English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

The Member who tabled amendment 262 is temporarily not present. I will suspend the sitting for 20 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us carry on.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

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”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 263, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 262 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”.

[Siân Berry]

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?

[Paul Holmes]

We were going to have a break, but then we did not when you came in, so it is fine.

[Siân Berry]

I will be as quick as I can—it is a very short speech.

Although the health improvement and health inequalities duty is very good, the determinants of health outlined in clause 43 are limited and lacking in consideration for the impacts on health from a wide range of activities that these new authorities will be able to influence. My amendments aim to fix that. It is positive that the Opposition parties all immediately spotted the need for improvement to this clause, and that both Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have aimed to fix it, albeit in different ways.

Amendments 262 and 263 would replace references to “prosperity” with “poverty and socio-economic inequality” in the clause. They would make clearer what causes and exacerbates ill health. I do not believe that “prosperity” on its own is sufficient. I will not repeat all my earlier arguments, but there is much supporting evidence for this from a range of organisations, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, the Reclaiming our Regional Economies programme, and the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, which I co-chair. This is just one of the ways that the Bill can make improvements, by focusing on reducing inequality and not simply creating growth within these new strategic authorities. I hope that the Government will accept my changes.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Lady for the intention behind the amendments. I completely understand her key points. I think there is consensus that tackling health inequalities and their determinants is a key priority, which is why we included this clause in the Bill. We have deliberately drawn from the well-established approach in the Greater London Authority, which names “prosperity” among the general health determinants. It is deliberately broad so as to encompass a wide range of things. Our intention is not to establish an exhaustive list here, but to ensure that we cast the definition broadly enough to cover the issues of poverty and inequality that the hon. Lady raises.

There is a gradient across society for the determinants of health inequality, and my concern is that if we were to replace “prosperity” with poverty and inequality, we would cast the definition too narrowly. The broader “prosperity” definition captures poverty and social inequality, but it also captures other critical factors. Although we absolutely agree with the intent, we have tried to craft the legislation in a way that is broad and permissive, but that critically draws on the experience and track record of the Greater London Authority. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Siân Berry]

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.

[Siân Berry]

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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 253, in clause 43, page 44, line 29, at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 258, in clause 43, page 44, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 257 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

Amendment 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.

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.

Amendment 254, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.

This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.

Amendment 260, in clause 43, page 45, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—

(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and

(b) any urban or rural natural feature

that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 254 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.

[Siân Berry]

I intend to speak at some length on the amendments—my apologies, Dame Siobhain, but this is a very important issue to me, as Members will hear from my speech.

My amendments 257, 258, 259 and 260 would all add access to green space and nature and environmental pollution to the list of potential determinants of health. They would also define the terms “green space and nature” in the Bill, in terms of green and blue space, as well as natural features in general that deliver benefits in health and wellbeing. The amendments would not necessarily expand the defined scope of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to combined authorities, but they would add clarity and support to strategic authorities that recognise the importance of those health determinants.

My amendments would add what I would argue are some inarguable determinants of health that are particularly connected to economic and trade activity, transport and land use, and so on. They would add air pollution, water pollution, contaminated land and any other forms of environmental pollution, as well as any that capitalism might invent and disperse in the environment in future. They are broad and helpful amendments.

The amendments seek to strengthen the Bill’s provisions by explicitly recognising exposure to environmental harms as a general health determinant. They make it clear that the conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green spaces they access and the pollution they are exposed to—are fundamental drivers of health outcomes. I cannot see why currently the Bill completely omits environmental factors from its list of health determinants, despite overwhelming evidence that air pollution and green space profoundly affect health. The Minister commented in response to the previous amendment that the list is intended not to be exhaustive but to be broad enough, but in this case, by not including the environment at all, it is very much not broad enough.

I have been working with the Healthy Air Coalition and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on the amendments, and there is so much evidence that makes it clear that, on the environment and health, the Government have left important gaps that we should fill today. I will be pressing the amendments to a vote today. The 2022 chief medical officer’s annual report was, I think, the first to highlight the link between health inequalities and poor air quality. According to the report:

“Studies of hospital admissions and mortality show increased health risks associated with exposure to air pollution among those living in areas of higher socio-economic deprivation.”

According to Asthma + Lung UK, people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are seven times more likely to die from a lung condition than those in the richest areas.

It was my honour earlier this year to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside colleagues from across parties in the House. That Bill is also named Ella’s law, after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose death from asthma at age nine has helped to prompt a sea change in how we view the impact of air pollution on health and its close links to inequality. My Green colleagues in the other place are now working towards Zane’s law with the parents of Zane Gbangbola, who died at age seven when hydrogen cyanide was carried into his home by floodwater from a contaminated landfill site. It would have been Zane’s 19th birthday today.

Including environmental harms in the list of health determinants would honour the goals of Ella’s law and Zane’s law. It would recognise that lives can be profoundly affected and even ended by environmental pollution and the harm it brings. My amendments would ensure that combined authorities embed both the prevention of environmental harm and the protection and enhancement of natural infrastructure at the heart of their work on health inequality.

Even in their own terms, the amendments are fully aligned with the Bill’s wider objective of providing greater local prosperity, better public services and improved wellbeing. In brief, access to nature will deliver directly on all three by boosting productivity and skills through improvements to mental and physical health, by reducing NHS costs—if everyone had good access to green space, the estimated savings would be over £2 billion a year—and by attracting investment and supporting regeneration through high-quality environments.

The amendments would play a big part in ensuring that combined authorities take into account the well-established relationship between the environment and public health inequalities when exercising their other functions too, particularly in transport, housing, planning and regeneration. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to consider risks from pollution and to plan at the landscape scale for natural benefits, connecting parks, rivers, floodplains and urban trees across boundaries. The amendments would provide a framework for joined-up, place-based decision making and good, popular place making—the kind of integrated governance that devolution is supposed to achieve. Embedding these goals on health inequalities into statute would also help to prevent local disparities, ensuring that clean air, water and land, and access to nature is a universal right, not a postcode lottery.

In conclusion, recognising that access to green space and exposure to environmental harms are core health determinants is essential to tackling inequalities that persist across England. Devolution is about empowering local areas to act. These amendments would empower them to tackle the root causes of poor health, not just the symptoms. The Government should take them up, and today I will be pressing them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank both hon. Members for their heartfelt contributions to the debate. Let me put it on record that we absolutely recognise that air quality is one of the greatest environmental threats to our health and that its impacts are not felt equally in our society. Action by local authorities is absolutely pivotal in improving air quality locally. The Environment Act 1995 already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to work directly with local authorities on air quality action plans for their areas. Local air quality management statutory policy guidance also sets out ways of joint working with public health professionals to ensure that plans reduce health risks and disparities in affected communities to which local authorities must have regard.

Equally, we recognise the importance of environmental factors beyond air quality to people’s health. The scope of the general health determinants in the Bill has intentionally been crafted broadly. Some examples are given, but it is not our intention to set out a definitive list, as we think that would be too constraining. Combined authorities and combined county authorities remain the experts in their local areas. They will understand how air quality or environmental issues are impacting on their local communities, and they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants to deliver for their communities.

[Siân Berry]

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.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Those are examples that we are giving based on existing precedents and drivers that we know local authorities are grappling with, but the list is not exhaustive. The intention is for it not to be exhaustive or definitive. We want to keep it broad, so that combined authorities and county authorities can decide the core determinants in their areas.

We as a Government are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. It is the Government’s intention to publish a revised environment improvement plan to protect and restore our natural environment with delivery information to help to meet the ambitious Environment Act 2021 targets. This will help us to restore our natural environment, improve environmental quality, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. That is something we want to hardwire into what the Government are doing and what we are seeing at all levels of government.

However, I come back to the point that it is important to cast this as broadly as we can, to allow constituent strategic authorities and mayors to establish the determinants that are most pertinent in their areas. While I have sympathy with and support the intent behind the amendments, there is enough provision in the Bill as drafted to ensure that what strategic authorities are doing is aligned with a host of national and local requirements already in place to drive health equality and improvements in the environment.

[Siân Berry]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 48

Ayes: 3

Noes: 8

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 43, page 44, line 40, at end insert—

“107ZC Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy

(1) A combined authority must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 107ZB.

(2) In preparing the strategy, an authority must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—

(a) directors of public health within the authority area;

(b) Integrated Care Boards within the authority area;

(c) NHS bodies providing services in the authority area;

(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the authority area; and

(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

(3) The strategy must—

(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;

(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—

(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,

(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);

(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy; and

(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.

(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—

(a) life expectancy,

(b) healthy life expectancy,

(c) infant mortality rate,

(d) rates of obesity and overweight,

(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and

(f) suicide rates

within the authority area.

(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—

(a) household relative poverty rates,

(b) employment rates,

(c) relative child poverty rates,

(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,

(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and

(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.

(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).

(7) A report under subsection (6) must—

(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,

(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and

(c) be made publicly available.”

This amendment requires mayoral authorities to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 256, in clause 43, page 45, line 36, at end insert—

“24B Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy

(1) A CCA must prepare and publish a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy setting out how it will meet the duty under section 24A.

(2) In preparing the strategy, a CCA must consult with such bodies it considers relevant, including but not limited to—

(a) directors of public health within the CCA’s area;

(b) Integrated Care Boards within the CCA’s area;

(c) NHS bodies providing services in the CCA’s area;

(d) representatives of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector in the CCA’s area;

(e) the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

(3) The strategy must—

(a) include an assessment of the health and wellbeing impacts of all strategic authority policies and programmes;

(b) seek to reduce inequalities with locally appropriate targets, set for—

(i) the end of a 10-year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published,

(ii) regular periods during the period to which the 10-year target applies, as the combined authority deems appropriate (“interim targets”);

(c) consider the findings of any consultations conducted by the authority in relation to the strategy;

(d) set out the reasons why the proposed strategy has been adopted.

(4) 10-year targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) must include consideration of—

(a) life expectancy,

(b) healthy life expectancy,

(c) infant mortality rate,

(d) rates of obesity and overweight,

(e) rates of anxiety and depression, and

(f) suicide rates

within the authority area.

(5) Interim targets under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) should include consideration of—

(a) household relative poverty rates,

(b) employment rates,

(c) relative child poverty rates,

(d) educational attainment rates defined as five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C,

(e) the proportion of people in the authority area meeting recommended physical activity levels, and

(f) the proportion of people in the authority consuming five or more fruit and vegetables per day.

(6) A combined authority must publish a report on its progress implementing the strategy and towards the targets set out under paragraph (3)(b).

(7) A report under subsection (6) must—

(a) be published one year after the day on which the strategy is published, and every year thereafter,

(b) be presented by the Mayor of the authority at the authority’s annual general meeting, and

(c) be made publicly available.”

This amendment requires CCAs to develop a Health and Wellbeing in All Policies Strategy.

[Siân Berry]

Amendments 255 and 256 would add a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy to the requirements of the Bill. Life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010, something that has not happened for well over a century. According to Professor Sir Michael Marmot, that is a sign that society has “stopped improving”.

The Government have committed to halving the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions of England, but that cannot be achieved without concerted action from the strategic authorities. Good population health is the foundation of a thriving economy. The Government have committed to halving the gap, and amendments 255 and 256 would go further than the Bill does currently to achieve that, simply by requiring mayors and strategic authorities to have regard to health through adoption of a health and wellbeing in all policies strategy document. The amendments would also require consultation with relevant entities and create accountability through targets and metrics. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I go back to the core principle underlying the duty. We believe that a driving purpose of the strategic authority should be to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities, so we are absolutely aligned with the intent behind the amendment, and nothing in the Bill prevents local partners from agreeing to align on an area-wide approach or strategy. We are very clear that we must allow combined authorities and county authorities local discretion to decide the best way to fulfil the duty and deliver for their communities. We do not want to overprescribe or constrain local thinking and innovation—indeed, many local areas throughout the country are well ahead of the national Government in some of their thinking in this area.

Critically, we want to simplify requirements in planning and delivering health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations. We believe that will enable mayors and integrated care boards to best align the opportunities for strategic planning. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to add further mandatory planning requirements in the Bill, but we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country, so we can ensure that the intent is aligned with practice and delivery. I hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 259, in clause 43, page 45, line 25, at end insert—

“(e) access to green space and nature,

(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.—(Siân Berry.)

This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

Amendments 3 and 9 would require that, when a mayor or a mayoral strategic authority wishes to obtain more powers, those powers are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is fairly common practice for Members to be called into a Statutory Instrument Committee to make changes to such things. If we are going to ensure full transparency and ensure that mayors do not exercise powers beyond what seems appropriate, there should be some level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 3 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek Parliament’s approval through secondary legislation before implementing those requests. We do not believe that decisions around funding and changes of law should be made without that oversight and approval. It is hugely important to maintain the highest level of democracy; to remove that would be a missed opportunity. We therefore ask that the legislation should be protected from abuse whereby future Secretaries of State could implement requests without laying them before Parliament.

[Siân Berry]

I have a broad interest in this group of measures. First, I will raise some issues with the clause as a whole; then I will speak to new clause 53, and then new clauses 32 and 33 on a separate topic. I hope hon. Members will bear with me as I work through those three parts.

I support clause 49, which provides a way for mayors of strategic authorities to usefully request more powers, but the gap in the Bill highlights that we need the Government to make bolder policies in the areas of competence so that strategic authorities can request that they should be devolved to the lower levels. I will turn to the example of housing in a moment but, in general, it would be great to see strategic authorities working together to develop models of rent controls. As I understand it, however, because those powers do not currently exist centrally, strategic authorities cannot make requests for them under the clause. We need to be bolder at the centre to maximise the effectiveness of devolution on such issues.

If a Bill is not the right place to create a new power that is usable only in a local area, what is? Can the Minister explain why the Government have not taken the opportunity of the Bill to allow councils or new authorities to request those kinds of powers in areas where the Government do not currently act? It is on that principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) tabled new clause 53, which I will speak to now. It does not do what I just suggested, but it does allow for clear reporting of the conversations between mayors and the Government on the use of clause 49 powers. That includes where authorities have made requests for powers to be created and devolved to them, even when there is no existing national power to devolve.

If the Secretary of State’s goal is to make sure people take back control of their own destinies, it is only right that this power should be considered. Ministers need to pay serious attention to the full range of powers that mayors are already saying they need in order to make a material difference to people’s lives. As the Secretary of State for Housing said in his speech at the Labour party conference, communities have been held back because they do not have the power to make the changes they want. The new clause would at least help to keep track of the powers mayors are asking for under clause 49, as well as the additional powers they are telling Ministers to legislate for to enable them to do the best for their communities and, ultimately, to fulfil their areas of competence.

The new clause is not prescriptive as to which policies and areas need to be considered, but as I implied earlier the area of competence that inspired it is housing. That is because we are in an acute affordability and evictions crisis, and mayors have been calling for rent control powers from Ministers for some time. For example, in 2023, the Mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and London wrote to the then Secretary of State calling for a rent freeze, in order to immediately relieve the pressure on millions of people in the private rented sector in their areas. Recently, the Mayor of London said that the power to control rents was now at the top of his list in terms of devolution. His position follows many years of pressure and dialogue with politicians such as the Greens on the London Assembly—of which I used to be one—and with independent grassroots renters groups.

That is just one example of the kind of power that would be involved. Rent controls are something close to my heart, and we heard new figures today showing that 172,000 children are now in temporary accommodation in the UK. On average, people spend 36% of their income on rent—in my constituency, it is 42%. This is a classic policy for that issue.

The annual report the new clause requires would recognise the need for transparency over the discussions taking place about powers in the Bill—in the absence of the changes I have asked for in it—and also let us see what is going on in the conversations happening outside of the powers in the Bill.

New clauses 32 and 33 do what I just talked about and what clause 49 does, but at the level of the strategic authority. This is about the strategic authority having a duty to have a plan for devolving more of its powers and duties to smaller local authorities in its area. I recognise that the aims of devolution can often be in tension, particularly in terms of the balance between scale and geography. It is correct to have some powers at the level of combined authorities, so that they cover sufficiently large populations and enable authorities to exercise strategic policy making. But large authorities will not necessarily empower local people to address issues that are unique to their area; they might not represent the diversity of things going on around that area, and issues that people really care about in local communities might be better addressed using deeper local knowledge.

The new clauses do not prescribe a single model for this further local devolution. There is such diversity. We have discussed today the differences between coastal areas, rural areas, towns and larger urban areas. We have talked about areas with countryside and nature to protect, areas that need new investment, and areas with unique industries that could be developed locally.

I do not think that we should be prescriptive in our new clauses; we should just put in place a legal duty that makes some kind of move towards subsidiarity across the whole of English local government. Under the new clauses, the strategic authority would have a duty to set out how it would devolve its own responsibilities to the lowest possible level for effectiveness—including, where they exist, district, town and parish councils. I think that would be a really positive thing that would please most Opposition Members on the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take that onboard and come up with some way of codifying the need for the new strategic authorities to avoid becoming too centralised and to make a plan for listening and devolving powers down to the right level.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank hon. Members for their amendments and new clauses. Let me say a word about clause 49, and then I will speak to those.

We are clear that devolution is a continuous process. Our intention in the Bill is therefore to create a framework to establish mayoral strategic authorities and empower them to deepen devolution. That is what the right to request, which we have been debating, does. Critically, the right to request will hardwire the process of continual extraction of power from the centre—from Whitehall and Westminster—to our local areas, which is why the clause is so important.

In my view, amendments 9 and 3 are too constraining, as not all mayoral requests will require a legal process in order to be implemented. For example, requests to change funding, or pilot schemes or partnerships, do not have any legal requirements and do not require legal clearance. My concern is that the amendments would make the process too onerous and bureaucratic and, critically, slow it down. Anyone involved in the devolution process knows that extracting power from Whitehall is slow and painful as it is. I would not want to add further hurdles to that process.

I appreciate the intent behind new clause 32, but similar mechanisms to those proposed in it already exist. Any combined authority or combined county authority can enter into a joint committee with another local authority and collaborate across boundaries to jointly discharge their powers. Also, the additional requirement proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for strategic authorities to publish a community empowerment plan may end up being too burdensome and, critically, risks conflating the roles of the strategic and the local authorities.

We are clear that we want to see double devolution, and that we want to extract power from Whitehall and make sure that it is pushed down to the strategic authority level, the local authority level and, critically, the community level for community empowerment. We will go on to talk about neighbourhood governance—we have talked about it before in debates. There is a vital role for local authorities to enable and enshrine that community empowerment and engagement, and there is a risk that we conflate the strategic economic role of the mayor and the combined authority with the critical enabling role of the local authority.

Earlier, Members across the Committee talked eloquently about the need for us to ensure that local authorities continue to have a vital role and are empowered. I would not want to take something that I think is a core competency of local authorities, which are well placed to drive that community engagement, and lift it from the local authority level to the strategic level.

Finally, on new clause 33, the Bill already provides adequate powers for strategic authorities to request and receive functions and duties from non-departmental public bodies. On clause 53 and the notion that the right to request should be made transparent, while the process is transparent, I think it is important that we create the space for mayors to have detailed policy conversations with the Secretary of State and with Secretaries of State across Departments, and that those conversations can be open, frank and sensitive. We do not want to create a process whereby we constrain mayors’ ability by publishing all the detail. The outcomes will be put in the public domain, but it is important that we create the space for mayors to undergo a policy process and that we allow an internal and private space for frank, robust policy conversations to happen in this context.

[Siân Berry]

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