In a speech published on GOV.UK for Business in the Community's Pride of Place Annual Summit 2026, Minister Kaur set out a place-based account of the government's approach to neighbourhood renewal. The central message was that lasting change should not be designed by central departments acting alone, but through joint work between government, business, charities and residents. Kaur linked that argument to her own background in Southampton, including growing up on free school meals in a deprived neighbourhood and later serving in local government before leading Southampton City Council. The autobiographical detail was used to support a practical policy claim: durable change is more likely when decisions, funding and delivery sit closer to the communities affected.
The speech identified three barriers that ministers say have made partnership harder than it needs to be: siloed funding, short-term spending cycles and a default model of commissioning rather than shared delivery. Kaur said the government's response includes a new place-based unit in central government and support for place-led budgets. The flagship example was the Pride in Place programme. According to the speech, it will provide £6 billion over the next decade to more than 300 communities across the country that ministers say have been overlooked for too long. That matters because the programme is being presented not as a small pilot, but as a long-term funding commitment with a specific local growth and community renewal purpose.
On the programme's operation, the speech said each Pride in Place community will receive £2 million a year for 10 years. Local people are expected to shape priorities, while MPs act as place champions and neighbourhood boards provide a local forum for decision-making. Kaur cited the Millbrook estate in Southampton as an early example, saying a chair and neighbourhood board had already been appointed. The policy significance is the move away from repeated short competitions and towards a decade-long allocation that can be planned locally. For councils, voluntary organisations and employers, that creates room to align existing services with neighbourhood plans rather than attaching activity to isolated grant rounds. The speech was clearer on direction than on operating detail, so questions remain about accountability, performance measures and how neighbourhood boards will fit alongside local authorities and existing funding streams.
Kaur also used the summit to explain the purpose of the Office for the Impact Economy. According to the government communication, the office is meant to create better conditions for philanthropy, impact investment and purpose-driven business, while making it easier for organisations to work with government. The speech described a new approach to place that should connect communities with infrastructure, capital and capability on a larger scale. In practical terms, that points to a model that goes beyond one-off donations or isolated corporate programmes. Ministers are signalling that they want private finance, local expertise and public priorities to be brought together in a more stable partnership structure. The speech also said that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the minister are coordinating this work across government through the Office for the Impact Economy, indicating that the ambition extends beyond a single department.
The role assigned to business was more specific than standard corporate responsibility language. Kaur said local firms should be seen as partners in local change rather than occasional donors, with employers helping to tackle issues such as food insecurity, literacy and access to opportunity. She pointed to Business in the Community's book drive, which the speech said supported more than 20,000 children from deprived communities, including her former school. That framing places business inside the policy model rather than alongside it. Employers are being invited to contribute to neighbourhood planning, workforce support and local problem-solving where their recruitment needs, supply chains or physical presence already tie them closely to a place. For business leaders, the practical issue will be whether government can make that participation clear enough and stable enough to last beyond individual campaigns or ministerial events.
The most concrete delivery example in the speech came from the West Midlands. Kaur cited work involving Greene King, Severn Trent, government and the charity sector to create opportunities for what she described as hidden talent in local areas. The groups named were care leavers, ex-offenders and young people with mental health challenges. In policy terms, that example sits between labour market participation and social inclusion. It suggests that place-based partnerships are expected to do more than improve a neighbourhood's appearance or civic confidence; they are also meant to widen access to skills, employment and progression. If repeated elsewhere, that model would make business-led routes into work a visible part of the Pride in Place offer.
The wider rationale in the speech was a concern about fragmentation, division and falling trust in public systems. Kaur said too many residents now feel detached from decision-makers and doubtful that their area will improve. Pride in Place was presented as one response to that problem: long-term funding, local choice over priorities and a clearer expectation that government, business and the voluntary sector should act together. For policy professionals, the speech is best read as a statement of direction rather than a full implementation document. It confirms that ministers want place-based budgets, neighbourhood boards and the Office for the Impact Economy to operate as connected parts of one local delivery model. The next stage is execution, particularly whether central government, councils, employers and charities can make this approach routine rather than exceptional over the next decade.