Green Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Green Party

142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to move the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a well-known enthusiast for allotments. I am a keen gardener in a space similar to an allotment, and my colleague Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the House of Lords is also a huge enthusiast. I hope that this issue and this kind of provision will continue to be discussed in the other place, whatever happens in the Commons. The Bill quite rightly puts health and wellbeing at the heart of a lot of the strategic functions of the new authorities. Sadly, however, it neglects the role that access to allotments and green spaces can play in boosting public health. The new clause would rectify that with some specific proposals for allotments. Across England, demand for allotments is huge. People have really embraced the health and social benefits that they can provide. There is much more awareness of the environmental benefits that they can deliver, supporting pollinators much better than other kinds of managed land. They can be part of green corridors, linking together nature-rich spaces. The demand has led to long waiting lists, while allotments are being taken away. In 1950, there were 1.5 million allotment plots, but we have only around 250,000 today. The biggest losses have been in urban areas, where people need them the most. There are now 108,000 people on waiting lists. For example, in Portsmouth, one in every 25 adults is waiting. That is one person on every bus sitting waiting for an allotment. At the moment we do not have many legal tools for councils to fix that. There are no reporting requirements on councils and there are no waiting time limits for councils to drive forward ambition on providing allotments, but the Bill provides an opportunity to fix that. The new clause would create a duty to increase allotment provision and boost public health, to report on allotment and nature-rich provision in areas, and to fund community organisers to widen public access to those resources. It would also require action if allotment provision falls below a certain threshold. The new clause takes inspiration from Scotland—we have not just invented it for England here. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Scottish Government have mandated a 50% or less waiting-list-to-allotment ratio, a maximum wait of five years or less, as well as annual reports. That has not been an insupportable burden on local authorities there; indeed, they have taken it up with some enthusiasm. It would be brilliant to have that in England. It would provide legal direction, but also practical levers for councils and real imperatives for them to act.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Putting this duty on to individual smaller councils might be burdensome, but at a strategic authority level, collecting this information would seem to be <span id="539" class="column-number" data-column-number="539"></span>really positive. As we have been discussing throughout the Committee, on many issues—land use, planning and support for community right to buy—there are levers for them to act. At a strategic authority level, it would be great to have some co-ordination—people from different councils getting together to find out how each of them is acting on this issue. Let us not forget our aim here. We are talking about putting this issue within the health duty somewhat, and we know that time spent on allotments and other green spaces will reduce cardiovascular risk, improve mental health and lower people’s stress. We know that in areas where green space provision is better, men live three years longer and women nearly two years. We need to extend those benefits to the 20 million people who currently lack access to green space within a 15-minute walk, and allotments are some of the healthiest and most rewarding green spaces we can provide. The new clause is a path to more nature, more access to that nature, and improved public health.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    Those are all excellent points that I could have made. Allotments cross many different policy areas and areas of benefit. My experience of allotments and community food growing projects of this kind is that they are social, but they are also multicultural—they are about sharing people’s experiences.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    That is a great point—allotments are intergenerational space. They do have an effect on health for no reason; they are beneficial and great. They are a tradition in this country that we are losing. Let us get this action put into the duties on authorities. I urge the Minister to look favourably on how this extension to the proposed health function could be constructively included in what happens in the new strategic authorities.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I take those points constructively, as they were intended. I hope that this issue can be looked at during future stages in a cross-party manner, so that we can put something together. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause</em><em>, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 16 Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets “(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to— (a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; (b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021; (c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and (d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).<span id="541" class="column-number" data-column-number="541"></span> (3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1). (4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is my pleasure to make the case for new clause 16, which would introduce a climate and nature duty into the Bill. I have been working with a tremendous group of campaigners who, like me, cannot see why the duties are not currently in the Bill. Those campaigners include the Climate Emergency Group, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition and Friends of the Earth. As I have previously argued, the Bill lacks strong safeguards to ensure that the new authorities embed climate action and nature recovery, and action on deadly air pollution in their work. There is a growth duty, but not yet any equivalent duty for climate mitigation, adaptation or nature recovery. Subsection (1) of the new clause sets out the different targets that ought to be passed down from national Government to strategic authorities. Subsection (2) would compel local authorities and strategic authorities not to make decisions incompatible with the duties—in other words, not to make things worse. Subsection (3) is a really important part of the new clause and would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance describing the fair contribution that each area must make toward meeting the national targets. That is what we currently lack. There is nothing in the Bill that helps to achieve the national targets through the actions of the strategic authorities that we are creating, and that is an important gap. I am not idly making this point; reaching our national targets requires a contribution from the authorities with these important powers, areas of competence and actions. Leaving out how we will share out the contribution to the national target—leaving it out altogether—just does not wash. The evidence from the allies I have been working with, and from monitoring of what goes on at council level, shows that every council scoring 20% or below in the climate action scorecards that get produced is in England or Northern Ireland. That is because we have had the duties passed down by the Governments in Wales and Scotland. It is our duty to ensure that this Bill fills the gap. Precedents exist not only in Scotland and Wales, as I have mentioned, but in London, because this is done effectively under sections 42 to 44 of the Greater London Authority Act 2007. Each of them systematically passes on a duty for the GLA—the Mayor and Assembly combined—to act to address climate change. This has led to more action in London. It has meant that the Mayor has produced results. The legislation mandates the creation of a climate change mitigation and energy strategy. The strategy, the law says, will contain proposals <span id="542" class="column-number" data-column-number="542"></span>for the contribution to be made in Greater London towards the mitigation of climate change. These are not hard clauses to write. These are not hard things to pass down, and yet these things are missing from the Bill. That is why we have put together new clause 16, which should be adopted. It could be adopted today, and I intend to divide the Committee on this issue. We have had discussions about these issues before. We talked about clause 2 and the different ways in which air pollution might be included in the legislation governing the new strategic authorities, and the Minister responded in a similar way each time. For example, this was a typical response: “The principle and the intention are that we are baking our climate and environmental obligations into the way that we are thinking about how we drive the economy.” <span id="vol_col327" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="327" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="14640BCD-B76B-4504-8840-F1EFDB591EBA"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, </em>21 October 2025; c. 327.]</span> It is no good giving these assurances—setting up a baker in a back room behind a curtain—for climate, pollution and nature action, when for so much else, the targets, accountability and duties, is clearly stated in the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an issue of fairness. Talking to each local area about what contribution each of them will make cannot be done behind closed doors. It requires a transparent process, which the new clause provides for. The measure has massive and wide support not only from the kinds of campaigners that I associate with on a daily basis, but from more than 100 hundred businesses, which have twice signed open letters in support of such a duty. For them, it would provide the certainty needed to unlock support and drive green investment. The Local Government Association has made it clear that councils require further statutory duties, powers and resources to lead on climate action, while 150 councils responded to a climate consultation, with the vast majority in favour of these duties in England. The District Councils’ Network in its general election prospectus, London Councils, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and 88% of UK100 members all called for a climate statutory duty. The Minister also said this in Committee: “National Government and local government at all levels, along with business and individuals, must continue to make a contribution to tackling climate change and improving the quality of the environment around us.” <span id="vol_col327" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="327" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="E136FB27-BAFE-440A-9AD9-724A55E4EDE3"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Public Bill Committee, </em>21 October 2025; c. 327.]</span> Those words need to be reflected in the Bill, and the new clause would do that very effectively. We have the opportunity right now to embed climate, clean air and nature duties for all local authorities and strategic authorities, and to make sure that they hit the ground running for our national environment targets. That would mean no delay for them to take action on clean power, warm homes, clean air and making space for nature. We know very well that there is willingness on the part of local authorities to act, so why would the Labour Government not use the Bill to codify that, and help, inspire and support them in further action?

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I hear the Minister’s words, which are very similar to previous words, but I do not believe she has really dealt with the key things this new clause does that others do not: subsection (1) specifies that local authorities and strategic authorities must contribute, and not just consider; subsection (2) requires authorities not to make things worse; and subsection (3), in particular, sets out the importance of defining fair contributions. The mirror of what happens at an international level needs to happen fairly at a local and strategic level in this country. Those points were not answered to my satisfaction, so I must push the new clause to a vote. <em>Question put</em>, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I will, as briefly as I can, because this is an interesting concept, outline the proposals in new clause 30 for the establishment of a public engagement commission. I have been part of some rocky debates in Committee, and I commend the new clause as a less fraught way to consider deep public participation, to come to terms with the benefits of participatory processes in appropriate situations and to look at democratic innovation in other ways. The key issue here is that, as additional powers are gained, the choices and challenges facing public authorities in general—particularly these new ones—are becoming harder, along with the issues they are considering and the world situation. The need for citizen participation grows with that if we are to maintain trust and confidence in our public institutions. We need these new institutions to build trust and public confidence from the start. The new clause closely relates to our legal obligations under the Aarhus convention, of which I am quite a big fan, as conventions go. It was adopted in 1998, when the Rio process really started to bed in, in the period when I started to become very involved in politics. I am <span id="554" class="column-number" data-column-number="554"></span>certain that some of the processes taking place within central and local government as a result of our signing up to the convention encouraged my interest in politics, and led to some of the people who I work with now becoming my colleagues, so I am a big fan. The Aarhus convention links environmental rights and human rights. It establishes that “sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders” and it focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities in a democratic context. It is absolutely wonderful, but we are miles behind other countries in how we do that. There are some really good examples of engagement in Britain. However, I see Ministers in the current Government not acting in the spirit of the convention, who are not keen to hear from the public, or who are certainly not keen to engage with them in new ways. I hear a lot about how engagement with the public slows down building—they put it less politely than that. We need to think more about how we undertake this kind of democratic innovation, not just in planning applications but in the wide range of powers and services that we are devolving. It should be part of the Bill’s DNA, and the new clause would do just that. The new clause would set up a national body to guide and spread best practice, and it would take on the task of engaging and involving the public in innovative ways on very big and difficult questions—it would be a really positive addition to the Bill. The proposed public engagement commission is modelled on the French National Commission for Public Debate, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary—we can feel the vintage this comes from. The French commission started out by looking at big schemes such as TGV lines, and it has organised consultations on 130 schemes and projects. Some of the projects have been modified, some have been significantly redesigned, and some have actually been abandoned as a result of the public engagement. It is a success story in France, and we could make use of it here. We had the National Infrastructure Commission, which governed planning applications, and that has recently been widened to the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, so it is intended to look at services as well. I think that a similar commission looking at strategic and national-level engagement would be a positive addition in helping us to fulfil some of our rights. Obviously, the commission would not intervene on every scheme, but it might intervene on schemes at a range of levels to establish best practice. It would be an ideal place to look at some of the knottier issues that we have come across. I will finish with a few examples. I can see that Members do not want to debate this and they are feeling a little confused about what it might actually do. We have talked about proportional representation and voting systems today. For subjects that can be difficult to discuss, such as planning issues, which can descend into name calling, we could try different methods of engagement. We could listen to how to modify projects—that is an obvious one. We could also look at local growth plans and think about how they could be scrutinised to involve the public more. There is also the neighbourhoods work that the Government are still proposing. All would benefit from the involvement of this commission.<span id="555" class="column-number" data-column-number="555"></span> The commission could also try out and report back on new digital approaches. It could make sure that consultations work for younger people, while also ensuring that the digitally excluded can also join engagement exercises. Getting that kind of balance right is very hard, and establishing a commission to make sure that it works well would be a good thing. On things such as community infrastructure and mayoral levies, which are raised and spent in the local area, the commission should look at participatory budgeting and establish best practice. We know that mayoral development corporations are not really designed to be directly accountable or involve the public, but the commission could look at how those bodies could engage more effectively in local areas. It is interesting that in engagement connected with new towns, it is people in the local area who are consulted when new towns are intended mainly to attract new people to an area. How should people who might come to live in an area be consulted? Those are interesting challenges and I think that the commission would be a positive addition. More seriously, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a participation gap in relation to the Aarhus convention in this Bill. I hope that she will go away and look again at how that affects environmental rights and compliance and about how that might work at a national level. She should also think about how this challenge today might affect a wide range of different participation processes at the Government level. Apologies for again making a very long case for a new clause. I do not table them idly.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    A standing commission that offers regular advice to all the groups that are trying to innovate would be a boon to them, not a burden as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said. I believe that reporting back from “time to time” is completely normal language in Bills that set up an independent agency or organisation and we want to receive reports back; it definitely does not mean anything in particular.<span id="557" class="column-number" data-column-number="557"></span> I remind the Minister that there are risks if we do not do something to ensure that we stand by the important rights that people expect to be upheld. It is not just full of opportunity and excitement, as my previous speech implied; there is genuinely a risk that the new bodies—these unfamiliar, geographically drawn strategic authorities—will rejected by the public if the Government do not get this right. Trust is a crucial metric that we cannot measure ourselves—it just happens or not in other people. We need people to genuinely trust the new bodies. We cannot tell someone to trust them—they do or they do not. The Government must ensure that they are doing that right. I do not want the reforms to fall flat any more than Ministers do. I think this provision is an important thing that could be done to ensure that they succeed better than they otherwise would. However, I am not going to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em>

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I have been working on the new clause with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. The new clause would require strategic authorities to prepare community wealth-building action plans and makes provision for partnerships with anchor organisations such as hospitals, colleges and employers, to support them. That would create the opportunity for organisations to come together to build collective action on things such as procurement, employment and the better use of owned assets in the local area. It would also grant mayors a right to request levies on private equity in local public services to limit extraction. The new clause is tailor-made for Labour Members, whose party outside government has long championed community wealth building. In brief, community wealth building is the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. It puts people before private equity profits, and champions the kind of economic development activity that is overlooked by industrial strategies, focusing instead on the everyday economy, where most people—our carers, our cleaners, our builders—work. Community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of everyone, everywhere. Scotland has a Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill passing through its Parliament. England must not be left behind. We have all heard about Preston’s remarkable success in this field. Analysis of Preston’s programme in <em>The Lancet Public Health</em> found fewer mental health problems than expected during the community wealth building programme compared with similar areas, as life satisfaction and economic measures improved. The analysis found that the approach can provide an effective model for economic regeneration, potentially leading to substantial health benefits. Community wealth building is also part of the economic strategy of my city of Brighton and Hove, with a consensus to work on it over successive administrations. To further the case, I will quote comments on the London borough of Islington’s programme made in November 2024 by its director of inclusive economy. She said: “As I say very clearly to our team, this is not about levelling the playing field. This is about tilting the table. In an economy like Islington, we have to focus our limited resources on those who are least served by this economy…It’s about sustainability, it’s about justice, and that idea of creating prosperity for everyone. The core focus is on being locally rooted—trying to make sure that the money we spend and the efforts we make are all rooted within Islington and our wider regional economy”, and that such programmes “make sure that the big businesses who are in our local economies are able to engage with a local supply chain and local employment practices so that we can create that virtuous circle at a local level.” The Islington programme director also commented on how equality is helped, saying in the interview, “Similarly, lots of investment money typically goes to male-owned businesses. We’ve set up a series of programmes aimed at supporting underrepresented entrepreneurs.”<span id="559" class="column-number" data-column-number="559"></span> They reduce rents in their affordable workplaces if the operators support local people’s employment and local businesses and work on the supply chain. She also gives the example of dedicated incubation programmes “to make sure that we ‘tilt the table’ in the favour of people who are least served by this economy.” She says that, in short, “It is about trying to make prosperity local”. Who in this room could disagree with that? I hope that the new clause is taken in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and receives a positive response from the Minister.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her response. I am not entirely convinced that these measures are as baked in as she said. All these issues are vulnerable to election cycles. Something more specific along these lines, potentially within the requirements of the local economic plans, would help to ensure that people consistently see this approach taken across the country. The Minister talked about Labour mayors, but is she convinced? I am not sure that other mayors will take this on board, despite the proven benefits. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em><span id="560" class="column-number" data-column-number="560"></span> New Clause 34 Local government data “(1) LURA 2023 is amended in as follows. (2) In Section 84, in subsection (2)(b), after “planning and development” insert “including in relation to economic conditions, transport, tourism and nature”. (3) In Section 91 (Interpretation)— (a) after “(g) Part 8 of GLAA 1999,” insert “(ga) Parts 2 and 3 of the Transport Act 2000”; (b) after “(k) this Part or Part 4 or 6 of this Act” insert “ the Environment Act 2021, Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, Part 3 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026”.”—<em>(Siân Berry.)</em> <em>This new clause extends data standardisation powers contained in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to encompass Local Growth Plans, Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Local Transport Plans. Currently, proposals in these other plans may not constitute “development”, so would be outside the scope of existing powers.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 34 is about something that I do not think Ministers have yet considered, but it would be of real benefit to the efficiency and transparency of these new authorities. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created a number of new powers to standardise planning data, including local plans, planning software and the ways in which we can get information about planning applications and policies. The new clause would make sure that other activities of the strategic authorities were, from the start, set up to provide a similar level of data. We are talking about spatial data, spending data, data for inward investments, and data for the jobs created in association with different parts of economic plans. It would be marvellous to put that level of digitalisation of public data into the Bill, for the same Department mandated the planning data reforms that are being taken up extremely well. We must do something about this either now or at the next stage of the Bill. We have seen provisions in the Bill—I have tabled other amendments on this—say things like, “Mayors must publish in such a manner as the mayor thinks appropriate.” That kind of wording is a recipe for PDFs inaccessible to organisations such as Natural England seeking to scrutinise or interact with these different strategic authorities around the country. Ministers themselves may want to know some data about what is going on in these local authorities, as well as the public at large—civil society. If we do not make things standardised, we will end up having to go through multiple inaccessible PDFs. Sometimes, those are Excel documents that have been turned into PDFs, and yet the Excel documents are not released. It would be tremendous for standardised, accessible data in API formats—searchable, integratable and comparable—to be produced as a matter of course through the Bill. The measure would also help to support the goals of the Aarhus convention, which is all about transparency and being able to find out information. It would also be a gift to people who want to create things like accessible <span id="561" class="column-number" data-column-number="561"></span>apps, websites and maps for pamphlets about the services in a local area. Those are the kinds of benefits that the Government talked about at the time of introducing the requirements on planning. They need to look again at whether they want things published in multiple different ways that become hard to integrate later, or whether they want things to be organised a little better from the start. The new clause is tabled in a constructive way. I hope that Ministers will ask their teams to explore the idea and talk to the people working on planning. It would be of huge benefit not to have to unpick a mess of data for these new authorities later on.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I implore the Minister to go away and look at this again. The courts have confirmed that transport schemes, such as the cycleway running along the Embankment, do not count as development. Therefore, the wider applicability that I think the Minister was asserting may not be in place without some kind of amendment to make sure that things such as the local economic plans, local growth plans, nature recovery strategies and local transport plans are fully covered by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It may need some changes that I think the Minister is unaware of at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em>

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    I do not wish to move the new clause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) may bring it back on Report.<span id="574" class="column-number" data-column-number="574"></span> New Clause 56 Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans “(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a Strategic Authority, the Strategic Authority’. (3) After subsection (7) insert— ‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a Strategic Authority within the meaning of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that— (a) the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan, (b) the plan has been agreed by both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body, and (c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries. (7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), “joint leadership” means that— (a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body, and (b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined. (7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the Strategic Authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations. (7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may— (a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement; (b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination; (c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making; (d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement. (7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to— (a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area, (b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs, (c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and (d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’ (4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows. (5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert— ‘“Strategic Authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.—<em>(Manuela Perteghella.)</em> <em>This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

    To what everyone else has said, I want to add that, while I have spent a lot of time in the Committee complaining that scrutiny is not done well, we have done a really good job of scrutinising this Bill. My team has had the most amazing support from the Public Bill Office and the Clerks, and the Chairs have been fantastic, so thank you very much, everyone.

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Prisoner Release Checks

    The Secretary of State rightly talks about prisons reeling from historic funding and staffing cuts, yet he admits that other current Ministers have added to this problem by changing the visa rules in July, which will force many overseas prison officers out of the country. He just called them “much beloved” staff and just said that he recognises the challenges, so will he confirm that he has asked the Home Secretary to look again at her visa changes for these prison officers?

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

    Today’s Petrofac news has nothing to do with UK oil and gas policy. This is a company with a long history of financial challenges and mismanagement; it was fined millions for bribery, lost £6 billion in value since 2012, and has now lost a contract with the Netherlands. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to claim otherwise is blatant political point scoring by the Tories and others with a head-in-the-sand climate denial agenda, and is a distraction from what really matters, which is ensuring that every worker whose job is affected by today’s news is properly supported?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

    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 <span id="397" class="column-number" data-column-number="397"></span>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?

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

    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 <span id="398" class="column-number" data-column-number="398"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Ninth sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I rise to speak against clause 57; I believe it is extreme control freakery and overreach from the Government and in no way essential to this Bill. Why impose a leader and cabinet model on all councils, even against their will, along with all these other changes? The Government can see only the benefits and, like a poorly run council, they ignore the critical risks. Good governance benefits in many places from a deeply involved voice for principled opposition councillors to vote on policy, check the numbers, put forward good ideas and raise mission-critical questions about issues such as fire safety, service quality or big projects and <span id="420" class="column-number" data-column-number="420"></span>contracts, even when that is uncomfortable for the administration. Places need the right to choose, democratically, a new model of governance when appropriate—especially when councils face problems and need a fresh start. Changes of this sort are sometimes made after a crisis or a period of problems; I will talk in the next debate about changes made by referendums. I hear the claims of stagnation and indecision often levelled at committee systems, but I point out that under the current system people who see that happening have the right to change the model and try something else. A new administration can vote to switch to a leader and cabinet for a period, or to a mayor, if it wishes, or the people can make the change themselves by calling a referendum. The Government want to take away all that choice. That is very wrong and this clause is overreaching in the extreme. Given the exceptions being made for mayors in the mandate for leader and cabinet, it seems that the committee system is the one most under attack from the Government in this Bill, so I want to provide some words and examples from cross-party local councillors about its benefits for their areas. In July 2025, Sheffield city council voted unanimously for a motion defending its democratically chosen model, stating that “the benefits of the Committee System demonstrated in Sheffield include: greater collaboration across political groups in policy formulation and in decision making; overcoming party political tribalism and focussing on areas of agreement, not antagonism; improving the culture of the Council, with officers and Councillors focusing on what is best for the city; all Councillors being involved in the decision-making of the Council, and greater accountability to the electorate; and improved outcomes for the residents of Sheffield”. That is a cross-party view.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    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.<span id="421" class="column-number" data-column-number="421"></span> 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.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I quite agree. We have heard a lot about the benefits of this new model, and this change is a sign from the Government that they are not even going to trust their new unitaries to choose their own governance systems. I find it a really strange addition to the Bill. The Electoral Reform Society, in its 2015 report “The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and Public Procurement Corruption”, estimated the cost to the public purse of councils having weak opposition to be about £2.6 billion a year. Finally, in November 2017, the current Prime Minister told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, “In my experience in life, the best decisions are made with proper scrutiny, and the worst mistakes come from not having scrutiny.” The Government should listen to that man. This clause—of all the bad parts of the Bill—is the most exact opposite of community empowerment. If it stays, the Bill should be renamed the “Very Little Devolution and Too Much Centralised Control Bill”.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 315, in schedule 25, page 251, line 1, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”. <em>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.</em>

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    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 <span id="426" class="column-number" data-column-number="426"></span>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.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    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. <em>Amendment, by leave, </em><em>withdrawn</em><em>.</em>

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 336, in schedule 25, page 253, line 25, at end insert— <em>“Duty to introduce code of conduct, inductions and ongoing training (England)</em> 4A (1) Every local authority must adopt and enforce a code of conduct for elected members that— (a) includes provisions addressing harassment, discrimination and online abuse; and (b) provides for independent investigation of alleged breaches, overseen by the monitoring officer. (2) Every local authority must provide a structured induction programme for all newly elected members, which must include— (a) professional standards and responsibilities; (b) equality and diversity duties; and (c) family-friendly and inclusive working practices. (3) It is a duty for local authorities to provide further such training every two years following the election of new members to the authority. (4) Local authorities must also make provision for continuing professional development for elected members. 4B (1) A monitoring officer’s functions shall include responsibility for— (a) investigating breaches of the code of conduct in accordance with paragraph 4A of this schedule; (b) promoting councillor welfare and wellbeing; (c) ensuring compliance with equalities duties; and (d) maintaining transparent procedures for the handling of complaints. (2) Every local authority must publish an annual report on complaints received by the monitoring officer, including— (a) the number of complaints received, and (b) outcomes of those complaints.” <em>This amendment ensures that all local authorities are required to maintain clear and enforceable codes of conduct for councillors, tackling harassment, discrimination and online abuse and mandates induction and continuous training on equalities and conduct. It embeds and extends independent oversight by monitoring officers.</em> The amendment deals with a separate matter of inclusive practices. It is aimed at improving more diverse access to elected office and arises from work I have been doing with the organisation Elect Her, which aims to motivate, support and equip women in all their diversity to stand for political office in Britain, and to nurture an ecosystem of organisations reshaping the political system so that all women can thrive once elected. Its research found that weak codes of conduct, poor induction for new councillors and lack of financial recognition all deter women from entering and continuing in office. The amendment would help deal with that. Elect Her’s report on Scotland by demonstrates how inclusion can improve when councils adopt stronger codes of conduct, structured induction and clear reporting mechanisms. The amendment would introduce a duty to have a code of conduct for elected members, which would include provisions against harassment, discrimination and online abuse. It would provide for independent investigation of alleged breaches overseen by the monitoring officer, and a structured induction programme for newly elected members. Setting the stage for behaviour is crucial, particularly when new councillors are elected, before things start to go wrong. The programme would include important information and training on professional standards, equality and diversity duties, and family-friendly and inclusive working practices. It would also mandate that <span id="429" class="column-number" data-column-number="429"></span>the training should be refreshed, particularly following the election of new members. Continued professional development is also covered by the amendment. It asks monitoring officers to investigate breaches of the code of conduct and gives them duties to promote councillor welfare and wellbeing, equalities duties and transparent procedures for complaints. It also asks for an annual report on complaints. The provisions are sensible suggestions that I hope the Government will take up. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, it speaks to the fact that while we have discussed potential problems with workload that councillors in these new authorities may have, which are also inclusion issues in some cases, the Bill could more directly address some of the issues that we know affect people’s ability to carry on in the job. We have received disturbing evidence from Elect Her on the extent to which councillors report abuse. We know that women and minorities are disproportionately likely to experience abuse, and we have a duty to do what we can in the Bill to make being a local councillor a more inclusive job. My amendment addresses some of the systemic barriers that might stand in the way of local democracy truly representing all of our communities. I hope the Government will look again at the options.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em>

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 58, page 60, line 25, at end insert— “(e) requiring that local engagement activities under paragraph (d) meet minimum standards to ensure meaningful community participation, including— (i) the use of deliberative processes such as citizens’ panels, assemblies, or community conversations; (ii) the active inclusion of communities most likely to be impacted by the policy measures, and communities underrepresented in policy making; and (iii) reporting, and publication of resulting reports, on how community input has influenced local plans and decisions;<span id="438" class="column-number" data-column-number="438"></span> (f) providing existing local democratic bodies, including parish and town councils, with appropriate powers, funding and infrastructure to support and facilitate such participation.” <em>This amendment requires regulations on neighbourhood governance to set minimum standards for involvement, including deliberative processes, inclusion of underrepresented groups and transparency.</em> This is a really important amendment. It proposes a minimum standard for meaningful community involvement be added to this part of Bill on neighbourhood governance. It aims to put people at the heart of the new local decision-making structures by setting minimum standards so that community involvement is inclusive, uses deliberative methods and clearly shows how people’s views have shaped decisions. It would also give local councils the powers and funding that they need to make that happen effectively. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that “appropriate arrangements” is left undefined. That risks weak or inconsistent community participation. The amendment would ensure that the arrangements meet minimum standards and would make engagement consistent, inclusive and transparent. The Bill’s success depends on whether it achieves what the Minister has been assuring us of throughout these proceedings: a shifting of democratic power. It needs to ensure that decisions are made with people rather than consulting them or imposing on them. I am sure we are all aware of the ladder of engagement, where final decisions are simply waved in front of people for consultation. That is the bare minimum and, in many ways, the worst form of engagement with the public. People will often look at a big proposal and respond in great detail, only to then see that nothing has changed. That really undermines trust. We need to make sure that people can see how their voices are shaping outcomes at a local level. This amendment would enable us to rebuild public trust through the Bill. We need to ensure that we actively facilitate and enable community participation, and it is important that it is properly funded. Doing a consultation is a very separate thing to participation. We do know that people want participation. Demos polling from 2024 found that 63% of the public would very likely accept an invitation to take part in participation exercises of this kind, but 41% said that they would be less likely to take part if they believed that the Government would not listen to what they had to say. I recognise that the Bill presents the opportunity for secondary legislation to fill these gaps, but if the Government cannot support the amendment, it would be helpful for the Minister to put clearly on the record that those regulations would include deliberative processes, real involvement and reporting back on the ways in which decisions are changed, as the amendment would require.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I appreciate the detail of the answer that the Minister is giving me, but I would like some further reassurance that poorly performing councils will face some sort of redress under the system that she is talking about.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

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

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    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.”<span id="vol772_col185" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="185" data-volume-number="772" data-external-id="3D3A3F31-59BC-48CA-96C2-FD248974D5BF">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 2 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 185.]</span> 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.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I stopped reading out turnout results, but turnout was 42.8%—much higher than in previous examples. To be honest, I would prefer a ranking of all candidates down the ballot paper, but I believe that when people are able to use their votes to express both their first and second preferences they are not discouraged from turning out. When parties are not forced to put out leaflets all about who might win but leaflets are instead about the actual issues that might affect people’s lives, turnout goes up. It is really important that this change is made. On consistency, I want to raise an issue from Sussex. A motion passed by East Sussex county council makes a really good point: “When Sussex decided to join the priority programme there was no suggestion that there would be any democratic disadvantage from being at the front of the queue”. That is the problem: the areas that have stepped forward sooner are being forced to accept a substandard election system. I recognise that the motion at East Sussex county council was to delay the elections, and that is not my wish either. I absolutely recognise that there is a timetable challenge: if the amendments were accepted today, they would need to wait until the Bill was enacted to come into force. We cannot make changes to an imminent election, so I do not intend the press the amendments to a vote today. However, I call on the Government to fix the situation. I would like the Minister to go away and talk to colleagues about how she might be able to fairly resource all the areas holding mayoral elections, including those that have chosen to go first and should face no penalty, so that they can conduct next year’s elections under the supplementary vote in the way that other areas will benefit from later.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I would not claim that a turnout of nearly 43% is a triumph, but the hon. Member has to admit that it is a good turnout compared with that of most local government elections.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentSiân Berry

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I will speak briefly on new clause 51. It is really encouraging that there is a cross-party effort to reinvigorate community ownership funding, which has lapsed. Although I am excited about the pride in place funding, which is quite extensive and goes into local areas in quite an intensive way, I think the community ownership angle of that is limited to the geographic area covered. Things such as sporting assets or community assets that serve a whole town may not be within that area. I would like to hear from the Minister that, if she will not accept new clause 51, something will be done for other parts of the country to ensure a fund to support community ownership.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Strengthening National Resilience

    The Government’s own advisers tell us that the climate and nature crisis poses a huge resilience threat to our country. Yet, in an answer to a question on wildfires, the Minister does not even reference that climate change makes them more frequent and severe. What are the Government doing to tackle this huge threat from climate change?

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Topical Questions

    <Question HRSContentId="{404654C7-5A53-4F25-8702-EEBF95C5295D}">T5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{842386BA-EA6A-4842-8670-0DF3C28FEDB7}"></QuestionText>Last week, it was reported that No. 10 may have blocked the publication of a new Joint Intelligence Committee report on the severe threat to national security posed by the climate and nature crisis. With the Government’s own advisers making it clear that we are in no way prepared for the effects of climate change that we are already seeing—such as wildfires, floods and storms, which we have heard about today—let alone the changes that are expected in the coming decades, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster please tell the House whether it is true that the Government are trying to block the Joint Intelligence Committee chief’s efforts to keep us all safe? When can we expect the report to see the light of day?</Question>

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentSiân Berry

    Heathrow: National Airports Review

    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?

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns

    Engagements

    Given that the TUC has calculated that the wealthiest 10% of households in the UK hold more wealth than everyone else in the country put together, does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is inequality, not immigration, that is a threat to our country?

    Hansard source