Siân Berry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendments 312 to 314 aim to achieve the same thing: formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system, which is already being legislated for, at next year’s local mayoral elections, including the newly established combined authority areas of Greater Essex; Hampshire and the Solent; Norfolk and Suffolk; and Sussex and Brighton, in which my constituency lies. The Government have clearly admitted, accepted and legislated for the need to return mayoral elections to a more proportional system—in this case, supplementary vote, which achieves a majority vote for whoever wins. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said on Second Reading: “We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets.” —[ Official Report , 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.] I will give a few examples of the election outcomes we might expect if we go ahead with next year’s elections under first past the post. I remind the Committee that the results will be baked in for four years in each case and have serious implications.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am content with the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 315, in schedule 25, page 251, line 1, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”. This amendment, alongside Amendments 316 to 325 makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister listening to those important points, which I stress again are cross-party points. I look forward to seeing further developments on the clause, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Having spoken about clause 57 as a whole, I will now speak to amendment 315 and the other amendments in the group, which support its goals. As the Government will not listen and have not removed the clause, the amendment is essential. It is about fair play. While maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive, it would simply match the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems to that for legacy mayor and cabinet systems. Allowing places that have chosen committee systems to choose for themselves whether to change their governance back is important. I will highlight briefly, for the record, the story of two places that have chosen by referendum, driven by the people, to move to committee systems, and their case for allowing their choice to stand, unless and until they decide to make a different choice. As the Local Government Association told us in its evidence, it is not right for these democratic decisions to be disregarded. Councils using the committee system should be allowed to retain their governance system until they or their communities choose to move to a leader and cabinet system. My first example is Sheffield. This is from the Green councillors, and the full story is available in their written evidence. Sheffield is a good example of the committee system being a success and making things better for residents after a crisis. Over time, the people of Sheffield became very dissatisfied with how the council ran things under the cabinet model, and particularly its disastrous handling of the long-running street trees fiasco. That brought Sheffield into disrepute. The Lowcock report on the eventual independent inquiry into the street trees dispute found: “While a Strong Leader cabinet model with fewer checks and balances arguably gives authority to get things done, it can also, as in this case, enable the wrong things to be done without serious challenge.” The ruling administration of Sheffield city council never agreed to switch to a committee system; that was people power. More than 26,000 people signed a petition demanding a statutory referendum. On 6 May 2021, the people of Sheffield voted by 65% to 35% to require the council to change to a committee system. For Sheffield, the committee system works better. The Green councillors told us: “We know from talking to our residents and our election campaigns that people wanted to see parties working together” after all this strife. They continued: “They wanted to see an end to secretive decision-making behind closed doors and they wanted to see all the councillors taking responsibility for making decisions, not just a select few...There has been a culture shift, making working conditions better for staff, as well as improving outcomes for residents of the city. Even amongst those who were doubtful of the benefits of the committee system, very few argue for a return to the Cabinet regime.” As mentioned in my last speech, the council voted unanimously to defend the committee system against the changes in the Bill. In June 2025, the Labour leader of the council issued a statement, with cross-party support: “Since its implementation, and the publication of the Lowcock Report in 2023, we have been on an improvement journey to listen, change and rebuild trust with the city, a journey which was recognised in our recent nomination for Most Improved Council at the LGC Awards.” My second example is Bristol city council, which changed after a referendum in 2022 from mayor and cabinet to a committee system. The Liberal Democrats proposed the motion to Bristol city council to bring about the referendum. It was seconded by the Greens and supported by the Conservatives. The city was given the choice of continuing to have a mayor and cabinet or changing to a committee system. The referendum result was 59% in favour of the change. The people of Bristol, by a sizeable majority, expressed their dissatisfaction with the mayoral model, and cited a desire for more transparency, less tribalism and less power concentrated in one person as reasons for moving to a committee system. Under the new system, the people of Bristol now expect all councillors to take part in making decisions that affect the city, and that all councillors and political parties should work within the committee system to the benefit of local residents. There has been more public engagement too since the committee system came in. There have been more public questions and statements, with each committee having a public forum. There has been a marked improvement in the governance of the city with this refreshment of the governance model. That has been evidenced in council worker surveys and through feedback from residents. Far from the predicted slowing down of policymaking, policies have been developed in good time and delivered, and many people have commented on the overall improvement in the working culture of the council. The people of Bristol have now twice rejected a leader and cabinet model via referenda, once in 2012 to vote for a mayoral model, and again in 2022 in favour of a committee system. Those were local decisions, and to overturn the most recent decision only three years after it was made, without another referendum, would directly overturn the clear democratic mandate of the people of Bristol. It is not in the spirit of devolution to not respect places that have chosen what kind of local governance suits the people of that area. If people vote for a committee system in a referendum, they think it will work for them. It is not about what members of the governing party think will work or would like to operate, and it is not up to them to impose that on places where they are not in power. My amendment is constructive: it respects the way in which the Government want to create new authorities. However, where authorities that remain in place and have made a decision, the Government need to be consistent between legacy policies for mayoral authorities and legacy policies for committee systems. I hope the Government will act and make the schedule consistent in what legacy systems it respects. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I implore the hon. Member to listen to the rest of my speech and further points I shall make on other amendments. In Sheffield, at the same time, the council resolved unanimously that “Sheffield benefits from fairer, more representative governance arrangements, and that people expect the Councillors they elect to have a vote on the decisions that affect them”. Bristol also has a committee system, and Bristol Green councillors have told me how their cross-party committees have had a series of task and finish groups, where policy is developed with the input of councillors from all parties. They say that, while everyone does not always agree, this process allows for much more rounded development of policy ahead of implementation, not just scrutiny afterwards or divisive call-ins. There is rich debate, with more voices taking part in it. Those councillors also say that the committee system also allows for back benchers to have more influence and input, with a positive effective on equalities as well, so that more councillors with a variety of different characteristics have space to input, and that, in turn, has a positive effect on policy development. New councillors also have more of a chance to develop their skills and interests than under a cabinet model, where only a handful of councillors have proper influence and are hand-picked by the leader or mayor in many cases. Sheffield councillors also say: “The critical budget-setting process has worked better in Sheffield since the committee system was introduced, avoiding last minute wrangling and hasty deals between the parties. This is because the detail of the budget process is worked through each Committee in the months leading up to the budget, so all councillors are involved. This contrasts with the last budget brought under our Cabinet system where the budget proposal was voted down as the council meeting descended into chaos.” I also urge the Committee to note that none of the councils that have issued section 114 notices in recent years have been run under a committee system. Worcester city council has had a committee system since 2017, implemented after a council motion that was proposed by Conservatives and seconded by Greens. Councillors there tell me that they see scrutiny within the committee system working really well to improve policy before any decisions are made, and it has improved cross-party working relationships and helped to build consensus. The council has also been independently praised for its collaborative approach, and was commended in the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge in April, which said: “The peer team found evidence of good governance across the organisation. The peer team found there was positive Member collaboration across political groups which makes the most of the opportunities in this type of governance and there was comprehensive coverage of council business at Policy Committees”. I can speak on cabinet governance from my previous experience as a councillor in a Labour council, and it is currently the choice of the Labour administration in Brighton and Hove, where my constituency sits. Cabinets can obviously be quicker to act through a rapid decision-making process, but that has risks too. For good reason, the saying is not “Measure once, cut once”. I have noticed a disturbing trend of scrutiny committee time being squeezed by leaders and cabinets, with some councils having just one broad scrutiny committee—I did not experience that and I honestly cannot even imagine it working in agenda terms. A single scrutiny committee has, by definition, only a limited time to examine a wide range of upcoming decisions in any detail, and surely has no space on the agenda for the kind of through pre-decision scrutiny or issue-based evidence gathering to generate ideas or feedback on services that good scrutiny committees also do, and which I have seen. There are further risks; along with maintaining first past the post, the leader and cabinet model preferred by the Government is a recipe for seeing purely one-party decision making in more places, overriding all opposition voices when key decisions have to be made. One-party states are not more efficient or effective.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to clarify that I am talking about the supplementary vote for mayoral elections in clause 59. To return to some examples of mayoral elections under first past the post with results that are not optimal for democracy or public confidence: the 2025 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayoral election saw Paul Bristow elected on 28.4% of the vote, with a turnout of 32.9%. That gave 9.3% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. In none of my examples am I saying that the result was wrong, but they are not results that clearly command the confidence of a majority of the people in the area —that may well have been the case had a second vote been counted, but no second vote was allowed. I do not think that is a good way to conduct things. The 2025 West of England mayoral election saw Helen Godwin elected on 25% of the vote. With turnout at 30%, that gave 7.5% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. The 2025 Hull and East Yorkshire mayoral election saw Luke Campbell elected on 35.8% of the vote. With turnout at 29.8%, that gave 10.7% of the entire electorate a satisfactory result. In contrast, the last election held under the supplementary vote system in 2022 for South Yorkshire saw Oliver Coppard elected with 71.4% in the second round, up from a first round vote of 43.1%. That is a sea change in confidence and mandate compared with some of those marginal wins on a small turnout that we have seen in other areas.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree with the essence of that point, but the Government are seeking to impose reorganisation, which could abolish a whole tier of councillors overnight and cause a spike in casework and the need for advice services. I do not believe they have really considered the impact of the transition. This week, I met AdviceUK, whose survey of member groups found that the average advice service in the country has lost three staff members or volunteers in the past year, and needs three more advisers just to meet current demand. Have the Government considered that such services might face a spike in demand as a consequence of this reorganisation and the loss of community representation that is being imposed? There are surely consequences for democracy. In contrast to the cost-saving argument, there is clear evidence that size matters when it comes to democracy and accountability, even with unitary authorities that work well—my constituency is in a well-established unitary. The proposed increase in population and geographic scale is likely to have a damaging effect on a range of democratic criteria, including electoral turnout, public trust in councillors and officers, and levels of participative engagement.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Having been a local councillor, I can see the other side of the Government’s argument. A local councillor based further away, representing a larger ward, will have to work very hard to maintain the face-to-face interaction with their community that makes residents feel represented. I do not believe the Government have really considered that. No matter how hard-working councillors are—even at Green levels of all-year-round hard work—residents will have less familiarity with who their local councillors are and what they do, which may increase alienation from local democracy and feed populist narratives. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley made this point well, but I have to complain that, unlike the new strategic authorities, which are about devolving power, forced and hurried local government reorganisation was not in the Labour manifesto, so I must oppose the clause.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I also wish to speak against this clause and against the Government suddenly pushing through local government reorganisation in this form. Of course, local government reorganisation does happen. Councils can, by consent, currently make such changes. The Government’s imposition of these changes, in a process that seems rushed and top-down to many people across the country, is against the spirit of devolution and against the spirit of the title of the Bill. I do not believe that the introduction of new strategic authorities demands a quid pro quo of abolishing all remaining two-tier authorities in such a dismaying hurry, and I do not believe that one size fits all. I have served in unitary authorities, and I understand that they can work well. I am not a huge fan of county councils, but nevertheless, it should be up to local areas to do this by consent. One point that is important to make is that there is no strong case for this change on cost or service delivery grounds. There is no consistent or conclusive evidence to justify a belief that the much larger councils that the Government want will result in services that are cheaper to run. Why even force attempts at savings of this sort now, when local government is still struggling so badly? Research from Unison has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of £4 billion by the financial year of 2026-27, and a cumulative funding gap of £7.4 billion by 2027-28. Let us please fix austerity first. There are other problems, and I draw on the experience and expertise of the Association of Green Councillors in making these points. With this process, we are likely to see the destructive marginalisation of community identity in many places. There is no serious evidence to back up the choice of target for councils to serve 500,000 people, which Ministers have been asking for in their correspondence to councils. Many people in localities already affected are struggling to see how this will not result in arbitrarily drawn, essentially meaningless sub-county unitary councils with no identifiable sense of place. Many very substantial towns, with history and a strong identity, often associated with strong values of independence of thought as well as governance, community spirit, welcome, inclusion and mutual support—places that people love—are currently or imminently in danger of being wiped off the local government map. They too are saying we should fix austerity first. The Committee has heard strong evidence of a clear and dramatic reduction in community representation from these changes, and we are already an under-represented population. Look anywhere in Europe or North America and people have far more peers, elected from their community, to represent them in decision making. Unlike in so many other countries—unlike so many city council members or state representatives—our councillors, although they work hard, do not work as full-time representatives. I see no plans to make these new councillors with extra duties full time. Many existing councillors put in time way over what their allowances might cover, given the poor support and resources they often receive. They are overworked, and the job of councillors in these new super-unitaries is set to become harder if they are to maintain the strong community connections they currently have. Hard-working local representatives also take on so much casework, helping people directly when public and private services drop the ball and helping them to navigate complex systems. We must not forget the value of a friendly face from the community who just listens and takes someone’s case up in a crisis. Have Ministers considered that the loss of thousands of people doing casework, advice and support work of this kind could have an impact on the caseloads of the hard working and hard-pressed staff and MPs taking up casework in local areas already? Have Ministers considered the impact on local advice services?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  Britain wants to thrive, but all I can hear is this Government once again prioritising the needs of the wealthiest, most frequent flyers above those of us on the ground. Can the Secretary of State tell me what crumbs of our carbon budget will remain for the rest of us and our lives after the review is complete? After the fudge on Gatwick, if the tests say no, will she say no as well?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister take this opportunity to urge those mayors who are seeking greater powers to continue to do so, and to talk about it in the public sphere, as they have done?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comments. I cannot accept that a detail such as tobacco use was put in, and standards of housing as a result of Awaab’s law and the things have gone on there, and yet environmental factors have not yet been included. I am determined that they should be, and I still intend to push this to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert— “(e) access to green space and nature, (f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”. This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert— “(e) access to green space and nature, (f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.— (Siân Berry.) This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm . Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 43, page 44, line 24, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”. This amendment is linked to Amendment 263 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts. I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues. If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve. If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence. The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups. That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue. The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill. New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge. The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally. I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Dame Siobhain, for my temporary absence at the crucial moment. I would very much like the Committee to listen to my proposals for amendments 262 and 263. [ Interruption. ] Apologies, Chair—is there an issue?

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will withdraw the amendment for now, but I hope we see some measures coming through from the Minister, particularly in regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert— “ 107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy (1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB. (2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to— (a) directors of public health within the authority area; (b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area; (c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area; (d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and (e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. (3) The strategy must— (a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes; (b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for— (i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published, (ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”); (c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and (d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted. (4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of— (a) life expectancy, (b) healthy life expectancy, (c) infant mortality rate, (d) rates of obesity and overweight, (e) rates of anxiety and depression, and (f) suicide rates within the authority area. (5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of— (a) household relative poverty rates, (b) employment rates, (c) relative child poverty rates, (d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C, (e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and (f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day. (6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b). (7) A report under subsection (6) must— (a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter, (b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and (c) be made publicly available.” This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister clarify how the list in clause 43 as it stands was put together? It is bizarre that the use of tobacco and those kind of lifestyle choices are somehow explicitly listed, when environmental factors as a whole are left out.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech. Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways. Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech. My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants. My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments. The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough. I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report: “Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.” According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas. It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today. Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality. Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments. The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery. In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”. The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of clarification, I recognise that the Minister has set out that the local nature recovery strategies will have to be regarded, and also that local growth plans will be very important. Which does the Minister see as having greater weight in local planning and strategic planning decisions?