Siân Berry
MP for Brighton Pavilion · Green Party · United Kingdom
“The Bill will address section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives a more or less blanket exemption to communications between relevant authorities and members of the broader royal family, not just the King.”
“Countless other questions along those lines should have been answered long ago. Andrew Lownie, who wrote the biography of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, has seen the exemption at work time and again.”
“Instead, the Bill I present today will go some way to adding a brick of transparency to the wall of secrecy and privilege that surrounds our own monarchy nearly 250 years later.”
“The fifth Nolan principle is openness. It says: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.” Clearly, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was created in that spirit.”
“The Act is very comprehensive, because we rightly expect transparency from the whole range of public bodies that owe us the Nolan duty of openness in exchange for our funding, patronage and respect—and we should of the royal family too.”
“No one has damaged the reputation of the monarchy in this country and abroad more than Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was able to carry on his nefarious activities in the comfort of knowing that he was protected by this shroud of secrecy.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Siân Berry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“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.”
“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.”
“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 the training should be refreshed, particularly following the election of new members. Continued professional development is also covered by the amendment.”
“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.”
“(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.” 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. The amendment deals with a separate matter of inclusive practices.”
“(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.”
“I beg to move amendment 336, in schedule 25, page 253, line 25, at end insert— “Duty to introduce code of conduct, inductions and ongoing training (England) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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; (f) providing existing local democratic bodies, including parish and town councils, with appropriate powers, funding and infrastructure to support and facilitate such participation.” This amendment requires regulations on neighbourhood governance to set minimum standards for involvement, including deliberative processes, inclusion of underrepresented groups and transparency.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair today, Sir John. I support the clause and schedule 14. It is really important that we have devolved fundraising powers, and this is one of the ways in which that can be done. I have a question for the Minister about the rules for what mayoral CIL in different areas can be levied to fund. In London, the current regulations restrict spending by the mayor to funding roads or other transport facilities. Is the Minister making changes in the Bill, or will she do so through regulations?”
“That is because, if they are going to shape a local economy, they need to listen and deliver for the people who live and work in it.”
“That is the core reason why, working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, I have proposed this change to the core goals in the central economic strategy that each local authority will produce. Those comparing our new schedule with the original will see that, in paragraph (3), proposed new sections 107L of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and 32A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 add further steps to the process of developing a plan so that it can be tailored to each local area through appropriate local indicators of progress. Paragraph (4) of the new schedule would require mayors to bring the public into both setting local indicators and setting out how the plan will help to achieve the inclusive economic outcomes that cover the necessary ingredients for a good life in that area.”
“Growth alone is insufficient to address inequality and the environmental crisis. For example, gross domestic product has roughly doubled since 1980, yet the richest five households in the UK own more wealth than 13.2 million people. When it comes to jobs, growth has not delivered, with low pay and stagnant real wages the reality for most. A test of the Bill, and indeed the Government, will be whether it succeeds in moving beyond growth alone to creating an economy where everyone can thrive. That has to begin with clear intentions for the type of economy we want to build, not growth at any cost. In the case of local government and the new strategic authorities, how this is codified in the prescribed strategies for each area is important.”
“I rise to speak to my new clause 29 and new schedule 1, which seek to replace clause 38 and schedule 19. They would replace local growth plans with inclusive economy plans, which, following an enhanced process of consultation and approval, would have the same prominence in terms of policy priorities as the proposed growth plans. While we have adopted much of the same drafting and general process, wherever the goal of growth appears, my new version says instead that our goal would be an inclusive economy or economic inclusivity. It is important to confront the harmful concept of growth for the sake of growth. Prioritising economic growth, wherever it may come from, above everything else is wrong. Growth may be the Government’s No. 1 mission, but what is the point if it does not serve the people?”
“I will not press my proposals to a vote today, but I hope that the Minister has listened and will recognise that the current Government proposals could create the wrong incentives and the wrong measures of progress, and might risk producing the wrong outcomes for the people who live in the areas that will be governed by these economic plans. I also hope that she will make improvements similar to my proposals before the next stage of this Bill.”
“I will just finish the quote from the report by the New Economics Foundation and its allies: “At a time of eroding trust in politics, this is a major problem for combined authorities elected to make the economy work better for people .” My new clause and new schedule will help authorities to become more purposeful about developing their own unique economies and economic opportunities in a way that truly builds a better economy that serves local people, and not just more production and profits that can be extracted away from them without improving everyday lives. It will bring more people more inclusively into the local economies that we want to develop.”
“That is a good question. Where there are opportunities to develop new industries and new jobs and create new economic activity, my new schedule enables local communities such as those in Cornwall to set inclusive economy indicators. In the examples given, that might mean that those new industries are owned and managed by the local people and the local community, rather than through outside investment from extractive industries that will take the profits elsewhere. Those are things for the local community to decide under the new schedule.”
“Is the hon. Member really saying that that he is against asking the people of a local area what would constitute a good economy for them and making that the focus of the mayor’s economic indicators? Also, if all of these proposals are going to be put into manifestos at election time, how long does he envision the manifestos for these mayoral elections being?”
“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?”
“Apart from seeking views, there is a requirement in the amendment to share draft proposals and the evidence base. Does the hon. Member consider that to be an important part of correcting errors in the evidence base and in the assumptions of the draft proposals, which only those councils might have information about?”
“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”.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”