities. Given that, I am happy to commit to bringing forward non-statutory guidance to support strategic authorities in delivering for rural communities using the powers and functions that they have been given.

Lords amendment 4 seeks to ensure that appointments of commissioners by mayors are made through a fair and open selection process. On this, we agree. That is why the Government have published statutory guidance that sets out the selection, appointment and remuneration process. We hope that doing so satisfies the points raised in the other House.

Lords amendments 13 and 87 seek to reduce the threshold needed for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority, which was the point the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) was making. It is the Government’s intention to simplify and ensure consistency in voting arrangements across all our strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority. For most decisions, the default will become a simple majority, but that does not apply for mayoral budgets, which will continue to require a two-thirds majority to amend.

Given that mayors and combined authorities may have their budgets amended only by a two-thirds majority, the Government believe that these amendments would bring scrutiny of London’s mayoral budget out of line with other strategic authorities. We therefore do not support the amendments and urge the House to reject them.

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress, if I may.

Lords amendments 26 and 89 seek to specify that mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities may designate greenfield land for development only when they are satisfied that no suitable brownfield land exists. The Government are strongly committed to a brownfield-first approach, and we have been clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call. To further support this ambition, the national planning policy framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make a little more progress first.

We also expanded the definition of previously developed land in the framework to include large areas of hardstanding, better reflecting land that is already developed. We are looking to go further still in our support for brownfield development as part of our most recent consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which closed in March.

The Government strongly promote this policy, so there is no disagreement on policy here. However, brownfield sites vary greatly and need to be both available and in the right place to support sustainable development and meet the needs of the community. These amendments seek to impose this sort of requirement in legislation rather than in policy, which is what we do across all aspects of the planning system; this would be unduly rigid, likely to delay land coming forward for development and support unsustainable development in some cases.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time this evening. If this Labour Government were really serious about a brownfield-first approach, they would accept these amendments from the House of Lords, because they are exactly about ensuring that developers develop on that sort of land first. These amendments would protect communities and the environment in places like mine, which are coming under attack from her Government, who want to impose 20,000 homes on Walsall.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am not going to resile from the fact that we want to build more homes, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a housing crisis, and we absolutely need to build more homes across the country. However, we are agreed on the principle of brownfield first. Our argument is simply that that should be done through policy, as we do across all aspects of the planning system from local authorities—it is far too rigid to be put on the face of the Bill. We have strengthened the national policy framework to deliver that policy intent, which we hope will reassure and satisfy Members of both this House and the other place.

Briefly, Lords amendments 36, 155 and 90 seek to remove provisions from the Bill relating to local authority governance and executives. The Government continue to hold a strong preference for executive models of governance, and in particular the leader and cabinet model, which is already operated successfully by 80% of councils.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment from the other place. The Government’s provisions are intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to local authority governance across England. We have heard and responded to the genuine concerns of Members in this Chamber and noble Lords in the other place about certain aspects of this policy. Members will recall that on Report in the Commons the Government brought forward their own amendment to allow councils that have recently adopted the committee system following a council resolution or referendum to continue with those arrangements until the end of the moratorium period. We believe that this strikes the right balance, so we do not think that the amendments are necessary.

Lords amendments 37 and 91 require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy for parish governance in England. Let me put on record that we absolutely see the important role that parish and town councils play, and we are clear that they will have a role within the neighbourhood governance system that we will roll out through clause 60. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. We are committed to ensuring that, through an amendment in lieu, neighbourhood governance structures can include town and parish councils. We are also pleased to commit to updating the existing community governance review guidance to reflect examples of good practice for local authorities.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will have to make progress in case I incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.

Finally, Lords amendments 85, 86, 97 to 116, 120 and 121 and 123 collectively seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority or combined county authority or to provide for a mayor in certain circumstances. The Government have been clear that devolution has the potential to drive growth. We have also been clear that we will always seek to make sure that partnerships are locally driven. I hope that the new combined authorities we established in recent weeks and our invitation to all areas to form foundational strategic authorities serve as evidence that we are taking a local-first and locally driven approach.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members.

To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a considered and insightful debate. Many hard-working communities in this country have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappear, their high streets decline, and the dream of a decent, affordable home fade. This Bill will do the job of empowering forgotten communities and restore local pride by making devolution the default setting. It will give our strategic authority mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration, and help rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver strong local services that we all rely on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions, and I will respond to some of them in the time left.

Again and again, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) has accused the Government of this being a centralising Bill. Candidly, that is just not true. The Conservatives, who had an ad hoc and all-over-the-place approach to devolution over the last decade and a half, had the opportunity to fundamentally reset the relationship between national Government and local government, and they chose not to do so. We are acting where they did not act. We are doing the biggest transfer of power that we have seen in a generation—

[Sir James Cleverly]

To central Government!

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

No, to our mayors, our local leaders and our communities. Not acknowledging that is quite simply churlish.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the key issue of scrutiny of commissioners and all the key decision makers at strategic authority level. We recognise and agree with that, which is why we have included amendments to introduce stronger local scrutiny committees with greater teeth, so that with greater responsibility comes an accountability framework to make sure that we hold decision makers to account on behalf of local people.

On the question of reviewing the protection of public spaces, I am the Minister responsible for green and public spaces, and I am absolutely committed to making sure that such assets are available to all our communities. We are committed to doing a review, and we are very clear that the powers that have been introduced with regard to statutory trusts will not be used until we have concluded that review.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke to Lords amendment 2. Again, there is no agreement on policy. We are very clear that mayors have a responsibility to ensure that their rural communities are looked after and protected, and the reality of what we are seeing in places like North Yorkshire is that that is exactly what our mayors are doing. We do not believe that we need to put that on the face of the Bill, because it sits within each of the competencies that mayors will have to take on board. The guidance that sits alongside that, which points to good practice and the work that mayors have done, will be far more powerful in ensuring that this policy bites in the communities where we want it to bite.

Several Members spoke about the brownfield-first approach, and we agree with that policy. That is very clear in the national planning policy framework, which we have strengthened to ensure that it is the case. [Interruption.] No, I am not just saying it, because that is the policy, and the policy determines what happens in the planning framework. However, we are clear that is there is variability—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says we are centralising, but we say we should leave it to mayors and local authorities to deal with diversity in their particular circumstances, so that they are not caught in legal wrangling, but can make such choices. The policy is very clear: it is about putting brownfield first. Critically, unlike the last Government, we are investing to enable our councils and our mayors to remediate and regenerate such land, so that the policy can bite in the way it is supposed to.

On the question of the cabinet and leader model, I go back to the fact that we are doing this because we fundamentally care about creating strong local authorities that can deliver for their people. Some 80% of local authorities already have this model, and it is effective. We have already made the concession that, where alternatives such as the committee model or the mayoral model exist in particular places, they can see out their terms. However, we think it is right to move in the long term to a model that will serve local people.

The hon. Member for Guildford also talked about devolution being imposed. On the approach we have taken to strategic authorities—I ask the House to judge us by the way we are acting, not just by the words I say—we are incredibly clear that it is ultimately for local partnerships to come together, and Government will enable and pass devolution down to them. We are not imposing, and we are committed to not imposing.

[Ben Maguire]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress because there is very little time left.

I do have to take issue with the point about neighbourhood governance. We are told that we are centralising and trying to impose models on communities, yet on the question of neighbourhood governance, the hon. Member for Guildford and her party want to impose a particular model on communities. We say that is wrong, and we take a very different approach. Ultimately, it should be for communities to determine the right neighbourhood governance structure for their place. Town and parish councils—I agree that they exist in 80% of the geography—will have a role in this, and where that is the will of communities, that should be what those communities do. However, other communities will want to take different approaches, and we think it is right that communities should build on what they have, and that it should ultimately be for communities to determine what they do.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will not give away, but I will pick up the hon. Member’s point about local government reorganisation. In his defence, he has been consistent on this throughout all these debates. Candidly, if we think about the near decade and a half that the last Government had to deal with local government issues, while we recognise that the status quo is not fit for purpose, the Conservatives denuded local government with years of austerity and cuts. They could see that the model was creaking, and they did absolutely nothing to deal with it. We are acting where they chose not to act. The hon. Member can continue bleating about this but, fundamentally, we want local government structures that work and deliver services for communities. The Conservatives did not do that, but we are determined to do it.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made important points about our high streets and gambling, and I thank them for their tireless campaigning and advocacy on this fundamental point. We are committed to giving local authorities the powers to shape their high streets, which is absolutely critical. The gambling cumulative impact assessment is a first step in this process, as an additional tool for local authorities that will allow them to begin to shape their high streets, but we are clear that we must and will go further. Our high streets strategy will set out the further powers we will give local authorities to empower them to shape their high streets in the way their communities want.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who has been a vocal and passionate advocate for reforms to the taxi and private hire system, which we absolutely recognise are necessary. We completely agree with her that the system is not fit for purpose, and I thank her for all the work she and many of my hon. Friends have put into driving forward the changes we have put into the Bill. We are clear that these are important first steps. Having national standards means we can ensure consistency of approach across the country and, critically, we are strengthening enforcement powers. However, we know that additional reforms must be put in place, and we are committed to bringing them forward.

Various hon. Friends have also mentioned the agent of change, so let me reassure them again that we absolutely recognise both their arguments and those made in the other place. We are committed to publishing guidance that will sit alongside the national planning policy framework and bite on planning decisions. It will be a powerful material consideration in decisions that are made. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) the reassurance that the Minister for Housing will meet him and other Members to think about how we can continue to strengthen and build on that important policy.

Returning to brownfield first, which has been raised time and time again, there is no disagreement on the policy. We are clear that we will take a brownfield-first policy, and we are clear that that exists within the NPPF. We are putting in the funding required to ensure that that happens. I reiterate that we do not think we should lock rigidity into the system and in legislation. We think that national planning policy is the space and the place in which this should bite.

If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my final minutes I would like to take a step back. We have shown that we are willing to work with Members across the House and to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to genuine concerns. There is no disagreement across the House about wanting a strong Bill that does the job of transferring powers and control to our communities and our local leaders. What we cannot and will not accept are amendments that undermine that core principle—some of the amendments from the very party that accuses us of centralising do exactly that—but nor will we accept amendments that fundamentally go against the principle that we must strengthen the institutions and structures of local government so that they can deliver for our communities.

I place on the record my thanks to Members across both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged in debate on the Bill. I look forward to continuing those constructive conversations, with a view to securing agreement across both Houses. I believe there is a genuine consensus on the need for devolution. It is a big step change in the way that government has operated for decades, when the centre thought it knew best and imposed its will. The Conservatives had 15 years and failed to act. [Interruption.] Almost 15 years—it felt like 15! There must a consensus on changing the way that government works. The Bill is an important first step forward. I urge Members, both in this place and in the other place, to ensure the Bill achieves Royal Assent, so we can move forward.

I again put it on the record that the Government are very clear that this is the first step. This is not the ceiling of devolution; this is the floor. The job for us as the Government, and for Members across the House, is to ensure that we continue to work together to build power and control locally, because that is how we will drive change in our places for our communities. I commend the Government position on the Bill, and I ask Members across the House to support that position. We want to be constructive, but equally we cannot miss the opportunity to achieve Royal Assent. I urge my colleagues to resist and reject the amendments that we do not support. We do that not for the fun of it, but because we think they will weaken the Bill.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their contributions. I appreciate the concerns raised around the challenges of meeting the housing target and the appalling situation with the water company and water shortages.

I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge at the lack of adequate provision—water is a basic thing that we should be able to provide to all homes in every part of the country. We know that the status quo is not good enough, and I will set out the steps that we are taking in response. Let me be clear at the outset that the water supply disruption that South East Water customers have faced is wholly unacceptable. My colleagues, both in my Department and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have been robust on that, and Ofwat will do its job by holding South East Water to account.

DEFRA has also set up the water delivery taskforce to do the job of holding companies to account on the questions of existing capacity to deliver water to homes and future capacity to deliver for the future homes that we need. To date, the taskforce has led work across the Government, regulators and the water sector to resolve blockers where water scarcity issues have stalled development, for example in Oxford, Cambridgeshire and north Sussex. That work has unblocked 10,000 new homes. David Hinton, the chief executive of South East Water, will be appearing before the April taskforce, which will scrutinise the company’s performance, ask the very questions that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge has asked today and demand improvements in delivery.

We are alive to the issues that have been raised in this debate. Alongside action taken through the taskforce, officials across DEFRA and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working in partnership with Tonbridge and Malling borough council to explore short-term interventions to progress both current planning applications and local plan development. They will draw on our experience in north Sussex and Cambridge, where we have achieved progress, and explore options to commission an independent review of groundwater headroom, new home building standards and retrofitting existing buildings.

[Helen Whately]

The Minister mentioned that the water taskforce will be meeting with David Hinton, the chief executive of South East Water, to hold him to account for its abysmal performance in the recent outages. If that taskforce finds that South East Water’s response has been inadequate, as I believe it was, what action will the taskforce be able to take? I believe that David Hinton should no longer be the chief executive because of those failures.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

In the short term, the priority is to make sure that the company has a viable plan so that we can deliver the homes that we want. The approach that the taskforce has taken in other areas is to sit alongside the company to stress-test its proposals and propose improvements to them so that we can get the building happening. As the hon. Member will know, we are driving through bigger reforms of the water sector because we recognise that the status quo is suboptimal and that we need to hold companies and their bosses to account where they are not delivering for their customers.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The Minister refers to the changes made in Sussex; I assume she means the changes made around Horsham, which relate to Southern Water, rather than South East Water. Nothing that has changed there has increased water supply; it has merely unlocked the restrictions on house building. My concern is that the timescales for the water delivery workforce are very long, but those for delivering district plans and the Government’s housing targets are very short. Surely the challenge is that they are totally at odds with each other.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is a challenge, but our job is to work across Government and the different agencies, and with the water companies, to rise to the challenge. I gently point out that over the past decade and a half, the Conservative party could have introduced reforms to bring our water sector up to scratch and deliver what our communities need for the housing they also need. That was not done, so we are working on it at record speed. Our commitment is to work holistically across the piece to resolve the challenge, but we absolutely recognise that it is a challenge.

Hon. Members have questioned the validity of our housing targets. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking bold action to overhaul the planning system and carry out the reforms necessary to deliver the homes and infrastructure that every single community needs. There is consensus across the House that the status quo in terms of housing development is not adequate for the needs in our communities, so we have to step up.

We believe that our revised standard method strikes the right balance between meeting the scale of need across the country and focusing additional growth on the places facing the biggest affordability pressures. While those targets are ambitious, we have always been clear that they are necessary, given our inheritance. The key is to ensure we work consistently across the different parts of the system to deliver that objective and ambition.

[Helen Whately]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make more progress.

The lack of water infrastructure is blocking our capacity to deliver more homes and is resulting in water outages such as those in west Kent. That is a clear signal that we need wholesale reform and that the system is not doing what needs to be done.

We believe that we can secure water supplies for the future only by managing water demand, reducing leakages and creating new water assets. We have to do all three of those things, and we are working with the water industry and the regulator to do that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I understand that the Minister is talking about very short-term interventions, but this is about 13,000 homes over a period running up to 2042. I was not going to be partisan about it, but this has come about because of the removal of planning requirements from cities such as London and their imposition on areas such as west Kent. That is a Government decision, and they have a mandate to execute it. They and the Green party voted through the change of green belt into this imaginary grey belt—again, they have the mandate to do that—but let us not pretend that it is not a political choice. The political choice that her Government have made has resulted in increased pressure on water companies, which did not exist before. We can play political games if she wishes, but the reality is that this is a very clear political reallocation from the need in London to the need in rural areas.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Let me address that point directly. We are clear that we are not building enough homes across every part of the country, and we are trying to ensure that the system delivers. Whether it is my community in London or the right hon. Gentleman’s community in Tonbridge, the reality is that there are not enough affordable homes for people to live in—a situation none of us wants. It is absolutely right to have housing targets commensurate with the need. I do not believe that politics is being played here; we are trying to deal with the need in parts of the country where there is both demand and the capacity to deliver more homes.

I acknowledge that there is a problem with the wider system and the infrastructure that we are building, and we are addressing it, but that is made harder by the fact that, candidly, a lot of these problems have been here for a decade and a half. They could have been addressed, but they were not, so we are trying to do that. We are having to do it all at the same time, but nobody can ask us to resile from our ambition to build enough homes for people to live in.

[Helen Whately]

I thank the Minister very much for taking a second intervention from me. I do not disagree that the country needs more homes; that is an accepted fact. However, what we have seen under her Government is housing targets being shifted out of London, so that London’s numbers have fallen and the numbers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and in my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent have gone up. Against that backdrop, I have not seen London homes having large outages where they have not had enough water for days on end, whereas in Kent we have had them on multiple occasions. Yet still her Government persist in reducing the housing ambitions for London and putting more housing in rural areas, such as our constituencies, where we simply do not have the infrastructure that is needed. Surely she must recognise that the Government need to change tack.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

On that specific point, our methodology is trying to strike a balance, where we think there is both need for homes and the capacity to build those homes. I absolutely acknowledge that the water sector and some of our other infrastructure providers are not where they need to be. All the reforms we are trying to drive through in planning reform and the water sector, and the robust action that we are taking to work across the piece, are in response to that very problem.

For example, in the context of the investment required to build our water assets, the Government are ensuring that £104 billion of private sector investment is going into the water sector over five years to enable that building of assets. I want to reassure the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and hon. Members that the Government will introduce the water reform Bill when parliamentary time allows, working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities to make sure that we have a system that is fit for purpose.

An important part of that reform, which pertains to this very debate, is the establishment of regional water planning function, which will enable a more holistic, co-ordinated approach to water, environment and supply planning and support the delivery of national strategic objectives such as economic growth, meeting house building targets and nature recovery, while enabling regional and local priorities to be realised. That more joined-up approach will deliver a more resilient and future-proof water system—that is our hope and our intention—better able to absorb shocks, which will hopefully prevent situations such as those we have seen in west Kent from ever happening again. I think there is consensus that such situations are appalling and that we absolutely must mitigate them in the future.

To answer the direct questions put by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge about the water companies and their role in the planning system, we are just going through the responses to a consultation on statutory consultees. The Government intend to list water companies and sewage companies as consultation bodies for new plan-making, so that they are involved right up front in the system. However, we are also looking at their relationship with regard to planning applications in particular, for the reasons that he set out.

Critically, the right hon. Gentleman also asked me to sit down and discuss this issue with my team and other Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I will take that suggestion away and get that meeting in the diary as a priority, because we appreciate and understand the specific issues. I come back to the fact that we know there is a systemic problem; we are working hard to deal with it, but we recognise the urgency of the situation, because the plan-making process is happening.

To conclude, I again commend the right hon. Member for Tonbridge for securing this important debate and shining a spotlight on the particular issues and concerns in his constituency. I return to the fact that the status quo is appalling; the water shortages that we have are absolutely unacceptable, and the Government are committed to working with him and with his local council to make sure that we are resolving this situation.

We all agree that we need more homes. We also all agree that the water sector has to be reformed, so that we can deliver the infrastructure we need to service those homes. This Government are committed, as we have been from day one, to driving through whole-system reform to ensure that the interaction between planning, house building and the wider infrastructure sector is right and fit for purpose, in order to deliver what we need. I look forward to continuing our engagement and to making sure that we resolve the specific issue with the plan and the capacity within the plan. My Department is ready and willing to work very closely with the council to do that, and we will take the plan forward.

I again thank the right hon. Member for securing this debate and you, Sir John, for chairing it.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastal Communities: Start Bay

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. I start by saying that the Government absolutely understand and sympathise with those impacted by coastal erosion in Start bay. I was hugely saddened to see the impacts of the recent storms on the hon. Lady’s constituents and communities. The Government are committed to supporting her communities and indeed all coastal communities, because we understand and appreciate the urgency of the issue and the huge impact it is having.

I want to reiterate that coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as a reminder of our national pride and shared maritime story. We know that we must do more to both protect and preserve these communities against the vulnerabilities they face with coastal erosion. That is why, between April 2024 and March 2026, around £609 million has been invested into protection from sea flooding, tidal flooding and coastal erosion. It is also why the Government announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy last October. This reform, which will take place this April, will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right places by simplifying our rules.

Most recently, in January, the Government announced £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots, £12 million of which will be made available across England to deliver adaptation action in areas affected by coastal erosion. These pilots will help communities to take practical steps to prepare for coastal change, from relocating vulnerable community buildings to strengthening local infrastructure, such as beach access and coastal tourism facilities. The insights from these pilots will be applied across all coastal communities as they adapt to coastal change.

The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about the communities in her constituency. We know that residents in Torcross are concerned by the recent flooding, with wave overtopping and structural vibrations affecting some properties. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, the Environment Agency has done a huge amount of work in the area, and early investigations are clear that the defences remain structurally sound. However, we will continue to keep this under review.

The feasibility of further defence work at Torcross is currently being assessed by the Environment Agency and we expect the initial cost-benefit analysis findings to emerge shortly. Future schemes will, of course, depend on developing a full and detailed business case and securing the necessary funding, which the Department is committed to doing.

[Caroline Voaden]

Does the Minister accept that in such a cost-benefit analysis, there is also a cost of doing nothing? Maybe she could advise me if this is already the case. The cost of moving an entire community, with all the social and economic impact that has, is possibly much more than the cost of improving defences so that that community can stay put.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are very alive to the cost of inaction in the context of not just coastal erosion, but climate change more broadly. We are very clear that we need to take robust action to prevent, adapt and build our resilience to the change that is coming. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working very closely with both the Environment Agency and communities themselves to ensure that we are responding in the right way. To reassure residents, it is worth saying that the process of looking at how we bolster our defences is under way and being taken seriously, in addition to the work that DEFRA is doing.

I will take away the asks that the hon. Lady has set out. She will know that many of them sit with my colleagues over at DEFRA, and not with us at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but we do work closely together; as she says, the boundaries do not stop at DEFRA, and we absolutely need to work in lockstep. I will make sure that we relay all her questions, and ask the relevant Minister to respond to her and potentially arrange a meeting to discuss the particular issues in her area.

Alongside recognising the critical issue of coastal erosion—I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are taking that matter seriously and understand the need to act—we are also very clear that we need to continue investing in and supporting our coastal communities. We want to ensure that we are investing in the areas that are under pressure, and putting vital assets into retaining the heritage, the life and opportunities in our coastal communities.

That is why we have put in place Pride in Place funding across many of our coastal communities; at least 56 across the UK will receive more than £1 billion through the Pride in Place programme over the next decade. That money will be targeted at regeneration and, fundamentally, at investing in the priorities of the local community. Many will be thinking about how that investment in their infrastructure will best preserve their communities. We are also clear that the programme will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen cohesion. For me, that is important because we must absolutely do the job of protecting and insulating against the change that is coming. We must also make sure that we are investing and bolstering our communities, so that they continue to be thriving, vibrant places.

I thank the hon. Member once again for securing this important debate. I can reassure her that we will highlight the points that she has made with our colleagues in DEFRA and that we will do our part to build communities that are resilient and support those communities as they go through a very difficult transition to adapt to the changes that are coming. We will continue to do our bit to support coastal communities, and it is important that hon. Members continue raising the case for them.

[Caroline Voaden]

Something that came out in conversations that I had today was the complication of Torcross having assets that are owned by the Environment Agency and other assets, such as the road, that are owned by the council. There might also be third-party assets, such as quayside walls and other infrastructure. The complication of managing all the different agencies involved, alongside the complication of the MHCLG, DEFRA and the Department for Transport all having to work together, might suggest that we are reaching the point where the Government need to think about an office for climate change events or something like that; I do not know what we would call it, but we need to bring all those things together and for there to be oversight, because it is incredibly complicated to navigate this patchwork landscape of responsibility.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Member is right. We are acutely aware that the landscape is incredibly complex and has evolved over time. We are trying to work at a local authority level, but, increasingly, as we try to build up the structure at regional level, we want to allow far greater co-ordination so that, ultimately, all the priorities of the local area can come together. Critically, rather than working in silos, we Departments should be working with one voice, in lockstep with the community.

I come back to the point that I have consistently made. This is an urgent issue. We are hugely aware of the impacts on our coastal communities. We are very aware of the need for us to work across departmental silos, and with the Environment Agency and the local authorities, in order to respond. There is an absolute commitment on all the part of us all to do that for the very reasons that the hon. Member has set out. This issue is having a huge, profound impact on communities. If we do not get this right, if we do not adapt, if we do not build resilience and if we do not build the infrastructure, there will be communities that will fall into the sea, and that is an unconscionable outcome.

I hope the hon. Lady is reassured that we are trying to work across boundaries. I will pass on the points that she has made to my colleagues in DEFRA who hold some of the levers, but there is a commitment for us to work alongside them in order to make sure that we are supporting our coastal communities, not just so that they are protected but, critically, so that they can thrive.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.

The draft regulations were laid before the House on 11 February 2026. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip, which corrects the name of the appropriate administering authority for pension purposes from East Sussex to West Sussex. This change was requested by and agreed with the constituent councils. From here on in, when referring to Sussex and Brighton combined county authority, I will use the term “strategic authority”.

Let me state very clearly that we believe that devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders being best placed to take the decisions that benefit local communities. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England, and the English devolution White Paper sets out our plans to achieve that. Much of that White Paper is now being taken through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme, to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities, including Sussex and Brighton. This statutory instrument, which will establish their strategic authority and provide for the mayoral elections, represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their patch best.

The Government have worked closely on the draft regulations with the constituent councils in Sussex and Brighton: West Sussex county council, East Sussex county council, and Brighton and Hove city council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of the regulations, and I thank personally the local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point. The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves them, under the enabling provision in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the regulations are made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028, and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028, with a four-year term.

The draft regulations make provision for the governance arrangements for the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its elected members to be members of the strategic authority, with the mayor also a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote, and the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members presenting and voting. Once the mayor takes office, that majority must include the mayor, or the deputy mayor acting on the mayor’s behalf.

The regulations provide some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Subject to Royal Assent, which I hope we will get, the Sussex and Brighton strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those specifically reserved for the mayor.

As this is an important change to the governance landscape of the area, we ensured that there was robust and effective consultation with stakeholders across the area. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of the consultation material. Responses could be made online, by email and by post. We received a wide range of responses from key stakeholders: the public, businesses, councils, universities, and third sector and other bodies. A summary of the responses has been published on the gov.uk website. We are clear and confident that the statutory tests to establish the strategic authority have all been met.

Subject to the regulations being made, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including funding for transport and adult skills, capacity funding, and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.

The draft regulations represent clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England and will make that a reality in Sussex and Brighton. They will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving residents’ lives and opportunities. I look forward to answering any questions that Members may have, and I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these critical regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank Members for the cross-party support for both devolution and the regulations. This is an important step forward for the area, and I am glad it is being done with our collective support.

Let me pick up the specific questions that were asked. When we informed both the areas concerned and the House that we would be postponing the elections until 2028, I said the rationale was that, in our judgment and from the experience of devolution in lots of different areas, the strength of the partnership is critical. In the context of local government reorganisation and creating strategic authorities—the footprint upon which we put a mayor—our view was that we needed to create the time to allow those institutions to bed in. We have been working very closely with the constituent authorities to ensure that there is an effective partnership, which will create the foundations upon which we can have mayoral elections. I think that is the right way to go. In the end, what we all care about is that at the other side of the process we have effective institutions that can deliver for local people. We think that by taking this slower, more considered journey towards it, we will deliver better outcomes for everyone.

On the costs specifically of mayoral elections—rather than those associated with local government reorganisation—we do not think that costs will be incurred by the constituent strategic authorities. We have committed to capacity funding from this year so that the institution can build its capacity and resources to work collectively. We are also clear that in advance of having the mayor, the strategic authority will operate as a mayoral strategic authority with powers over transport and skills, for example, so that it can crack on with the job that it needs to do. We will work on a case-by-case basis where there are pressures in the system. That support has been welcomed by the constituent authorities, and we are clear that we will do this in partnership.

On the interdependencies with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we are optimistic and confident that we will get the Bill through in this Session, and it is key to this change; part of the reason that this statutory instrument is much slimmer than ones approved previously is that a lot of this is built into the Bill. We are working relentlessly with our colleagues in the House of Lords to make sure that we can get the Bill through. I think there is cross-party support for the idea that this is a critical step in terms of governance and pushing power out, and I hope we will have cross-party support to get the Bill through in this Session.

An important question was asked about the abolition of police and crime commissioners. We are working very closely with the Home Office to make sure that we get that transition right.

As Members will know, we are in the process of rolling out strategic authorities across the country, because we want to make sure that devolution is spread across every part of the country. Those strategic authorities, whether they have mayors or not, potentially have an important role to play in the transition of both police and fire services. We are working with constituent, combined and strategic authorities to think about how we transition the functions that currently sit with PCCs or with fire authorities into those authorities.

On the point about devolution being required in all areas, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Mid Sussex. That is why we are rolling out devolution through strategic authorities. We have just closed expressions of interest for all areas to come forward and set out the partnerships that they want to build, and we will be taking that forward. We will move at the pace that places want to move, because we are very clear that we will not impose devolution geographies on places, but we are working actively with all areas. My hope is that in a year—possibly a year and a half—the entire country will be filled with the strategic authority footprints that will allow us to push powers down to those different areas.

On the hon. Member’s point about Brighton and Hove being over-represented, that is not my understanding. I have spent a lot of time engaging with the constituent authorities, and that issue has never been raised. What I would say—and this is right—is that we have left the particular set-up of the committee and governance structure to local partners. It is not for the Government to dictate to them how they should govern themselves; that is based on what the constituent authorities think is right and on local consent. I hope everyone would agree that that is the right approach.

We are therefore leaving it to our partners in local government to decide the right balance, particularly in the transitions where we have district councils in place that may not be in place in 2028. Different areas will approach it differently, and that is what we are seeing here. Ultimately, as I said when we were taking the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through the House, it is in the interests of constituent authorities to make sure that they are engaging their communities, and all constituent authorities, because, ultimately, partnerships are based on consent. That is what we are seeing in practice, and that is what I believe that this particular strategic authority will continue to take forward.

In conclusion, we have worked incredibly closely with the constituent authorities. I am confident that they will make this work and that, even though the mayoral elections will be in 2028, we will create a strong partnership that will allow them to crack on with the important job of building an economic strategy for their area and delivering for their area, with the investment to do that. I thank hon. Members from across the House for supporting the regulations, and I hope that we can take them forward in order to deliver the benefits of devolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Delivering for Communities

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I can confirm a major package of support for communities to take control of their future. This includes £301 million to reimagine and revive struggling high streets through our high street innovation partnerships, £18 million to improve children’s playgrounds in deprived areas, a major expansion of the Pride in Place programme, and pilots to drive place-based public service reform. Through these measures, the Government are boosting the sense of pride that people feel in their area and making sure that they see change for the better.

In February, the Prime Minister announced that a further 40 places will join the Pride in Place programme. That means that 284 communities will benefit from this transformational fund, with each receiving up to £20 million over the next decade to invest in the things that matter to local people. Today I am confirming the 40 places selected.

We have also approved plans for the first phase of Pride in Place places, setting out what the communities included in the programme will be spending the money on and how they plan to transform their areas.

In Ramsgate, the community has decided to invest £500,000 to save the town’s last youth centre from closure, securing the building’s future and ensuring that vital services for young people can continue. In Bilston, Wolverhampton, the local neighbourhood board has chosen to bring back the Bilston carnival for the first time since 2008, reviving a well-loved tradition and giving a new generation something to celebrate together.

Backed by £301 million of funding, our high streets innovation partnerships will help struggling high streets to shift to a new model: one that is based on an exciting new future, not a return to an imagined past. In a select number of areas, local authorities will be encouraged to work alongside communities and businesses to develop transformative plans such as to bring public services, green spaces and homes into the centres of these towns, working with anchor institutions and businesses to secure co-investment.

The partnerships will also deliver a summer of activity on high streets this year, with innovative measures to boost footfall in a season of major cultural and sporting events, such as the world cup. Later this year we will also publish a high streets strategy to support all high streets nationally and equip local authorities with the tools they need to drive long-term regeneration.

In too many neighbourhoods, local playgrounds are sliding into disrepair or have disappeared entirely. Our investment in playgrounds will reverse this decline, building and restoring play equipment in the places with the highest levels of child poverty and the lowest quality of playgrounds. The £18 million investment that we are confirming today will ensure that children in some of the most deprived communities have the quality of space they need to play. The funding is to be spent by 66 local authorities on up to 200 new or refurbished playgrounds and has been allocated across England, from Tyneside to Torquay.

We are using place-based budgets to pool public service budgets in local areas to enable services to be delivered better, joined up around the people who need them most, by breaking down silos, unlocking more funding for prevention and improving better outcomes for taxpayers. These will ensure that users are helped based on their need.

We have launched five projects with mayoral strategic authorities initially, focusing on special educational needs and disabilities across the Liverpool city region; young people at risk of offending in Gateshead and South Tyneside; adolescent mental health across four local authorities in the Black Country—Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Walsall—adults facing multiple disadvantage in Doncaster; and preventing youth unemployment across West Yorkshire.

Taken together, this package demonstrates a genuine shift in power and investment into our communities. We are not starting at square one. In every community, thousands of community leaders, volunteers and grassroots organisations are already working hard to make their areas a better place to live. This package provides the investment they need to deliver the change that people want to see.

[HCWS1428]

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and I thank Members who have spoken for their insight, passion for their area, and fantastic contributions. Let me start with my hon. Friend’s insightful analysis of both the challenges and opportunities in the area. I look forward to reading the APPG report, and to drawing insights on how we can continue to work with the area to advance its economic potential.

We all agree that economic growth is paramount, and it is one of the Government’s top priorities. Economic growth is central to raising living standards, which we absolutely must do, funding improvements in public services after a decade and a half of under-investment by the Conservatives, and rebuilding the country. That is why the Government are determined to not only drive growth from the centre but empower local leaders with the tools they need to drive growth in their area—local leaders such as Mayor Claire Ward, a fantastic Labour mayor whom I have had the privilege of working with, and who has been an important champion for the region before and since her election.

Productivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) pointed out so eloquently, is one of the key drivers of growth. While we can debate the causes, we all recognise that productivity has been weaker in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. Improved productivity will require relentless work and a focus at every level of government—from national Government, through to our regional government and our local authorities—in partnership with the business community and industry.

That work is essential to everything that my Department and others are doing to make progress—and we are making progress. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation last month showed that UK productivity grew more in the last year than in the previous seven combined. But we acknowledge that there is more that we need to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right to point out that productivity varies across the country. Indeed, the gap between our cities, where we would expect some of the highest productivity, and the UK average stands in contrast to the performance of many comparable cities across the OECD. Cities such as Lyon, Frankfurt, Turin and Bilbao have productivity higher than the UK average, while many of our own cities have productivity lower than our UK average. As my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) pointed out, devolution is key to unpacking, unlocking and dealing with the challenge.

We know the impact that devolution can have on growth and in improvements for local people. The parts of the country with the longest and deepest devolution of powers and funding are the ones where growth is taking off. That is why we are giving more areas, including the East Midlands combined authority, the tools and funding that they need to address the challenges in their areas and to realise the opportunities for growth. Devolution is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and, frankly, deserve: growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them.

I am conscious, however, that the debate is not just about the East Midlands combined authority; it is about the whole of the east midlands. Local leaders have an important role to play in growing the economy. We want more collaboration, not less, and we are supporting places to access devolution so that they can work together to drive outcomes locally. We have therefore issued a call for areas without devolution, including parts of the east midlands not within the combined authority, to come together with their neighbours to form strategic authorities so that they can benefit from devolution.

Local leaders will have greater control over economic development levers, transport and skills, as well as having revenue-raising powers, to ensure that they invest in the economic prosperity of their area. In the meantime, we encourage local leaders to work together and to set a vision for their area. Many local authorities already have an economic strategy, and we encourage them to set out a vision for growth in their area and to work across administrative boundaries for the benefit of their region. Industrial strategy zones are a perfect example—industry, innovators and government coming together, and local leaders equipped with a powerful set of tools to drive growth in each of the sectors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly pointed out under-investment in these areas, and Members across the House reiterated that point. I would say that that is, in fact, a double whammy, because we have had under-investment across the piece under previous Governments for 15 years, in every key part of the economy and in the infrastructure that we need to unlock economic development. In addition, investment was skewed to some areas, to the disadvantage of others, and we are absolutely determined to turn that around and put that right.

That is why we as a Labour Government are putting in record investment across all key sectors of the economy. On the key point of transport, where Members have pointed out a range of transport investment schemes and key pinch points to economic growth, the Department for Transport has unlocked a record £2 billion of support for transport in the east midlands. That is an important first step to deal with some of the critical transport connectivity issues, combined with investment in the green economy—which we see across the east midlands —in advanced manufacturing and in defence, with £180 million of local growth funding next year alone, to ensure that we put the money in to unlock the potential that we can see and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe so eloquently pointed out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) made the point that when we put investment in, it does not always touch our communities or lift the lives of people in those communities. We need to be intentional about it, which is why what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Members said about skills is absolutely critical. We have to combine the investment with intentional work to ensure that we develop a workforce strategy for the area and the skills, and ensure that we have the employment support to get people into jobs. That is the approach that we will take with the combined authority and that we intend to take with Team Derby. Our absolute commitment is to do our bit to work alongside leaders to unlock potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about the critical role of the visitor economy, which we absolutely recognise. One of the key requests of our mayors was for a visitor levy so that they can raise revenue that can then be invested in the enabling infrastructure and the support we need to boost the visitor economy. We are now consulting on that, and we will legislate on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about how this cannot be just a short-term blip; we need a long-term commitment and long-term plans. In the mayor, Claire Ward, we see a long-term plan for the area, but that long-term commitment from local leaders must be matched by a long-term commitment from this Government. That is why we are moving to multi-year funding that is looking at the long-term horizon in our places, and standing with our local leaders to invest and unlock that potential over the next decade.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made clear, however, the plan cannot just be for our urban centres, as critical as they are as engines of growth in the region. It must also speak to our rural areas to make sure that we unlock opportunities, not just in our towns and cities, but across the agricultural sector and our rural economy. We must also ensure that we deal with those pockets of deprivation.

Pride in Place is targeted at that very question: how, alongside the big work that we are doing regionally or in a local area, do we get investment into some of our deprived communities so that they can invest in the things that will lift up their area and restore pride in place? That goes hand in hand with the work that we know needs to be done regionally.

Finally, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made the important point about SMEs, which make up 99% of businesses in the economy. Under the last Government, however, we saw a huge neglect of the SME economy. Our job is to make sure that we support the backbone of our economy, which is why we have an SME strategy that looks at everything from late payments to procurement and how we provide the support to ensure that SMEs continue to be the key engine for growth.

I will end by referring to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who spent a long time bemoaning the Government’s growth record. I would gently point out, as has been acknowledged by Members across the House, that the legacy that we are trying to turn around is a function of the fact that we had a decade and a half of Governments who did not have an economic strategy, who chose to under-invest in key services, and who deliberately took money away from regions across the country, such as the east midlands, to make sure that they did not meet their economic potential. We are turning that around; that is the job and we are getting on with it.

The underlying fundamentals are there. We have been in power for 18 months; it will take time to repair the damage that was done over a decade and a half, but we are getting on with that job. Today, the Chancellor will set out our economic plan and the sectors that we will be boosting. Part of that will be a critical step around how we devolve to areas, such as the east midlands and across the country, to ensure that they work alongside us in partnership to unlock their potential.

To sum up, it is clear that we all agree on the need to boost productivity and support economic growth across the east midlands. I hope Members can see the Government’s commitment, passion and determination to work alongside leaders in the east midlands to ensure that we do that. Devolution is a critical part of that, and my job is to ensure that, whether through mayoral strategic authorities or foundation strategic authorities, we equip our local leaders with the skills, tools and capabilities they need to do their job.

But that is just one part of the answer: from day one, the Government have been clear that while local leadership in all its forms and at all levels is vital, it sits alongside the work that we are determined to do at the national level to boost the economic potential of the east midlands and every region across the country. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for being such an amazing champion for the area. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House to make sure that we do right by the region.

St Piran’s Day

Miatta Fahnbulleh Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this debate and on his tireless work on behalf of Cornwall and its residents. I will also take this opportunity to recognise the significant role that Cornwall plays economically and culturally for both the south-west and the United Kingdom.

St Piran’s day is an important moment to celebrate the historic county of Cornwall. Historic counties are an important element of local traditions that support the identity and cultures of many of our local communities, giving people a sense of belonging, pride and community spirit. In recent years, St Piran’s day has grown into a modern celebration of Cornwall’s culture, language and history; a day that reflects not only pride in Cornwall’s past, but confidence in its future.

As an example, we can look at Cornwall’s strong industrial legacy in mining—a history often traced back to St Piran himself, who is said to have discovered tin. That legacy now speaks to Cornwall’s future as the county evolves to embrace new opportunities in clean and renewable energy, carrying forward a tradition of innovation in a modern, sustainable form.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, culturally, Cornwall remains unique across England, with its national minority and protected language status, and I celebrate the rich heritage that Cornwall brings to this country. However, the beauty of Cornwall’s countryside and coastline can often mask the reality of living and working in the county. This Government are committed to working together with local leaders to overcome those issues, driving growth and unlocking investment.

My Department is taking steps to boost local growth through devolution and investment, which will see us working closely with local leaders to support growth and make the most of the opportunities in each and every part of the area.

Recognising Cornwall’s successful delivery of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund through the good growth programme, the recently announced £30 million Kernow fund is an exciting opportunity to support growth. This was created especially for Cornwall, in recognition of its comparative sectoral advantages in key areas of the UK’s industrial strategy. Decisions on the fund will be devolved to Cornwall council, in line with the Government’s devolution agenda, empowering local leaders to invest in projects that best meet local needs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our Cornish MPs and my hon. Friends for their tireless work in ensuring and securing this important investment and in championing the huge comparative advantage of the area.

Devolution remains a critical tool for this Government to unlock growth. There is a strong opportunity for Cornwall to build on its existing devolution agreement. Officials in my Department are currently working with Cornwall council to discuss next steps and to maintain momentum on this exciting next phase of empowering our local leaders.

Housing, as my hon. Friend pointed out, remains one of the most pressing challenges in Cornwall. Managing the impact of second homes while increasing the supply of affordable housing is fundamental to ensuring that young people who have grown up in Cornwall can afford to build their lives there.

To help support housing in Cornwall, this Government have confirmed a new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable house building programme at scale across the country. Through Homes England, my Department is working closely with Cornwall council and welcomes the publication of the Cornwall housing growth prospectus launched last year.

Homes England is committed to working with the council to unlock the opportunities and constraints for the county and to work collaboratively to ensure that we are unlocking the housing development that we all want to see. Alongside this, the Government are committed to delivering better infrastructure and services, so that everyone has access to a suitable mode of transport, enabling them to live healthy and fulfilling lives. That is why we have provided significant transport support to Cornwall, as well as £221 million in local highways maintenance funding to repair and renew its roads and fix potholes over the next four years.

I am also pleased to re-emphasise our Government’s commitment to building a society where all communities feel acknowledged. It was with great pleasure that, in December 2025, the Government granted the Cornish language further recognition under part III of the Council of Europe’s European charter for regional or minority languages. Granting part III recognition acknowledges the efforts of many who have been part of the revival of the Cornish language, and who are giving communities the opportunity to speak, listen to and appreciate it. Most importantly, celebrating and protecting our regional and minority languages allows us to connect with our history and provide a foundation for diversity to flourish.

I understand that there are particular challenges that coastal communities face and recognise that recent storms across this winter have brought disruption to residents across Cornwall. Officials from my Department and across all Departments will continue to support partners across the Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local resilience forum on impact and recovery, co-ordinating cross-Government engagement to help residents and businesses that we know are still impacted.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for securing the debate. It is consistent with the passionate, committed and persistent way in which he and my hon. Friends who represent Cornwall are such amazing advocates for their place. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Cornwall MPs as we deliver this Government’s agenda, secure the devolution deal and work together to ensure that we unlock the huge economic and local potential of this amazing part of the country.

Question put and agreed to.