(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to begin the third day of Committee with this group of amendments, starting with the proposition in my name that Clause 15 not stand part, as we see no justification or real purpose for it. It is not clear why the Government seek to confer yet more powers on the Mayor of London by secondary legislation. I hope other parties will join me in my concern about this clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out at Second Reading that the Mayor of London has already been given more and more areas to oversee and a budget of approximately £21 billion. I ask the Minister: what more powers does he need? What is more, rather than giving the London Assembly more powers to represent and scrutinise on behalf of the whole community, Clause 15 will give powers specifically to the mayor. This is not community empowerment but instead gives the Government a mechanism to empower an already powerful individual, without any explanation as to why. Surely this Bill’s priority should be empowering local communities to scrutinise and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and funds used efficiently by those at the top. Can the Minister explain what consultation took place to inform this clause, and with whom?
Clause 15 is further evidence that the real purpose of this Bill has not been made clear. If it is about genuine community empowerment for all England then allowing the Secretary of State to confer further powers on the Mayor of London is hardly a priority. We do not see why London should be put on an ever-higher pedestal. The Committee deserves to know the Government’s exact reasoning behind this clause.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to insert a new clause extending the category of people whom the London Assembly can require to attend its meetings or produce documents. You cannot have effective meetings if the necessary people are not there. We on these Benches welcome Amendment 71, also tabled by the noble Baroness, which would replace the current two-thirds majority required to change the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority. This is entirely sensible. It would improve decision-making and may make better budget-making in London.
Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96 and 182, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, seek to establish a London local authorities joint committee. We are hesitant about creating more committees, but I look forward to his contribution and explanation of this matter.
Amendment 75, from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, asks us to go back to basics and initiate a review of the London governance model, covering its effectiveness, accountability and, in particular, outcomes. If the Government want to reorganise local government across the country, why not bring London in line as well? This is a perfect opportunity to cut costs and strengthen local democracy in our capital city.
The Government must come clean about their intentions for London. If reforms are made, let them strengthen local democracy and cut bureaucracy, not empower an already powerful mayor. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of London-related amendments, I should declare my former roles as a London borough leader, a member of the London Assembly and a founding chair of what is now London Councils—indeed, I am one of its current co-presidents.
Before I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group—together, they seek to address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance arrangements—I want to say a brief word about the other amendments in the group, drawing on my previous experience. In particular, I wish to comment on the interesting remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who seems affronted at the idea that the Mayor of London and the whole GLA network are somehow trying to accrue on to themselves—or the Government are trying to give them—more and more powers. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ Committee that London is the engine of the UK economy, that without London the UK’s economy would founder, and that it is therefore very important that London retains its status as one of the few great world cities. For that purpose, having strong and effective mayoral and governance arrangements in the capital city is crucial.
I was involved in the discussions with the then Government around the creation of a mayor and assembly for London, and then in the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House. The London devolution settlement was carefully devised by Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for London, and was the first of its type. That settlement has remained largely unchanged for over a quarter of a century.
I have some sympathy, therefore, with Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which suggests that there should be a review of that settlement. However, I have reservations about her amendment, as I do not see why it should be a requirement of legislation. My noble friend the Minister could simply announce today that it is going to happen. Given that extensive consultations and discussions would be needed as part of a review, a year is too short a timescale. In doing such a review, one should look at the role and number of London boroughs. Does having 32 of them, plus the corporation, really make sense more than 60 years on from their creation?
I have some sympathy with Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. As a member of the first London Assembly, I always felt that the role of AMs was not sufficiently defined or purposeful enough. Strengthening and widening the scrutiny role of the assembly makes a lot of sense, as does changing the two-thirds requirement for amending the mayor’s budget—a threshold that has never been passed, although I gather that the London Assembly is considering the mayor’s budget today, so perhaps something surprising will happen. However, changing that requirement might oblige the mayor to work more closely with AMs—something that has not always been evident over the first three mayoralties. Such a power might be usefully extended to assembly consideration of mayoral strategies. Such a change would, however, alter the balance of the existing governance model in London. Rather than being done in a piecemeal fashion, it should be considered as part of the putative review suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
I turn now to Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96, 182 and 183 in my name. They seek to address an anomaly—an omission in the original Greater London Authority Act. My understanding is that they have the support of all three parties on London councils, as well as that of the mayor’s office. At their heart, these amendments are about addressing a simple but persistent problem: that the collective body of London’s boroughs is not recognised in statute and is unable, as things stand, to receive government funding directly.
London boroughs work together extensively. Through London Councils, they co-ordinate delivery, share expertise and engage with government on issues ranging from transport and housing to retrofitting and the charging of electric vehicles. In many of these areas, boroughs are the primary delivery agency of policies that sit squarely within the devolution agenda. Despite this, London Councils lacks a clear statutory footing. As a result, it cannot receive Section 31 grants directly from national government. Instead, funding must be routed through a nominated lead authority and then passed on—an arrangement that is administratively cumbersome, slower than it needs to be, and inefficient for both local and national government.
These amendments would provide a straightforward solution. They seek to establish a statutory joint committee, made up of London’s borough leaders and the City of London, enabling London Councils to receive and distribute funding directly and ensuring that London boroughs are properly consulted where legislation envisages consultation with local government bodies. Crucially, these changes would allow resources to flow more efficiently to the boroughs that are responsible for delivery, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and making better use of the collective capacity that already exists within the London system. They would strengthen the clarity of consultation arrangements, ensuring that London borough voices are heard in a coherent and structured way.
I should be clear that these proposals are entirely complementary to the role of the Greater London Authority. They would not impinge on or duplicate the powers or strategic status of the mayor, the GLA or the London Assembly. Rather, they would strengthen the overall London governance system by clarifying the collective role of the boroughs within it. That is why I am pleased that the GLA is supportive of London Councils becoming a statutory joint committee, recognising that this change would improve co-ordination, efficiency and the effective delivery of devolved priorities across London.
In short, these amendments are firmly aligned with the Bill’s broader aims of empowering local government and improving the effectiveness of devolution. They would correct an anomaly that has been recognised for some time and replace it with a solution that is sensible, efficient and long overdue.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I know that it was suggested that the Bill would not include London, but I wonder whether this is an opportunity to consider the future governance of London, as well as a chance to put right historic legislative changes. That is what my Amendment 75 is about.
I remind noble Lords that I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was leader until 5 November—no Guy Fawkes jokes, please—and was the longest serving leader in London when I stood down. Previously, I was an executive member and the Conservative lead for London Councils for many years. I am now a vice-president, as is the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
London was the first mayoral arrangement. It is more than 25 years old now, so is it time for a review? It is interesting that no other mayoral arrangement since then has involved a governance structure similar to that of the Greater London Authority. Nobody seems to be suggesting that the London model should be replicated. Therefore, could London governance be more effective and efficient for the benefit of London taxpayers? It is not lost on me that the proposed mayoral precept that is apparently being discussed today will exceed £500 per council tax payer this year. It seems sensible to consider whether that is value for money.
The structure we currently have is quite costly. While some call for greater powers for the GLA, it often frustrates progress. Due to the two-thirds voting rule around the budget, which is referenced in Amendment 71, it is unlikely that the GLA will ever be able to override the mayor’s budget proposals. If you watch some of the question time sessions, it is pretty clear that the mayor does not consider that he is being held to account by the assembly. Some of those frustrations can be seen in Amendments 70 and 71, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan.
The current structure does not encourage the mayor to work with the boroughs. Elsewhere, the relationship between the mayor and borough leaders has been more productive in achieving better outcomes. As a borough leader, especially in outer London, I often thought that the mayor would be more effective if there was a grown-up conversation about what matters to London. London is a very diverse city and not all 33 boroughs are the same, although unfortunately some do not recognise that. The involvement of the borough leaders would allow them to bring to the table their invaluable knowledge of their borough. We should be learning from other mayoral structures. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has suggested the importance of London, and I would not disagree with that, but there is no reason why London should not be efficient and effective.
We know that London leaders recognise that the world does not end at their borough boundaries. There have been many examples over the years when leaders have made pragmatic decisions that are beneficial to London, following debate. Those of us in outer London also have relationships with the councils outside London, especially those on our borders. Amendment 72, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, seeks to establish a London local authorities joint committee. I would suggest that this would just bring about another layer of governance which will no doubt have cost implications and which seems shortsighted when we can learn from other governance structures since the inception of the London model. Surely we do not want to impose more costs on council tax payers. If learning suggests that a revised structure would be less costly in addition to more effective, the taxpayers and councils could benefit. Would not we all like to see vital money being spent on services rather than on structures?
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the co-presidents of London Councils. Since the previous two speakers gave their entire London political history, I cannot resist the temptation to do the same.
I was a London borough councillor for 40 years, and leader of that council for 13 years. I cannot resist saying that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 40 years already and is now no doubt well on its way to 44 years. I am looking forward to it reaching 50 years, by which time I shall have just about reached my century. I stood down as leader of the council to fight the GLA elections, and was elected for its first eight years, along with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At the beginning, we had many happy meetings trying to work out what on earth we were there to do, how on earth we should do it, whether we really needed committees and, if we did, which committees—and so on.
I spent some not so happy and very long nights in this place working on the GLA Bill, which took a lot of time and consideration. I have had a long interest in London and its governance. I was briefly even a London Member of Parliament, before all those other things. I always felt that that was the best apprenticeship for being a London borough councillor, but nobody else tried it that way round.
I came here at the request of London Councils to express support for the six amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. My name is attached to one of them but should have been attached to all six, as they are a package, and I certainly support them all. They propose sensible arrangements to enable London Councils to distribute government grants, which it is unable to do at the moment. I do not need to go into the details of exactly how it would work, but the proposal to have a statutory joint committee seems entirely sensible. That is the real point of it: the mechanics of exactly how it would work are not for us to determine, as long as there is an ability to make those arrangements. I am strongly in support of that.
I had not intended to join the discussions on the other issues that have been raised today. I noted, not for the first time, the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to get rid of what he calls small London boroughs. I suppose that that is the only way Labour would ever win most of them. I do not agree with that, not surprisingly.
I suspect that a review of London governance is not likely to happen, but I think it should. I was not entirely happy with the one that happened just before 2000, which resulted in the arrangements that we have now. If we are to have a serious review of London governance, I would welcome it, but I reserve my welcome for whatever its results may be. I would greatly welcome a proper consideration of the role of the borough councils, the Greater London Authority and particularly the London Assembly.
As I said, my main purpose for being here is to support the proposal for a London joint committee. I had understood that it has all-party support; it certainly has the support of the Liberal Democrats, for whom I can speak, as co-president. I am pleased, therefore, to support those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, I have added my name to Amendment 72 and the others already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harris.
I have to say only two things. These amendments would provide the appropriate vehicle, as some of the tasks that fall within London are cross-borough. A lot of tasks and responsibilities fall to the GLA, and some fall quite clearly to the boroughs, but some are cross-borough. It is important that we have the correct vehicle for that to happen, both for statutory consultations and, as has already been mentioned, to make it possible to spend money in that way, rather than it having to be funnelled through a particular lead borough. It is therefore useful and probably necessary.
I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, said about it being another level of government. That is absolutely not the intention. There is a non-statutory vehicle there, which is immensely useful, but there are a couple of things that it cannot do. It seems to me that defining it in statute would fill a gap and would be better for the people and boroughs of London.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am not a London councillor, nor am I a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I suppose I have a bit of an independent view here. I am just a provincial councillor from Norfolk. However, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is time to have a look at governance in London, because 32 plus one is quite a lot. There is also an assembly and a mayor—arguably, London is over-governed.
It is time to have a look at this, because it is out of kilter with elsewhere. Outside the M25, the Government are proceeding on the basis that all local authorities must be half a million people or more, covering huge territories. Norfolk, where I come from, has over 900 parishes. It is 85 miles wide and 40 miles long. If you were to start here in Westminster and then travel down to the south coast, the width of Norfolk would take you 30 miles past Brighton and out into the English Channel before it ran out. That is the size and scale of the territories we have in the shires. In Norfolk, over 9,000 electors are needed to elect a councillor. In Essex and Kent, it is between 12,000 and 15,000. In London, just 3,108 electors are required to elect a borough councillor—and of course there are other representatives too. These London boroughs are much smaller territories and much more tightly defined—they do not have 900 parishes. As a result, not only is democratic representation diluted to an unacceptable extent outside the M25, but we end up with the nonsense of the borough bike wars. If you ride a Lime or a Forest, there is an inexplicable invisible line in the middle of the road that applies the brakes as you ride up the King’s Road.
London is overrepresented; there are more councils and more councillors. In fact, there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. This review should happen. I associate myself with the remarks of the London councillors who have spoken. You cannot reorganise local government everywhere else and leave London to sit it out. That is not good for democracy, councils, governance or the country, and it certainly is not good for the principle of equality of democratic representation.
In the other place, all the constituencies have been equalised, plus or minus 5,000, so that there is an equality of representation. The value of everybody’s vote is the same, wherever you are in the United Kingdom. In London, because of the excess number of councils and councillors, the vote representation is up to five times greater than it is outside the M25. That alone should be an example and a reason to go into a governance review. London cannot just sit it out any more while, elsewhere, there is wholesale reorganisation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I too have a history in London local government, though nothing like as illustrious as that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill or the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was a councillor for 28 years, in a borough that has been Conservative for 60 years. I am looking forward to it continuing to be Conservative for another four, or indeed 40, years, so that it reaches its centenary as a Conservative-held borough. I was a member of the executive of London Councils, and chairman of the transport and environment committee of London Councils for a number of years.
That is probably half my speech, and I only felt obliged to make it so as to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and all the others who have recited their credentials for participating in this brief debate.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this debate feels like getting the gang back together around this table. I declare my political interest as a former chair of London Councils and leader of Southwark Council. It is particularly nice to see so many colleagues from those days. I acknowledge the significance of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. They are useful and necessary, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, almost made the case for them during her speech. We have a very clunky system at the moment, in which London Councils makes decisions but cannot be the accountable body for them. Money has to be funnelled through the City of London or, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referenced, during Covid the City of Westminster had to contract on our behalf for additional mortuary provision. London Councils, having made decisions about this, should be able to contract and receive money on its own behalf. These amendments do perhaps tidy things up but they are none the less very important.
I know that the Government are reluctant to embark on a widespread review of London government at this time, but there are three good reasons why we should consider very carefully the noble Baroness’s amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I should make it clear that I do not advocate a review of the 32 boroughs; my approach at this time would be to leave it alone because it works.
First, as others have mentioned, it is nearly 30 years since we properly reviewed London’s governance, which is a long time. Secondly, the London system is unique, again as others have referenced, but I do not think it is necessarily unique in a good way. Thirdly, and I think this important for the Government to consider, if they do review London governments there is an opportunity to make very real savings in how London government operates, and make it more efficient.
Why do I say that? First, we have no formal decision-making link at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referenced, between the mayor and the boroughs. In stark contrast to all other combined authorities, there is no requirement for the mayor to have that link with the boroughs. Everything that happens is effectively dependent on the good will of the mayor at that time. While this has worked to date, that is not necessarily the best way of operating. The mayor and the boroughs are two entirely separate entities and, while their paths cross over, the mayor can make decisions that have a massive impact on the boroughs, from planning and housing targets to issues such as the Freedom Pass. I recall mayoral candidates making commitments about Freedom Pass which then had to be funded and administered by the boroughs. That is not a satisfactory way to progress.
Every government fund that is devolved to London has to be the subject of individual negotiation. That is not particularly sensible either. For instance, negotiations on how to agree and distribute proportions for the first round of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund took over six months to agree, because there was no formal structure in place for the mayor to work with the boroughs. For the second round, the Greater London Authority unilaterally changed the rules and proportions that had been agreed with London Councils. Again, that is a defect in the system of how London government currently works. Here is a real opportunity for us to look now at whether there could be a better model of how the mayor works with the boroughs. I have great sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
The second point I should reference is in relation to the London Assembly. I am nervous because obviously we have some great figures here from the London Assembly’s history, but we have to recognise that it is a body utterly divorced from the work of London’s boroughs. That is the reality. It operates in parallel to the boroughs. I cannot remember a single occasion when there was a joint meeting, for instance, between London’s leaders and the London Assembly. The assembly does some very good work—I do not knock the work of great figures such as the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—but there is no crossover with the boroughs and no requirement for any. When we look at the future governance of London, there is an opportunity to consider the role and function of the assembly. Could that important scrutiny function that it delivers be met in a slightly different way?
While I recognise that the Government might not be keen on this review of London governance, there is an opportunity to look at these issues and I ask the Minister what reassurance she can give us today that the Government will force London to look at itself. I know that she thinks that the mayor and the London councils are having these conversations. I am not convinced that those conversations are happening in the way in which she would like them to be happening. What reassurance can she give us that those conversations will take place in earnest, because it is an important opportunity for London to review the way in which it governs itself?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Other than that, I can declare only a very modest involvement in councils in London. I twice unsuccessfully ran for Camden Council in the days when the Green Party was in a different position from where we are today.
I first want to address Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s simple cry, “Democracy now”. We have a London Assembly and it needs to be able to hold the mayor to account on spending much more strongly than it is able to now by nature of the constitutional arrangements. That is a clear and obvious step forward. It is no secret that the Green Party is no fan of the strong leader model. We believe that the more voices there are and the more input you have into decisions, the better. The London Assembly has been denied the input into the budget that it might have by those arrangements.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and agree with him on lots of things but in this case I do not. Scale is not an appropriate way in which to think about the size of London boroughs and how they are divided up. This is by title a community empowerment Bill. Different London boroughs have different community lives and demographics. I think of the fact that, for example, Barnet and Camden are in one territorial London Assembly member seat but they are two very different places. It is important that we have that representation. We are seeing significant under-representation in the rest of the country rather than too much representation in London.
I strongly support Amendments 182 and 183 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others. Local representatives in those boroughs need to be able to get together and work together. They do as much as they can, but that would be a simple step forward.
Finally, on the review of London’s governance model, I might be coming at that in Amendment 75 from a different direction from some others, but it is worth highlighting and celebrating the great work that the London Assembly does, even with the restrictions on its powers. We have not talked about what that is. I draw attention to a practical piece of work done by Caroline Russell, a London Assembly member, about the provision of public toilets in this city. A lot of people care about that very much. People do not regard it as an exciting political subject but when campaigning, listening to Londoners and hearing, particularly from disabled, disadvantaged Londoners and people with small children, one sees that that kind of step is important. It shows what the assembly does.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak initially to my Amendments 70 and 71 in this group. It is a pleasure being here with noble Lords; it feels like a reunion of assembly or London Councils meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know is not able to be here today, for adding his name to Amendment 70, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for adding his name to Amendment 71. Both noble Lords have direct experience of the GLA and London government as a whole. Like other noble Lords, in drafting these amendments I bring 26 years’ experience as an assembly member and a London borough councillor.
Amendment 70 is about the power of summons. The law as it stands means that the assembly has relatively limited powers of summons over individuals and documents. It can summon the Mayor of London only in his or her role as chair of one of the functional bodies. For example, you could summon the mayor to a meeting as chair of Transport for London, but you could not summon them to come to a meeting if there was a huge failure or difficulties in their housing or solar programme and you wanted a detailed discussion. That makes no sense.
Furthermore, the assembly is prevented from summoning those delivering services in London. Noble Lords might well think that that does not matter because people will go and give evidence, so we do not need this power, but I will give the Committee a concrete example. Many years ago, I led an investigation into High Speed 2—then an initial programme that was going to have a huge impact in west London. High Speed 2, admittedly at that time under different management, refused to come before the assembly to give evidence to our inquiry. Despite huge amounts of correspondence, including the Department for Transport trying to put direct pressure on this body that was accountable to it, High Speed 2 refused to give any evidence at all. Yet it was delivering a project affecting London with huge amounts of public money.
Similar bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Port of London Authority and even London Councils, may attend if requested, but they, too, have at times decided not to. That cannot be right when we are trying to look at services delivering for London. This power would strengthen the assembly, allowing it to fully carry out its scrutiny role. It sits well with Amendment 72, which proposes a London local authorities joint committee, because there would need to be scrutiny of that body and this new power would allow the assembly to carry that out.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is unable to be here today, but in correspondence last night he said that he was happy for me to explain his support for this. He comes at it from a different point of view. He used to work for the former Mayor of London and he said that, although we come at this from different angles—he would brief the mayor ahead of scrutiny and I would be there as a scrutineer—he feels that these scrutiny sessions are serious, healthy, important and substantive and he does not see any potential for these powers to be abused because you would use them only in exceptional circumstances. He feels that, ultimately, if the mayor turns up, they may not answer the questions put to them, but at least you would have that opportunity—so he was keen to support this amendment. This issue has had cross-party support on the assembly for years, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment.
Of course, if more powers are given to the mayor, as was discussed at the start of this group, the assembly should be strengthened alongside this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned London being up on a pedestal but, actually, Manchester has more power than London in certain areas, such as health, and it feels as though London potentially needs to catch up.
Amendment 71 would remove the anomaly that, to amend the Mayor of London’s budget, a two-thirds majority is needed at the final stage. For many years, this has meant us, as assembly members, sitting there and rejecting the mayor’s budget and then it still going through at the final meeting because the threshold has not been reached. Such a threshold does not exist in any other part of local government, and I do not understand why it is needed here for London. I ask the Government to remove this requirement so that any mayor has to work with the assembly to ensure that a budget has majority support.
The other amendments in this group cover the establishment of a London local authorities joint committee and the power to pay grants to it. This would, as we have heard, put in place formally what is already taking place through other means. I am happy with these amendments. They have cross-party support and support from the London Assembly. As I said, they complement my amendment on the power of summons for the London Assembly, because I think that this joint committee should be subject to scrutiny as well.
Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, makes a reasonable point—the noble Baroness and I exchanged some correspondence at the weekend about it. As many of us have said, reviewing how the London system works and what lessons there are for other areas does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. I come at this from a different point of view. I am really keen to increase the powers of the London Assembly and to look at stronger scrutiny arrangements across the country with the rollout of mayoral and combined authorities. For me, that is the gap in the model that is being rolled out.
At the moment, there is little to no real scrutiny of billions of pounds-worth of expenditure across the country. This is a huge deficit in these new mayoral models. This scrutiny must be carried out by members who are not conflicted through other roles, such as being leaders of authorities. This is probably where I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord John, because I think that council leaders can be conflicted. They want to secure funding for their borough, and that can cause tension—they may not want to get into the bad books of a mayor. That is where the benefits of the GLA model, with scrutineers who are directly elected, comes in. They can look at things more independently, ask the tough questions and, sometimes, produce very tough reports.
I disagree with the suggestions we have heard in the debate on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Harris, about reducing the number of London boroughs. I do not think that that would be right. The amount of work, including casework, that borough councillors have to do in London is unbelievable compared to their colleagues elsewhere. That would not be a realistic option.
I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest. I hope we can start to see some movement to strengthen the powers of the assembly and to support London Councils on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their amendments relating to London devolution. As a mere veteran of what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, described as provincial local government, I feel a little hesitant about sticking my head into the lion’s den of London local government—but it is my job, so I will do it anyway.
I start with the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which would remove Clause 15 from the Bill. It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance. Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill in order to signpost to Schedule 25 to the Bill and the GLA Act 1999. This enables the Government, among other things, to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Contrary to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about putting London on a pedestal, the provision enables us to confer powers on the mayor and the GLA. If the GLA was excluded from Schedule 25, it would then be the only strategic authority that would require primary legislation for the conferral of functions, and there is no rationale for creating a divergent approach just for London. Schedule 25 will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.
The noble Baroness asked a question about consultation. Ahead of the Bill being introduced, the Government engaged the mayor, the GLA and London Councils on proposals in the devolution White Paper.
I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for bringing his wealth of experience and knowledge of London to our debates on this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Moylan and Lord John. I have not yet been able to add up their joint years of London experience, but it is of significant breadth and depth, and it is welcome to have that informing our discussions on the Bill. For the record, my local council was formed in 1971 and has been a Labour council to this day. It does not quite meet the 60 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but we are not far away, and we are a new town.
We are currently engaging positively with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on this matter. In the context of that ongoing work and the need to continue to work jointly towards a constructive resolution, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to rush in a legislative change for the unique arrangements for London governance through this amendment. I am very happy to meet my noble friend Lord Harris and other London partners, if he feels that that would be helpful before Report, because I understand the points he has made.
On Amendment 70, in the English devolution White Paper the Government committed to strengthening scrutiny in strategic authorities. As the noble Baroness knows, London is unique among strategic authorities, in that the mayor’s work is scrutinised by the directly elected London Assembly. It is my understanding that the mayor is committed to appear before 10 sessions each year for scrutiny. If he does not do so, or misses more than a number of those sessions, he can be sanctioned by the GLA.
As the Government consider the best way to strengthen scrutiny in strategic authorities, it is right that we tailor our approach to the arrangements in London. We will engage the GLA and the London Assembly on any potential changes. I have much sympathy with the frustration about key partners and providers that spend public money and then refuse to come before scrutiny bodies. I will not go into my particular pain over bus companies, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness was making there. This amendment would significantly alter the powers of the London Assembly and preclude the Government’s ongoing work on this issue, which is being taken forward in close discussion with combined authorities and the GLA.
Similarly, on Amendment 75, London’s model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years—I think the noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the successful part of London governance. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities. We hope to build on these where possible. Therefore, we do not believe that a formal review is necessary.
I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about issues around boroughs neighbouring London, Lee Valley park, the London grants scheme and so on. I will reflect on those. A meeting might be helpful, because I did not quite understand the balance between “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and there being things that need to be fixed that we should have a look at to see what changes would be necessary. It would absolutely not be right to interject a legislative knee-jerk into this space without the work that is needed between all parties to determine a way forward. I hope that we can move that forward before Report.
Amendment 71 seeks to introduce simple majority voting for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget. This Bill includes measures to unblock mayoral decision-making. Primarily, this is by stipulating that most decisions in combined authorities and combined county authorities require a simple majority including the mayor, but also by making some functions, such as those concerning police and fire, exercisable by the mayor only.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
We talked about a review of the scrutiny arrangements of other metro mayors, if you like—mayoral and strategic authorities. Is the Minister able to give us a timescale for that? We also talked about discussions with the GLA; the GLA is made up of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Is the department talking to officers and members of the London Assembly, because the Civil Service often uses the term “GLA” when it means just the mayor’s office.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that discussions are with the GLA, but I will double-check on that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
We are putting in place a robust system of overview and scrutiny for the combined authorities. We are also considering, as we discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the other day, whether a system of local public accounts committees might also be relevant.
Lord Moylan (Con)
There is a certain sleight of hand going on. The noble Baroness referred to scrutiny arrangements and, of course, the London Assembly is largely a scrutiny body; that is what it spends most of its time doing. But when it comes to budget setting, it is a co-decision-maker. That is a crucial difference. Setting and amending the budget is not a scrutiny activity by the London Assembly; it is a co-decision-making function with the mayor, which strengthens democratic oversight of the mayor’s expenditure of what are now very large amounts of money—£20 billion-plus—on the people of London.
The question is what an appropriate position and appropriate balance of power for the assembly is in that co-decision-making role—not its scrutiny role, but its co-decision-making role. We are now into 26 years of existence of the London Assembly. The fact that that threshold has never once been met illustrates that it is not allowing the assembly to function as intended, as a co-decision-making body. It needs to be adjusted. One might say that the mayor’s executive functions would be hampered if democracy were improved, but of course the mayor’s executive functions would be further unhampered if there were no democracy at all. The London Assembly is meant to be a democratic body. Why is it not allowed to function as a normal democratic body in this one area where it has a co-decision-making power?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ contributions, for which I am very grateful. It is so refreshing to hear about London local authorities. I have talked for a number of years in both Chambers about local government, but we very rarely have a proper debate on London governance. It is very refreshing and I thank noble Lords who have, it seems to me, hundreds of years of experience in the great city’s governance. It is seriously refreshing.
To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I say that of course I understand the role of our great capital city and its importance in the economy of our country, but I do not think that that means that we cannot at times challenge it and scrutinise it from here, and I think that that is what we are doing. It is our genuine desire to ensure that community empowerment, efficiency and localism should apply to London as well when we are looking at the rest of the country.
Clause 15 remains wholly unclear, both in its purpose and its intention. Empowering one individual further without compelling justification or evidence is not the right direction of travel in our opinion. It may be that we need to review London before we give these further powers, as we are doing for the rest of the country. Are we giving these powers to an authority that is as efficient as it can be in governance, just as the rest of the country is being challenged to be before it gets those powers?
If there is a case for expanding the powers in London, I suggest that the Government look at that governance before they make that decision, which is why the amendment was tabled. If such a case exists, I believe that it should be laid before Parliament transparently rather than delivered through secondary legislation at a later stage in a way that limits our scrutiny and public understanding, which is important.
Equally, amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have highlighted a real concern about the existing governance arrangements and structures, although I remain unconvinced that more layers of committees are the answer. None the less, not only are the Government taking, in our opinion, the wrong direction of travel, but they are also missing a great opportunity in this primary legislation. The proposal to reduce the two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as we have heard, for changes to the GLA council tax requirement would empower councillors, as we are trying to do in this Bill. My understanding is that, when the budget is debated, many of the issues in the budget are voted down by the GLA but, when it gets to the budget decision, that decision is lost. That does not seem right and the Government need to seriously look at this again.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I thank her for all her work in the London boroughs—would give us exactly the opportunity that we want in order to assess what currently works, what does not work and where genuine reform, rooted in efficiency, transparency and local empowerment, might be needed.
I suggest that the Government are not listening to what we are saying. It seemed to me that, at different levels, there was pretty much cross-party agreement. I believe that they must explain with much more clarity why Clause 15 is necessary without some sort of review of London, who it benefits and what problems it seeks to solve. We all want a London that works for Londoners, for the people who come here to enjoy our wonderful capital city and for the economy that it feeds in this country.
I also believe that the Government’s arrangements for our city should be proportionate to those for the rest of the country. Further empowering an already powerful mayor without a real, robust rationale does not achieve that. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully between now and Report. In the meantime, I will withdraw my stand part notice but will be considering what we bring forward on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Gascoigne to Clause 16, allows for whatever period that there could be the overlap of both the Mayor and MP retaining both offices.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. Amendments 76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 were tabled by my noble friend to highlight what he regarded, when he first saw the Bill, as an egregious error; namely, the Government’s original proposal to ban Members of Parliament from serving as mayors. More than that, he felt that it seemed to undermine the very essence of the Bill.
The Government’s own impact assessment stresses the importance of mayors and how well recognised they are—in some cases, more so than MPs. It states that
“people think more power should come down from national government”.
It therefore seems remiss to want to prevent at least some of our mayors—not all—sitting in Parliament. We have, after all, recent examples of where this has worked and there has been a successful transition—the best, I am sure we all agree, being Boris Johnson, and perhaps Sadiq Khan less so. They are two individuals who have combined the roles, even if only briefly.
To be clear, these amendments are not about personalities and it is not about the individual. But, for ease of reference, let us call this the Burnham amendment. We all know that the Mayor of Greater Manchester wants to return to Parliament—some, including the deputy leader of the Labour Party and former Deputy PM, are even encouraging him. Yet after the last few days of melodrama in the Labour Party, he was blocked, allegedly by allies of the Prime Minister. It makes us wonder whether this provision was originally designed so that the Prime Minister could stop him—or “burn him” off. Despite this, it is assumed that the electorate are being taken for granted, because it is assumed that he would have won, should he have stood. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now tabled their own amendment allowing a brief period of overlap between being a mayor and an MP. Despite that, we will have to wait a little longer for the return of the “King of the North”.
Turning to the Bill, we would have preferred that the period not be so tight or so rigidly defined. We are not sure that it should create such stark delineations between local and national politics. Devolution should mean bringing local voices to the fore, not erecting new barriers between the two similar worlds. Some may argue that the roles are incompatible, but that is a political judgment and one that should be made by the electorate. If a candidate seeks to serve as mayor while sitting as an MP, they do so in full view of their constituents. If the public believe the roles cannot be combined, they will say so at the ballot box. That is how democracy works. Let the people decide. When so much power still resides in Whitehall, there is arguably no better place for a mayor to be than in Parliament, making their case, arguing for money and banging the drum for investment in their area.
These amendments seek to provide flexibility and freedom, and to widen participation in our democratic institutions—something that we hope all sides of the Committee can support. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why the Government initially opposed any overlap at all in the original drafting, as well as what has changed since the Bill was introduced. Perhaps she might also explain the logic behind the specific eight-day period that is now being proposed. For now, we are pleased that the Government have moved away from their earlier position and accepted the argument that a period of overlap should be permitted. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. It in no way conflicts with the series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, so ably presented by my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I agree with the thrust of all she said. There is no doubt that, if Clause 16 is to be sustained, improvements to it, alongside those in the government amendments, would be useful. However, I do not favour that approach. I just do not believe that any part of Clause 16, which amounts to an unjustifiable fettering of the electorate—elect a good candidate or otherwise hand it to an elected mayor in office—should be sustained. Therefore, none of it should stand part.
The public are tiring of funny business in elections. I have laid amendments to later parts of the Bill that would make the cancellation of local council, mayoral and PCC elections illegal without the super-affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. Labour is playing fast and loose with democracy—a cancellation of a vote here and a postponement there, asking those with the most to lose whether they would like to stay a little longer, and bogus capacity excuses from councils that do not even run the elections. We read today in the Daily Telegraph a Labour NEC member of many years standing disclosing threats with menaces to Labour council leaders to connive to strip the franchise from more than 4 million electors this May.
When I was a young man, my noble friend Lord Pickles told me, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right then, and that advice is still correct today; it should never go out of fashion. We need to encourage as many people as possible to serve the public at every level. In my public life in local government, I took the view that I did not have the time to be a double hatter, or even triple hatter, by seeking to serve my community as a parish, district and county councillor—combining it with a business career was quite enough for me—but that is not how it is for others.
The fundamental principle here is that the public should get to choose their elected representatives. If somebody wishes to serve at more than one level, that option should be available to them, but they should be accountable to the electorate, not anyone else. It is the public’s choice. We often have people who serve at more than one level, amplifying the experience they gain at one level to the benefit of another; that was not for me, but it worked well for others.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said, but Clause 16 is nothing more than a grubby stitch-up to prevent the public having their free say. It would stain a banana republic for certain citizens to be denied the chance to stand, especially those who had demonstrated a track record of success. I have not had time to consult my noble and learned friends but I am sure that I could get an advisory opinion that such action is contrary to international law. You would think that that would be enough to put the black spot on it, but not for this Government.
I sense that, in drafting Clause 16, there was some intent to prevent my noble friend, who served with distinction as mayor in the north-east—and whom the public elected once, then again—standing as a mayor and being in the legislature. It might have been the case that, as in the last Parliament, a county council leader is also an MP. In those cases, the Bill would force that person to choose, but, if you believe in democracy, it is not for him to make that choice—it is for the public, via the ballot box. Clause 16 is state overreach and a case of party-political interference. That why it should be deleted. I read the newspapers and have been in politics long enough to know what is going on here.
It transpired in the past week that the Labour Party’s own internal rules prevent a Labour mayor from sitting in Parliament. That is a choice for Labour and one that should be available to other parties, but it is not a compulsion to be forced on parties that have a different outlook and better principles. Do not just take my word for it. There are others who cherish democracy more than this Government. The Electoral Commission and the Speaker of the other place have had cause to criticise the debased commitment to the sanctity of the vote. We heard from the Prime Minister himself earlier this week that the reason why the Mayor of Manchester cannot stand in this mother of Parliaments is that it is part of Labour’s rules and has nothing to do with the candidate’s suitability—it makes no judgment on whether the candidate has the appropriate experience. No, the Prime Minister told us that the decision was driven solely by the unwelcome financial cost to the Labour Party of running a second-order mayoral election—so not by statute but by internal rules, which we all know change from time to time. That was coupled with the inconvenience of spreading more thinly the campaigning capacity of Labour’s demoralised and depleted activists.
The Government may have thought that they were being clever with Clause 16, by preventing local leaders from exercising national influence, but they have been pricked by the back-draught from the good folk of Gorton and Denton, which tells me that there is widespread support for the notion that Clause 16 should be excised from this Bill. The public know a lemon when they see one. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who introduced this Bill in the other place, now appears to have a case of buyer’s remorse, as the measures that she published are now being used to deny her Manchester mate from putting himself forward to the voters. That is some irony: it is not just back-draught; it is blowback. Of course, in the case of the Manchester man, that is for future service. However, I am anxious that in other cases there might be a question of retrospection. My noble friend highlighted Johnson and Khan, which is a case in point.
When I was the leader of the council in South Norfolk, which is an electoral authority, I was always careful, in so far as elections were concerned, to separate my role as leader of the controlling group from the administration and operation of the election and electoral matters. If successive returning officers who served me were here, they would confirm that approach. However, that is not how it works in Clause 16. The Prime Minister told us that he would put country before party, but those who continue to promote this Bill clearly did not get the memo, because Clause 16 is about putting the wants of the Labour Party before of the needs of the electorate. It prevents the electorate from having their say on who should be elected, especially somebody who has done rather well in one area of politics and who might do well in the other. It is an abuse of the people, the law and democracy.
We have heard it said that your Lordships’ House is standing in the way of the will of the Government and somehow it is improper and, as a result, we need to be reformed. However, with these amendments, we show that noble Lords are standing up for democracy and community empowerment. The denial of a free vote on candidates is the pure expression of community disempowerment. Labour should be ashamed of itself for Clause 16. It does not trust the folks, as my noble friend Lord Pickles advised all those years ago. No, for them, it is party first and public second. This clause proves this, which is why it must go.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Can I just make a brief statement? While it is right and proper that each and every amendment and clause is debated, I deeply regret how party-political the last two contributions have been. What we are all doing here is trying to do the best for this country and not make these things party-political. I deeply regret some of the comments that have been made by people opposite.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these have been an interesting set of interventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is important that party-political contributions are kept to an absolute minimum when we are debating a Bill.
There is a basic issue in this group. The public have a right to expect that elected individuals do not end up with two jobs: being a mayor and being an MP. In some circumstances, it might be possible for the electorate to knowingly vote for that. However, that would be most unlikely to be the case. There is a question as to where, geographically speaking, the mayor might be the MP; it might be within the mayoral authority and it might be elsewhere. Either way, there is a clear conflict of interest, because Parliament judges the allocation of funding, for example, to the mayoral authority.
I do not think that you can have one person doing two jobs. Amendments 76 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would allow that, for whatever period, there could be an overlap of both mayor and MP retaining both offices. To be absolutely clear, we think that that is wrong. I say to the Minister that these matters are important and should not be for political parties to judge alone. It should instead be clearly understood that, when people have been elected to one of the posts, they should carry out the responsibilities that they have been given by the general public.
On Tuesday, I said that if, in a mayoral authority, there had been a large number of commissioners appointed by the mayor but then that mayor decided to become a Member of Parliament, he or she would leave the mayoralty and, as the Bill is currently drafted, all the commissioners would lose their jobs as a consequence. When politicians are elected to a job, they must see the job through and do it to the best of their ability, given that the public have expressed confidence in them doing so. They have an obligation to fulfil their contract with the electorate.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will add something to the wise words of my colleagues. To us, this is about the concentration of power in the hands of one person. The powers being given to new mayors are considerable and I understand them; to some extent, I agree with them—as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I see the two roles as completely different: a role in national government is completely different from a local, regional role. There could be massive conflicts of interest, but the key thing is that this concentrates too much power. Conservative colleagues have talked about that, but then they are quite happy to let somebody do both jobs. To our mind, that is just not rational.
The key thing is that this creates more political opportunities for more people. It also encourages mayors. The key thing about a mayoralty is that the mayors can develop their own local, independent mandate, rather than being overshadowed by national party politics. They are very different and distinct and they could be in direct conflict with each other. That is why we absolutely believe in that separation of powers.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. In essence, we are debating a philosophical issue here. I firmly believe in democracy. Elections take place; your Lordships would be surprised to know that I do not always like some of the decisions that the electorate make, but I will defend every time the public having the opportunity to elect whom they want to represent them. That is a priority.
Just because I do not like it or just because they have a second job that I may not think appropriate, they should have that opportunity. We need some protections in place for fraud and other things, but I believe in democracy and, in essence, that is what the comments of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lady O’Neill are about, and I associate myself with them. We should not prevent people standing for election; we should allow the electorate to make their choice. That is what democracy is. We may all have our views about whether a job is too big and therefore we cannot have somebody doing two of them but, if you believe in democracy, you believe that the electorate should have the facts presented in front of them and they should be given that choice. That is my strong philosophical view. We should not be telling the electorate, “No, you cannot have this person because they are already too busy”. Therefore, I genuinely believe my noble friend’s comments and that it is right that we should trust the electorate.
I appreciate that that may not align with certain party rules on different things, but there is no reason that the law has to mirror a certain party’s rules. I have no problem with whatever party having particular rules for the candidates they choose. That is the right thing to do. I know, from my own experience as chairman of the LGA, that the Conservative group had some very different rules from the Labour, Liberal and independent groups for how long people could stand and who was eligible. That is fine; I would not criticise the rules that Labour or the Liberals had, and I hope they did not criticise our rules. That was a choice; we were not imposing them by statute.
I very much support both the amendments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the proposal that this clause not stand part of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Fuller. If Clause 16 stands part, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne would introduce a certain amount of flexibility. Given the amendments that the Government are proposing, what would happen if an election were to take place, let us say, 10 days before the end of a parliamentary term? Would the Government really want to impose a mayoral election? I am not quite sure that 10 days works, but I am sure your Lordships get my gist. If Clause 16 were to stand, a certain amount of flexibility would be beneficial, notwithstanding my previous comments.
I also agree with the Government’s amendments, assuming that eight days is the correct period and would give time for an MP to stand down and so forth, but I have a particular question on this. It may be very unlikely, but what happens if an election for a mayor happens when Parliament is not sitting? My understanding is that an MP cannot resign when Parliament is not sitting. Could the Minister at least consider that? I am not necessarily expecting an answer here, but a written answer would be helpful for everyone.
The fundamental point is why this Government believe that the electorate are not the right group of people to decide who represents them, even if they decide that it is Andy Burnham.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Fuller, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for moving the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority, and for probing whether Clause 16 is needed.
It is not the job of this Committee to debate the Labour Party rulebook or decisions of its national executive committee. Your Lordships must trust me that they do not want that job. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions on that issue.
Clause 16 will prevent individuals being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mayor at the same time. This is an important clause for two reasons. First and most critically, the post of mayor is a vital role at the forefront of delivering change—whether that is economic growth, public services, planning for the strategic area, transport or many other issues—and its responsibilities will only increase with this Bill. The role must demand a person’s full attention as a full-time post, rather than being a part-time position done alongside another vital public service role.
Secondly, elected members and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents who elected them. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the potential issue of having different constituencies. Fulfilling two different roles on behalf of different geographical areas could lead to conflicts of interest or undesirable trade-offs. This is absolutely not party political; it is common sense. Indeed, it is now the case that those mayors who are also police and crime commissioners—Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin—cannot be Members of a UK legislature at the same time.
I know that this House operates on a slightly different basis, but when I joined it, I was still leader of my council. As a Minister you cannot do both jobs at the same time, but even before I was a Minister, I would not have dreamed of trying to do so. They are different jobs; both carry a heavy level of responsibility, and it was important to me to focus on one.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister clarify that what she just said about PCCs and Members of the legislature concerns the elected Members? We have to be very careful here; we are part of the legislature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I could have been clearer on that. The noble Baroness is quite right: it is the elected legislature. In view of my comments, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Government Amendments 77, 80, 82, 85 and 90 will modify Clause 16 to introduce a grace period in which a mayor can hold office and simultaneously be a Member of a UK elected legislature without being disqualified. The period will be eight days. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the eight days enables the Chiltern Hundreds process to happen—that is the period required for going from being an MP to being a mayor. To go from being a mayor to being an MP, it enables the mayor to put their affairs in order before they take up their post as an MP. In the event that a mayor is running to be a Member of a UK legislature, it will be eight days beginning on the day when they are elected to that legislature.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as I do not know the answer to his question. It is important that Members are given reasonable time to get their affairs in order and to ensure their resignation from the respective legislature. These amendments address concerns raised in the other place about ensuring that an orderly transition can occur in the event that an MP is appointed as a mayor. Similarly, mayors running to be a Member of a UK legislature would otherwise be disqualified immediately on election. Introducing the grace period provides a period of transition for the outgoing mayor to get their affairs in order. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I raised another point in relation to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. With a very strict timetable of eight days, one could envisage situations where any sensible person would stand back and ask, “Do we really want to have a mayoral election for the sake of two, three or four weeks?” Will the Government consider a bit more flexibility?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I meant to say to the noble Lord that I will write to him about the situation in which Parliament may not be sitting when that election takes place.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister will do that, but I was also making the point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would at least provide some flexibility. The common-sense approach would be to ask, “Why would I have a mayoral election this month when there’s one happening next month anyway?” Can there be a bit more flexibility? As the Labour Party has rightly said, it costs a lot of money to run an election in Manchester.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a combined authority,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a CCA,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the Mayor, and(b) is, on the first day of the Mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the Mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the Mayor,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes Mayor) or as Mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the Mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the Mayor, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the Mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the Mayoral term.
Baroness Thornhill
“(3A) After subsection (13) insert—“(14) When making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under section 30 of LURA 2023, to consider and minimise any potential conflict, overlap, or duplication between the Mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendment 92. These amendments are the only ones in the group and concern mayoral powers and functions. Interestingly, I note that some of the wise and pertinent comments made by the noble Lords who are now not in their place regarding issues with London boroughs and the mayor, born of hard-lived experience, will apply in the new structures. So there are real lessons to be learned. I am hoping that my amendments might help avoid some of the issues raised in group 1.
The Bill, as we know, gives mayors significant new powers, and none of us underestimates what that means; hence our collective concerns. The Government clearly support mayoral ambitions as a means of fulfilling their political objectives, many of which we might all agree with. But power alone does not equal good devolution or good governance. Both depend on clarity about who does what, who decides what and who is ultimately accountable. The last thing mayors need are fuzzy boundaries if they are to do the job effectively, as I know from bitter experience. These amendments simply require the Secretary of State—let us not forget that a lot is going to be left to the Secretary of State—when making regulations or orders about mayoral functions to
“have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
Let us be clear, the new mayors will be involved in all of this and will, quite rightly, have their fingers in every pie. If they are to make a significant difference to the regions that need them most, and to the country as a whole, they will need to be doing that. But these powers, as we know, come with a new complex structure and therefore these amendments are necessary. They simply make sure that at some point when new powers are designed, someone asks a basic question: how is this going to work alongside what already exists?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who asked a number of important and timely questions.
Let me use her first amendment in this group as an example. It would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to consider and
“minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
This is absolutely sensible and common-sense, and it should happen. However, I suggest that, for clarity, this should extend also to Whitehall, from where powers are devolved; then, with the exception of oversight, those powers and the bureaucracy involved should no longer exist within Whitehall.
The Bill amends the 2023 Act through numerous schedules and amendments. It is right, therefore, that we ensure this clarity and avoid unnecessary overlap. I am sure that many Members in this Grand Committee will remember the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through the House. It was a long and complex piece of legislation—I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my noble friend Lady Scott—and the changes in this policy and space must be approached with care. I am keen, therefore, to hear from the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication and legal uncertainty, in relation not just to this amendment but across the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendments on the role of mayors. Before I respond to these amendments, I want to clarify the rationale for Clause 18. The clause will extend an existing power of the Secretary of State to provide that certain general functions may be exercised solely by a mayor. The power currently exists in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This clause will ensure that it can also apply to general functions conferred under any other regulation or Act of Parliament. The extension of this existing power reflects the broader range of routes through which functions may be conferred on strategic authorities and their mayors, once the current Bill becomes law.
Amendments 91 and 92 seek to amend this clause and prevent the potential for conflict, overlap or duplication between a mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies. As your Lordships will know, mayors of combined authorities or combined county authorities are not corporate entities in themselves. For that reason, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority rather than directly on to the mayor. However, some functions may be designated as mayoral functions, as they are to be exercised only by the mayor. Where functions have been made mayoral, they typically relate to the management of day-to-day activities.
Key strategic decisions still require approval by the strategic authority constituent members. To give an example, all members will vote on which roads form part of a key route network, after which the mayor will be responsible for managing it. This will allow for swifter decision-making and more effective governance on day-to-day matters.
It will be important that all tiers of local government work together to benefit their communities. This is why principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This will ensure that they play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. Furthermore, before any new function is conferred on a strategic authority by regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the constituent councils of any affected strategic authorities and any other person who exercises the function concerned. This will ensure that the views of those affected are properly considered.
I hope that, with these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely accept that the new structures are complex and complicated. It is very easy to be seduced by the noble Baroness’s fluent explanation. My amendment was coming more from the perspective of practicalities, which was also borne out by the comments earlier that, in reality, there is overlap, with weakened scrutiny, unclear accountability and eroded public trust. I would like to feel that a lot of work was being done into what those are. We know it is probably happening, but it is all going to come later through SIs and secondary legislation. I wanted to make it absolutely clear, up front, that those overlaps and duplications will be considered, because they will be a source of conflict and friction going forward. It was interesting that the leaders of boroughs are saying that that is happening even 20 or however many years later. But, for the moment, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs,(g) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers,(h) any tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services, and(i) changes to the organisation, delivery, and funding of social care in devolved areas, including an assessment of outcomes for service users.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to probe how the Government will assess the wider consequences of devolution, including the impact on housebuilding and whether local housing targets are being met; the effect of devolved powers on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences of devolution for the delivery, funding, and outcomes of social care services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, let me make it clear from the outset that, with Amendment 93, we are not asking for a new bureaucratic hurdle in yet another review, but a few additional report considerations. Amendment 93 in my name would expand the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to understand how the Government intend to assess the wider consequences of devolution, including: its impact on housebuilding and the delivery of housing targets; its effect on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences for the organisation, funding and outcomes of social care services.
I will take each proposed new paragraph of this amendment in turn, beginning with paragraph (f). This asks the Secretary of State to consider the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs. We have consistently made it clear that we support new homes. The Conservative Party is pro development. However, we are equally clear that local voices must be taken along this journey and that local consent must remain front and centre. Only then can we ensure that the right homes are built in the right places, meeting the genuine needs of local communities. Devolution, if done well, has the potential to unlock more housing delivery. This amendment simply asks how we will measure progress against that ambition.
Proposed new paragraph (g) concerns the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers. Devolution has long been argued as a means of restoring local growth. George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer between 2010 and 2016, was the principal architect of the metro mayor model, advancing it as the cornerstone of the northern powerhouse agenda. The argument was clear that empowering city regions with elected local leadership could help rebalance an economy overly concentrated in London, drawing on the well-established economic case for productivity growth in cities. This amendment simply asks how the Government intend to judge whether these devolved powers are, in practice, delivering that promise and whether growth is being spread more evenly across regions. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible extension to the Minister’s report requirements.
Proposed new paragraph (h) relates to
“tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services”.
Tax policy shapes behaviour, incentives and market signals. Changes to local taxation will inevitably affect residents, businesses and the funding of public services. Local people have a right to understand how such decisions affect them and how the revenues raised are being translated into outcomes. How do the Government propose to analyse the behavioural and fiscal consequences of devolved tax decisions? What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability to Parliament, but mainly to local residents, for the impact of those choices on services?
Finally, proposed new paragraph (i) concerns changes to the organisation, delivery and funding of social care in devolved areas, including assessment of outcomes for service users. Social care is among the most vital and sensitive of the public services we provide. It also represents a substantial and growing call on public finances. Devolution may bring opportunities for innovation and better integration with local health services. However, it also carries the risk of variation in provision and outcomes. With this in mind, how will the Government ensure that devolved arrangements protect service users and maintain consistent standards of care? What measures will be used to assess whether outcomes are improving for those who rely on social care, rather than simply shifting responsibilities between tiers of government? This amendment reflects a desire to ensure that devolution works as intended, delivering growth, homes and better services while remaining transparent, accountable and focused on outcomes. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on how the Government intend to monitor and report these important issues.
An extension of the reporting requirements in Clause 19 seems a sensible and proportionate addition. It does not seek to constrain Ministers or to prescribe outcomes, but rather to ensure that Parliament and the public can properly understand how these significant powers are being used in practice.
I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a requirement is unnecessary and that existing reporting mechanisms are sufficient. However, devolution should ultimately be judged against its ambitions. If we are serious about empowering local areas to deliver more homes, stronger growth and better public services, it follows that we must also be serious about measuring whether those ambitions are being met. Local people must be able to see the effects of devolution in their communities and Parliament must be able to hold both central and local government to account for the outcomes it produces. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether modest additional reporting could strengthen rather than hinder the success of this agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, that Amendment 93 is sensible and proportionate. If you are going to have an annual report, the modest additional reporting proposed in this amendment would, as she said, help us understand better the success of devolution.
I will speak to Amendments 94 and 197 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It needs to be demonstrated clearly in the annual reporting whether the Secretary of State has been exercising powers under this Act without the consent of or contrary to decisions made by locally elected officials. It would be entirely reasonable and helpful, when we are asked to pass a Bill about devolution from Westminster, to know what the Secretary of State has actually done in the previous year.
On Amendment 197, we will touch on parish and town councils later, but there is a fundamental issue here. If we have a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government should be reviewing and promoting parish and town councils, maximising their geographical coverage and making an annual report to Parliament as to what has been done. The danger with this Bill is that so much power is being concentrated. I tried last week to get greater devolution from the strategic authorities to existing local government and then through to existing town and parish councils, but the Government were not amenable. I hope that further progress will have been made on that by Report.
There are two other amendments in my name. Amendment 252 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of local and community banking powers. I am grateful for the briefing I received from the Royal Holloway positive money group and its advice on this amendment. This is about the terribly important issue of how devolution drives growth in practice. One of the Government’s objectives is to drive growth, but how do you do that if the resources are not there? This amendment would be central to the success of the Bill, because it addresses a core structural barrier that currently undermines devolution: the centralised control of credit creation.
The Bill seeks to devolve political authority and fiscal responsibility, and it talks about community power, but I do not think that that will be fully realised without devolving financial capacity—that is, the creation of local, community and publicly owned banks. This amendment would ensure that devolved authorities are not responsible for growth outcomes when they lack the financial tools to influence those outcomes. Devolution means that powers have to accompany those devolved responsibilities. There are three aspects to devolution: devolution of powers, devolution of responsibilities and devolution of resources. But there is a problem for the devolved authorities in their ability to deliver local growth, resilient public finances and genuine community empowerment.
I am asking the Minister to do some further work and give more consideration to this. I will bring this back on Report, but I am not asking for the solution to be identified immediately. A range of issues need to be addressed and some are complex. I fear that, when this Bill is an Act, it will get into difficulty with its delivery—in generating growth and jobs. I hope that the Minister does not seek to rule out this amendment offhand.
My other amendment in this group is Amendment 253. I was tempted to degroup, but I decided that it is probably better to bring together all the amendments where I am asking for reviews, to raise these issues and ask the Government to think about them, because I will also bring back this amendment on Report.
There needs to be a review of regional and national public spending. Different parts of the United Kingdom have significantly different amounts of public expenditure. I quote from Table 9.1b of total UK identifiable expenditure on services, per head, from 2023 to 2024, which is the last year in which information is available. The information is from the Government’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2025. That shows that, if the average for nations and regions in the UK is 100, some are well above that and others are well below. London is at 115, when the average is 100. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all well in excess of 100.
There are some reasons for these differences that are unique to those places, which means that work has to be done to understand why that is. However, the Barnett formula is at the heart of it. That formula, designed by the late Lord Barnett and introduced in the late 1970s, is a very useful instrument for the Treasury to disburse money to the nations, but it hides the significant differences in public spending across the UK.
To that extent, I have tried before to get the Government adequately to explain why, when the average public expenditure is 100, the east Midlands is only 90—in other words, 10 percentage points below the average. The great danger of the Bill is that, when it becomes an Act, it will promote a blame culture. The mayors will blame the Government for not having enough resource, and the public will blame the mayors. The whole democratic system will be in some difficulty if it is not understood why some places get much higher levels of public spending than other areas.
All I am asking the Government is that they are aware of this matter and review it. It implies reviewing the Barnett formula, and I have previously moved Questions for Short Debate and proposals for that to happen in your Lordships’ House. I have not been alone in doing that. A number of years ago, there was a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that urged reform of the Barnett formula to one that has a needs assessment across the UK. I ask the Minister whether the Government might think about that.
I am going to bring this back on Report. I understand that it is primarily a matter for the Treasury, but somebody does have to explain all this, because otherwise the public are simply going to say, “As mayors compete with each other for the favours of the Treasury, whose fault is it that they are getting more money than us?”
I want devolution to succeed, but the Government have to understand this issue a bit better. How can we empower community banking? How can we invest for growth outside the existing structures? How can the Government make sure that, when they are spending public money, they are allocating it fairly across the United Kingdom? I hope that the Minister will give me some indication that the Government are prepared to look at this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry if I am speaking out of order; we are missing quite a few signatories. I will speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 252—about local and community banking powers—which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just addressed. The timing of this debate is interesting, because just this morning Santander announced that it is closing a further 44 branches after an earlier announcement that it would be closing 95 branches around the country. Lloyds is closing more than 100 branches by March. A total of 432 bank branches closed in 2025; this puts the figure of bank branches lost at some 7,000.
Large banks, whether based in London or globally, will say that everyone is going digital. What I find, however, when I travel to communities up and down the land, is that quite often the fact that they no longer have a bank or that their last bank is about to close is a major issue. If you speak to a small or even medium-sized enterprise and ask if they are getting financing from the banks, they just laugh at you. The kind of application you have to make includes filling in an enormous number of forms. You do not speak to a person, and the application churns through the computer; computer says no and that is the end of it. Historically, you would have a local bank manager who knew the local community and its businesspeople, and was able to support people whom they knew were worth the punt. The large banks are physically evacuating out of communities and are just not interested in anything except large, multinational companies and their like.
This is why, with regard to local and community banking powers, getting local banks set up is in the interests of local communities and absolutely something to be looked at as an option by Government. I note that, although I am not entirely praising it—I should declare that I am a customer—Nationwide, with its co-operative model, is staying in communities far more, but it still cannot do everything that communities need by any means. Amendment 252 is therefore terribly important.
I turn to Amendment 197’s duty to review parish and town councils. I declare my position as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. Despite the rhetoric around it, this Bill is taking local democracy far further from the people. In many places—as has been happening through more than a decade of austerity—parish and town councils have been picking up the slack where larger bodies have stepped away and not had the money to engage.
More than a dozen years ago I was in Leominster, and the list of services that the local town council had picked up there ran from keeping the public toilet open—I am sorry; I seem to have a theme today, but it was not my intention—to keeping the tourist information centre open to cutting the grass and looking after the green spaces. These tasks had been abandoned by the unitary authority and were therefore picked up by the town council. The problem is that Leominster is an historic town—there is a wonderful, medieval town hall to meet in—but it is often the more disadvantaged communities around the country that do not have parish and town councils. One example is the large new council estates. Those who need it most do not have that local representation. A review, therefore, would be welcome in examining the Government’s heading to take democracy away from the people and enabling us to see how we can restore it at grass-roots level. To me that is essential.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate. I especially thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Shipley, for their amendments on the subject of reviews.
Taken together, Amendments 93, 251, 253 and 255 seek to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report on the effect of the Act and the outcomes in various policy areas; and to undertake reviews of regional public spending and the effectiveness of community empowerment measures. The duty to produce an annual report on English devolution already exists to update Parliament on the progress made by the Government on devolution in England. We are already amending these reporting requirements to include which powers, functions and funding have been devolved to strategic authorities from central government. The reporting of outcomes in policy areas such as housebuilding, economic growth and social care already takes place. Social care is not going to strategic authorities; it will remain with local authorities. These policy outcomes are dependent on myriad factors, and a report on English devolution would not be the appropriate place to cover them.
On tax and public spending, the requirements for the annual report on English devolution, as amended by Clause 19, already cover any new powers to impose new taxes, as well as the funding devolved to strategic authorities. Combined authorities must also publish upcoming decisions that will have a significant effect on their citizens. These amendments would place an unnecessary, duplicative burden on the Secretary of State; in the case of social care, they would create new reporting requirements in areas where local authorities, rather than strategic authorities, have responsibility. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw them.
Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report where a power in this Bill is used without the consent of “local officials”. The amendment does not define “local officials”, so it is not clear who would be in scope of the reporting. Where appropriate, the use of certain powers in the Bill already has requirements to consult local leaders; for example, constituent councils must be consulted where a function is conferred through Schedule 25 or where a strategic authority is established. It is not reasonable to expect that there will always be unanimous support for the use of any given Secretary of State power, and it would be disproportionate to require reporting where a power has been used with widespread, but not unanimous, local support.
The Government greatly value the role that parish and town councils play in bringing forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. Although I understand the intention behind Amendment 197, I cannot accept it, I am afraid. We do not believe that a national, top town review is the right approach. Existing legislation already provides clear routes for establishing new parish and town councils through community governance reviews. These reviews are led locally, are responsive to community identity and ensure that new councils emerge where there is genuine local support. Imposing a duty to maximise geographical coverage would risk forcing parish and town councils on to areas where other neighbourhood governance arrangements may be more appropriate—in urban settings, for example. The Government value the role of parish and town councils; we want to continue working with the sector to support strong, effective, community-led governance, but that does not mean mandating a single model across the country.
It is only fair to point out at this stage that there are about 10,000 parish councils in England and about 100,000 local parish councillors. The sector varies hugely in size from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections, 21.4% of seats were left vacant. Sample data suggests that around 55% of these vacant seats were filled by co-option, which would suggest that 11.7% of seats were co-opted. Of the remainder, 65%, or on the way to two-thirds of seats, were elected uncontested, and 12.8% were elected through a contested poll; this is consistent with the rate of contested elections in previous years, which is why we value the work of town and parish councillors. We have to take into consideration the variety of those authorities and their capacity to fulfil some of the duties with which we want to provide them, so in our view a top-down single model across the country would not work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To go back to the Minister’s comments before he sits down. It is interesting that the Government seem to want one model across the country at higher levels, but not here. Will the Minister acknowledge that it is generally the parish areas and town councils that tend to be wealthier, older communities and it is the most vulnerable communities with less social and financial capital in them that may not be able to prepare themselves for this? However, the Government might identify that there is gap and put in resources to help them.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is a duty to provide that kind of governance in the Bill. All I am trying to say is that there are various kinds of capacity in the 10,000 parish councils and they are not all the same. We cannot approach them in the same way. We know some of them have problems. I come from a shire county in the north-east of England so I know the capacity of parish councils and town councils to do certain jobs. We are well aware of that, and it is something that we obviously want to try and improve, and work with these parish and town councils into the future.
Amendment 252 concerns the powers available to local and combined authorities to promote local economic growth through banking and credit provision. Banking regulation is of systemic national interest. Its implementation must be consistent in applying technical standards, ensuring financial stability and protecting taxpayers. As such, it remains important that banking regulation continues to be considered at the national level as a reserved matter. Local and community banking is already possible within the existing framework, and the UK has a strong record of enabling new entrants to support access to finance. Mutuals, including building societies and credit unions, play a key role in supporting local economic growth. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, with reforms already under way to help mutuals grow and raise capital. Further, through our financial inclusion strategy, the Government are improving access to affordable credit and strengthening community finance partnerships to support people and local economies. As such, the objectives of the proposed review are already addressed by existing initiatives, and I ask noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 93 in my name is about understanding whether devolution is delivering what it promises, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support. The Bill places significant powers in the hands of devolved authorities, which is welcome, but with these powers must come clear and transparent assessment of their impact, not only on governance structures but on outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives.
The amendment seeks to expand the Secretary of State’s reporting requirements to cover four key areas, as I have said: housebuilding, economic growth, fiscal change and social care. These are central tests of success. Are housing targets being met? Are the right homes being delivered in the right places? Is devolution driving growth, et cetera? These are not unreasonable questions; they are essential if Parliament is to judge whether devolution is improving outcomes or delivering value for money and reducing inequalities between different places across our country.
This amendment would not prescribe policy but simply ask the Government to measure, report and be transparent about the consequences of their choice. I have listened to the Minister’s response, but he will not be surprised that I am disappointed. I do not think that using the existing reporting system will necessarily cover things and give us answers on whether these very major changes to local government are a success or whether they need some change. We need to look at this further before Report.
I have not done as much work as I should on parish and town councils, because I know that they will come up in future groupings. However, the one thing that came out of this debate for me, and from one or two of the Government’s responses on different groupings, is that town and parish councils are enshrined in legislation; they have rules. I cannot see anything further in this Bill that would put another type of very local responsible organisation in primary legislation. I would be very worried if there were. These neighbourhood arrangements are not going to be legislative arrangements; they will just be local groupings.
I have seen a lot of how this works in Wiltshire. When we went unitary, we were totally parished; we set up the city of Salisbury as a parish council. However, we also had area boards, which were within our council’s gift. They were where local councillors, police and fire representatives and local council officers got together to discuss local issues. Those boards had small budgets as well. They are very different things, however. I would also suggest that parish councils would work in cities and towns—they do work in some. They work very well in neighbourhoods and, in new developments where there are a large number of houses, they can work, but they want the support of government to work, and some small changes in government policy to make them work. I am not sure that having a parallel neighbourhood arrangement is the correct way to go.
The detail of that is for another debate before this Bill finishes Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and, as I said, we will consider this further and possibly bring something back on Report.
Baroness Janke (LD)
“Secretary of State duty: strategic authority character and consent(1) Before undertaking a function listed in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must discharge the duties described in subsections (3) and (4).(2) The functions are any function carried out by the Secretary of State under—(a) sections 109B and 112B of LDECA 2009 (establishing or adding to a combined authority), as inserted by this Act;(b) section 25A of LURA 2023 (designating a CCA as an established mayoral strategic authority), as inserted by this Act;(c) section 3 of this Act (designating a council as a single foundation strategic authority). (3) The first duty is that the Secretary of State must publish a statement assessing how the following characteristics of the local government areas involved would be affected by the completion of the function—(a) the cohesiveness of the area’s community identity and physical character;(b) the boundaries of other public services in the area.(4) The second duty is that the Secretary of State must obtain consent for the function from any affected local government areas.”
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would place certain requirements on the Secretary of State in the event of significant local government reorganisation. Before the Secretary of State redraws the local government structures, the amendment simply asks for two things: a realistic assessment of the impact on communities and services, and consent from the areas affected.
Local government boundaries are not abstract lines on a map. They shape how people identify with their area, how services are delivered and how effectively different public bodies work together. Ignoring those realities risks creating authorities that may look tidy from Whitehall but feel incoherent and unworkable on the ground. Delivering on strategic decisions is dependent on the successful management of a host of local issues and circumstances underpinning any strategic developments. I mentioned earlier the creation of the regional assemblies, which were the complete antithesis of that and suffered again from this incoherence and inability to deliver on strategic objectives because of a lack of support at local level.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment because it opens up some interesting thoughts. Some years ago, I worked in east London on what had been for many years a dysfunctional housing estate in Tower Hamlets. As some noble Lords will know, Tower Hamlets has, over many years, experienced the dysfunction of local government and services. My work began in a place where nothing was working properly and a small group of us in a local church decided we wanted to be practical and do something about it. We have gained competence in delivering projects, having delivered 1,000 projects over the years. With local residents, we have built our own housing company, which now has 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has about a £2 billion regeneration programme in play. But it did not start like that; it started very small, in a housing estate, where, behind our buildings, there was a local authority park where children were injecting on a night.
At that point, we must have worked through 14 Governments but then the Liberals—not the Liberal Democrats—were running the local authority, and they began to realise that, as a local community group and charity, we had competence in delivering things when so much did not seem to work. All the policies and everything were in place, but things did not work. They started to have a conversation with us—our first small project—about whether we would like to run the local park behind our buildings where children were injecting at night. What happened to us at the other end of the telescope was that we spent six months with the chief executive of the local authority putting together a proper plan, in great detail, for the management of that park, getting to know each other and building relationships, and we got it to a place where we were ready to start.
There was then a council election. At that point, the Liberals had created seven neighbourhoods. They lost the election; the Labour Party won, and it then created seven committees. All the work we had been doing for quite some time was completely lost. It was not the Labour Party’s or anyone else’s fault but, for those of us trying to do something about that park, it was another example of local structures and processes creating massive dysfunction for local people. The terms “community reality” and “place-based knowledge” really matter, and we should not just assume that councillors and others have all the knowledge of such realities.
I have one thought for the Government. There is a real opportunity in this legislation, and I am pleased that they are thinking about this; I am encouraging the process. I gave the officials a document we wrote for Demos during the previous Labour Administration about our work in east London, called Communities in Business. I have had no reply from any of the civil servants about it, but it sets out in some detail some of the work we have done and the thinking behind it. We are not the only people doing this. I now operate across the country and there are other really interesting examples that are led not by councillors or parish councils but by groups of people who come together, put a business logic behind something and deliver a very different kind of culture.
This amendment, and the discussion we had earlier, opens up the opportunity to start to think differently about this stuff and what community empowerment might really mean. Of course it needs to involve government and councillors, but I suggest that it is not just about them; it is about the people in these real places who are often grappling with the machinery of the state, certainly in places such as Tower Hamlets, which has not worked for many years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her Amendment 95A, which is modest but important. It does not seek to block devolution or slow it down unnecessarily. Instead, it asks for two simple safeguards when new strategic authorities are created or altered: transparency and consent. The amendment seeks to strengthen rather than weaken the devolution framework in the Bill and attempt to ensure that strategic authorities are rooted in local identity, coherent service delivery and democratic agreement. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendment and noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This amendment concerns the powers in this Bill for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority and to designate single foundational strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities.
The amendment would require the publication of a statement assessing the impact on community identity and public service boundaries when these powers are used, as well as requiring consent from the affected area. I am pleased to say that the Bill already contains safeguards to address these issues. For example, before conferring functions on a single foundational strategic authority or unitary authority, the Secretary of State must consider the effective exercise of functions for a local area. In addition, local consent is required prior to designation as a single foundational strategic authority.
The Secretary of State may designate an established mayoral strategic authority only if the authority submits a written proposal asking to be so designated. The authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies. Also, the criteria outlined in the English devolution White Paper are clear about the eligibility requirements for a mayoral strategic authority seeking to be designated as established. These criteria are designed to ensure the effective exercise of functions across a local area.
Finally, on the establishment or expansion of combined authorities, the Government have been clear that it is our strong preference and practice to work in partnership with local areas to develop proposals for devolution that carry the broad support of local leaders and the local area. The power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority would only ever be used as a last resort where a local area has not brought forward its own viable proposal. This will ensure that all areas across England are able to benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.
On the establishment or expansion of combined authorities more generally, the Bill already includes the necessary safeguards, including a statutory test to ensure effective and convenient local government across the areas of competence. Furthermore, where the geographical expansion of a combined authority area could affect the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State must consider this before making an order to expand the authority.
I hope that, with this response, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for the response, but I feel that the safeguards he has outlined do not address the potential risks in this Bill. The message that seems to be going out at the moment is that the Government are determined to deliver at any cost. Local communities are very mistrustful that they will listen to them. We have heard a lot about a bonfire of the rules and red tape that many local people see as safeguards and protections for themselves. I am afraid that the safeguards in the Bill are not adequate to reassure people: parish councils are barely mentioned and there does not seem to be much in the Bill about joint vision, mutual self-interest and shared benefits.
This modest amendment would be much more reassuring, particularly for areas that will be amalgamated into large tracts and counties which did not necessarily work well without district councils. For many areas, the loss of district councils is enormous. I do not believe that the safeguards outlined in the Bill address those concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but may come back to it in future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(2A) In the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (f), for “an eligible” substitute “a”, and(b) omit subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence and remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of section 8 of the Localism Act 2011.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here a bit earlier and hearing more of the earlier debate and discussion about parish councils. My amendment seeks to include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence. It would remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011. My rationale for this has, in part, already been mentioned in this Committee by a number of colleagues opposite.
My first experience of local government was the local parish council for the village I grew up in, in Great Bentley in Essex. My mother was not actually a parish councillor, but she was a regular attender, and she was a pain in the neck—a very good and positive one. Part of her thing was trying to persuade the local parish to release part of the village green—it was 40-odd acres, so very large—to have a village hall built on it. They decided in, I think 1970, to conduct a local referendum. She was on one side of the argument, and I was on the green side of the argument; I did not believe they should use common land for a village hall. My side won and my mother held this against me for a number of years afterwards. But it demonstrated to me, at quite a young age, the power and importance of local communities and local community representation.
I borrowed and took some of that thinking into my broader politics over time. I was very pleased when, back in the 1990s as the leader of my local authority in Brighton and Hove, I was able to push ahead with the parishing of one part of our local authority area, Rottingdean, because it enabled the local community there to develop local services. By removing this shackle on parish and town councils, we could enable them to deliver much more. I am one of those people who believes in devolving powers and responsibilities to the lowest possible sustainable level. I think parish councils and town councils are capable of producing services and developing new, useful and valuable close-to-community facilities.
To that end, when I was chair of the Co-op Party commission, I argued that when Labour came into government we should empower parish and town councils, because they are close to the communities that they serve. At the moment, they cannot access funds in the same way as higher tiers of local authority. Back then, I reflected that they could not access the community renewal fund, the levelling-up fund, the towns fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. The same is the story now, of course, while Labour reviews its position on parishes.
In our report back in 2022-23, we made a number of recommendations: we should invest more in that lowest level of governance; parish and town councils should be able to develop amenities and be given the opportunity to develop capital sums; with the development of super-unitary authorities, which we envisaged in our devolution model, the emergence of parish and town councils would be essential to genuinely empower people and communities; and we should invest in training and better servicing of those parishes. That is why I am very attracted to this amendment, which has been valuably drafted by the National Association of Local Councils. With the larger unitaries, we will inevitably lose a sense of place if we are not very careful. That is why helping parish and town councils is so important.
I pick on one particular authority, not because I have anything for or against it—but who knows what Kirklees covers? Local government anoraks might, but people living in Kirklees possibly do not. That is because it is made up of composite urban areas glued together for the convenience of a local authority map. Some of that will inevitably happen when we increase the size of councils to fit into a unitary model. If we are serious about place-making, we need to do all that we can to stimulate more interest in town and parish councils, because the larger the authority, the more remote it is from the citizen and the community.
My tilt at this is contained partly in this amendment. Many of the urban areas that will be brought together in the new unitaries deserve a powerful voice. They deserve to be better integrated into the network of local authorities and to be seen as a powerful partner. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on the Conservative Benches, made that point the other day when he was talking about the inevitability of large authorities, and it was a very important point. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, earlier touched on some of the issues that arose. If we want to be good localist, to value the importance of place-making, and to put more emphasis on that—as we on the Labour side certainly do—we should look again at what local town and parish councils should do and give them the powers and tools to do the job, which they were set up to do many years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for leading this group; I entirely agree with what he says. I hope that we may be able to achieve a further step forward on this when we get to Report. He said many things, but I shall just draw out one of them. In all these changes, we have to avoid decision-making becoming more remote from people. He has a solution, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock had one in a previous group, so I hope that the Government will be willing to explore this further. As I say, we will look at this issue again on Report.
In this group, I have Amendment 241C, which is a probing amendment. I would like the Government to comment on the general power of competence that is being given to English national parks authorities in Clause 73. My amendment would require those authorities to consult communities surrounded by or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact those communities. The need for this review is because the national parks have separate planning powers. Areas bordering or surrounded by a national park need to be given the reassurance that, where there may be an impact on them as a result of a national park’s decision, they have a right to be formally consulted on it. In the context of a new general power of competence, will the consultation actually happen? I think that it must happen, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised about decision-making becoming remote.
Strategic authorities are going to be very large. Many existing local authorities are also very large. The more we have unitary councils, the more that trend will be increased. The right to be consulted matters more than it may have mattered hitherto. As a consequence of that, where a general power of competence is being given to a national park authority in Clause 73, that should be accompanied by a requirement to consult those communities surrounded or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact on those communities. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are prepared to look at this issue further.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.
I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.
I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to whom I am grateful.
Parish councils are the most local level of government. They were based on one of the most ancient forms of local administration in England, namely the parish system, which is still rightly maintained by the established Church of this country. Any Bill that wants to reflect the movement towards localism and protect local geographical identity must, in our opinion, have provisions to empower parishes. Parish councils are often the best places to truly understand local views on issues that face local people, providing insights on planning and enhancing both community well-being and quality of life, with the protection of things such as green spaces, playing fields and allotments. They can pay attention to the little things that matter but from which larger bodies are too distant—or in which they are disinterested.
The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am a vice-president, has highlighted that town and parish councils raise more than £900 million in precepts each year and invest more than £2 billion in communities. I thank all of the approximately 10,000 of these councils in England for the volunteering that they do, their time and their energy; indeed, they put some 14 million hours a year into serving their communities. They deserve more of a place in this Bill. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government are not protecting and strengthening such councils’ roles in this Bill?
On Amendment 241C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising this issue. Clearly, there is a problem, in that some communities that border or surround the national parks have less of a say because they are currently not consulted on matters that affect them. However, I remain somewhat hesitant about how this amendment might work in practice. I will talk to the noble Lord because I would like some further clarification on, for example, how a consultation taking place for the communities in the Peak District might have to involve, say, the city of Sheffield. How large or close would a community have to be in order to be consulted, in other words?
In addition, we would also like to understand, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned, the implications on any authority’s resources and capacity. I am interested in the views of the Minister on that amendment as well. We strongly support giving local people more of a voice, which is what this Bill says it should be doing. But we strongly believe in the role of town and parish councils as a way to get really local voices into local services delivery. I urge the Government to look further at the role of town and parish councils in the new local government model for this country.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bassam’s Amendment 97 would amend Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 so that all parish councils could make full use of the general power of competence. That is a broad enabling power which empowers an authority to do anything that individuals generally may do unless specifically prohibited. Authorities have used the general power of competence in a wide variety of ways. For example, Hertfordshire County Council has used the power to provide the basis for its participation in the local authority mortgage scheme, which supports the local housing market by supporting first-time buyers.
Given the breadth of the general power of competence, it is important that any authority exercising it has appropriate arrangements in place for effective oversight and scrutiny. In particular, where a parish council is to be conferred the general power of competence, it must have the means and capacity to oversee its use responsibly. This is one of the reasons why Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 empowers the Secretary of State to set conditions that must be present before the general power of competence can be conferred on a parish council. I pay tribute to the work of parish and town councils. Coming from a shire county in the north-east of England, I understand the importance of what they do. But, as I said earlier—my noble friend Lord Bassam might not have been here at the time—21% of seats are left vacant on parish and town councils. We have to be careful, if the capacity is not there, about giving the general power of competence over to a parish council. The capacity has to be there for them to use it.
Amendment 241C from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place a duty on national park authorities to consult neighbouring communities when taking decisions to use their general power of competence. This Bill is providing national park authorities with the general power of competence to ensure that our national parks are able to operate more effectively and deliver our national priorities in our most iconic landscapes. Providing national park authorities with the general power of competence brings national parks in line with local authorities. It is not a requirement for local authorities to consult on their use of powers with neighbouring communities, although they may choose to consult on certain decisions if they want to. Imposing such a duty on national park authorities could introduce unnecessary bureaucracy for national parks. The general power of competence is well established and widely understood across the sector, and reduces the need for the Government to issue legal clarifications on new legislative instruments. The national park authorities will remain subject to these same constraints and we see no reason for any divergence from the arrangements already in place for local authorities. I hope that, after these explanations and comments, my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. I think the noble Lord’s primary argument was about a potential lack of capacity at local level and the need to have proper oversight and regulation. I entirely accept that. That is a reasonable point to make, but I do not see why we cannot pursue it further, because those measures can fairly easily be put in place, not least through the more senior level of local government at a unitary or strategic authority level.
I was always very impressed by what town councils deliver. Some deliver quite big services; others get involved in the business of markets and so on. They are not just about park benches and streetlights. They are much more than that. Noble Lords from all parties have made the case that they are at a level of government which is very close to the people. That has great value and they deliver a lot. We should now look, with this larger tier of local governance across the country, including unitaries and so on, to further empower them. This would be a very sensible and practical way of doing it.
In response to the noble Lord’s point about there being vacancies on parish councils, a lot of people who would like to get involved simply think: “Well, what’s the point? It’s just a talking shop”. If we encourage and enable them to develop further, people will come forward. I have always been pretty impressed by the calibre of people who operate on parish and town councils.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but we should have some more debate on this and try to dream up a framework that would enable them to thrive and develop. If we do not do so now, we will need to come back to this tier of governance in the future, to make local government genuinely local.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern the treatment of local partners in the Bill. While the Bill places a duty on strategic authorities to convene local partners and an obligation for those partners to respond, this falls short of meaningful consultation or genuine co-production. Without an additional requirement to engage substantively, Clause 21 risks becoming little more than a tick-box exercise, as the Local Government Association has warned.
Clause 21 will give the mayor of a strategic authority the power to convene, but what matters is that they can get something done. If a body is competent in an area but does not hold the power to make decisions, allocate resources or change delivery, what is the point of convening a discussion? Is the expectation that those with competence will be able to influence those with power, or that power will in time follow competence? Or is the purpose simply information sharing and having a nice cup of tea?
More practically, how do the Government envisage that these convened meetings will lead to tangible outcomes if those around the table lack the authority to act on what is discussed? I raise this not as a criticism of the clause but as a genuine question of intent. This is a very real issue. As chairman of the Local Government Association, councils continually raised with me the difficulties of getting local partners to genuinely work together to deliver for the local area. I am a huge believer in devolution and think that the local area, whether it is a strategic area or a council, will better deliver for its residents than something directed down from Whitehall.
The propensity of partners is to focus on the short term rather than the fundamental long term. I raise a case in point. On health, we all recognise that prevention, early intervention, health hubs, supporting the vulnerable in suitable homes and a co-ordinated approach to hospital discharge are all the right things to do. However, I recall sitting down at a meeting with my local NHS trust chiefs and they said, “We absolutely agree with you, but on Monday morning the chief executive”—the now noble Lord, Lord Stevens—“will ring me and ask: what is my A&E waiting time? How many discharges do I have today? That is why I have to focus on that”. It is therefore important that the priorities for the area are reflected in those partners.
This is also the case, particularly given their role in economic growth and strategic planning, for things such as drainage boards, utility companies, the DWP and the Highways Agency. Their focus is too often on what matters nationally and what their masters in Whitehall are saying. While they are sympathetic, they will focus on those issues, when there is an important duty to focus on the local.
Fundamentally, if meetings and responses do not amount to meaningful action and outcomes, there is not much point. Genuine devolution is about consent and local leadership. It is not about Whitehall and Ministers sitting behind desks mandating how partners should collaborate. These amendments seek to ensure that partnership under this Bill is real, accountable and rooted in local decision-making rather than some centrally imposed obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 237 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for adding their names to it. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, wanted to be here this afternoon; she has not been well this week so, on the Committee’s behalf, I wish her well.
My simple amendment seeks to place a duty on local public service partners to co-operate. Many people believe that the governance system in England has two major flaws. The first is that it is excessively centralised—probably the most centralised in the developed world—which this Bill seeks to address. In my judgment, the second major flaw is that statutory agencies have too often failed to work effectively together, a problem which has been exacerbated by the way in which the state has fragmented over many years. Put simply, we have established ever more agencies—some of them single purpose—in the belief that this would bring sharper focus and greater efficiency. In reality, this fragmentation and lack of collaboration has produced more negative than positive consequences.
For example, it has produced disjointed services which do not align with the needs of ordinary people. They just do not recognise them. It has produced policies and services which overlap and, at worst, conflict. As I shall go on to say, that costs a lot of money. The same lack of collaboration has produced waste, additional cost and a failure to share data and information. That has been most tragically evident in the never-ending cases of child abuse. A lack of sharing data and information is at the core of those tragedies. Fundamentally, it has produced a damaging culture of competition between providers when ordinary folk just want to see collaboration, partnership and co-operation to address their needs.
Down the years, various attempts have been made to tackle this silo working. Central government departments have tried to work in a more joined-up way. Noble Lords must form their own opinions as to whether that has been successful; I think it is a work in progress.
After the local government reorganisation in 1974—and I know that it is difficult for noble Lords to believe that I was there at the time—one or two county authorities appointed liaison officers to encourage closer working between districts and county councils. I was one of those. In 2012, health and well-being boards were established to improve working relationships between health authorities and local authorities, particularly on the subject of social care. More recently, health authorities have set up their own integrated care boards—again, with variable success to date. The last Labour Government championed an initiative, in which again I was pleased to be involved, called Total Place, which was enthusiastically embraced by many local agencies. More than 100 places quickly endorsed the concept of Total Place but, when the Government changed, they decided not to continue with Total Place. Now we have this Bill which, as we have heard, includes provisions for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will attend, again to ensure better co-operation.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.
As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.
The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.
My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.
The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.
I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:
“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.
I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?
I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments on local partners’ co-operation with mayors. This is an important group of amendments. Without this type of local co-operation, devolution will not work, so I take it very seriously.
Amendment 98 would provide for the Mayor of London, instead of the Secretary of State, to define “local partners” for the purposes of Clause 21. Elsewhere in England, it would remain for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “local partners” in regulations. Were this amendment to be made, it would create an immediate inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and the approach taken elsewhere in England. Allowing the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors could not would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all levels. Defining “local partners” in regulations will allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny—I think that is important—will provide a single, coherent definition across England and will ensure that mayors’ power to convene can be clearly understood by both mayors and local partners.
Examples of the types of organisations the regulations may include are those that deliver public services on behalf of, or receive funding from, a mayoral strategic authority; are identifiable as key enablers in statutory strategies; or play a material role in helping a mayoral strategic authority perform its functions within its local area. We are not seeking to define “local partners” in isolation. We are interested in understanding from strategic authorities and their mayors the type of organisations and institutions that should fall under a definition of a “local partner”. We are doing some more work on that with our strategic authorities.
I turn to Amendment 99, which seeks to understand the requirement for local partners to respond to a notification from a mayor of a strategic authority to convene a meeting. Clause 21 provides mayors with a new power to notify local partners of their intention to convene a meeting on a local matter that relates to their areas of competence. It also places a corresponding requirement on any local partner to respond to such a notification. This power is designed to enable mayors to bring the right people around the table, so that partners can work together to tackle shared challenges, seize opportunities for their communities and deliver the best outcomes for local people. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about data sharing was very relevant to this. It is often the lack of ability to share data across organisations that slows down these kinds of collaborative projects.
The requirement on local partners is proportionate and not unduly burdensome. It does not oblige partners to engage beyond acknowledging the notification, nor does it prescribe what steps a local partner must take following any meeting or how they must act. Rather, the requirement is simply to respond to a mayor’s notification. The intention is to promote constructive dialogue even where there may be a difference of view on the relevant local matter. Taken together with the other mayoral powers of competence in this Bill, Clause 21 will strengthen the role of strategic authority mayors, giving them the means to drive growth, foster collaboration and deliver improvements for their communities.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about whether public bodies can require the mayor to attend, the mayor’s role in convening will probably answer that point, but I will reflect on it. If the mayor had a duty to convene people to collaborate on issues, and another body requested a meeting to discuss something like that, it would not seem in the spirit of what is in this Bill for the mayor to decline that invitation. I will take that back and think about it a little more.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 196 and 237 from my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I assure noble Lords that the Government —and I—strongly support the spirit of the amendments: local public service partners and strategic authorities should collaborate to ensure quality, joined-up services for local people. Placing a new, wide-ranging statutory duty on local public service partners to attend meetings; provide information and assistance; and engage with strategic and local authorities in their local area may place an additional and unwarranted burden on these bodies. I, too, remember the Total Place initiative. One thing that got in the way of that was the dialogue between bodies, when they said, “We just do not have the capacity to provide that at the moment”. It caused some friction between some bodies.
As set out in the English devolution White Paper, it is the intention that mayors act as conveners on public service reform. The Bill provides them with the power to do this by granting them a power to convene local partners on their areas of competence, which include health, well-being and public service reform. The Bill places a corresponding duty on local partners to respond to a request by a mayor to meet. It is important to note that this does not place a duty on local partners to agree to particular policies of the mayor or to meet if they do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that this strikes the right balance between giving mayors the tools to drive collaboration, protecting the independence of local partners to act as they think fit and avoiding burdensome duties to which they must adhere.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely useful debate, raising the key issues of the duty to co-operate and co-operation in local areas. As the Bill stands, it places a duty on strategic authorities to convene as partners and an obligation for them to attend. However, as several noble Lords have pointed out, it falls short of requiring meaningful engagement or genuine co-production. Without a clearer expectation of substantive collaboration, there is a real risk, as highlighted by the Local Government Association, that Clause 21 becomes a consultation in form but not in substance.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I believe she said that she agreed with the spirit of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. However, she then seemed to row back a little on implementing them; she had a concern that placing a duty to co-operate on partners would be a burden. As we have all experienced in the past with Total Place and other things, without a solid mechanism in place, we end up with people getting on with what they perceive as their day job and not co-operating together.
I am supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on his amendment, which we were pleased to sign. Our support that one was a balance of judgment; we did so because we thought that the wording was somewhat clearer and easier to interpret, but we readily accept that, at this stage, the precise wording matters less than the principle. I urge the Minister to look again at the principle of whether the Bill, as currently drafted, is strong enough to deliver the whole-area collaboration that devolution both promises and requires.
If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, devolution must mean more than new structures; it must reshape how public sector services work together on the ground. Will the Government, between now and Report, consider how best that principle can be put more firmly into legislation? It is quite clear that, in this Committee today, there is a feeling that greater firmness is needed to make this happen—rather than just having a talking shop, which we have had in the past to some extent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I just want to say at this point that we have one more group to go. I hope that we can finish by 5 pm; otherwise, we will have to split the group and start it half way through next week, which I do not think we want to do.
Clause 22: Duty of mayors to collaborate
Amendment 100
The Earl of Clancarty
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is, broadly speaking, about collaboration in its various forms—not just between mayors but between mayors of other parties, as well as other forms of collaboration.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as that of my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar, for my Amendment 100. It would add “cultural” to the other categories of well-being, alongside “economic” and “social”, for mayors of neighbouring authorities who would like to collaborate with each other over areas of competence; in this context, I interpret “well-being” in a very general sense. I believe it to be logical that this amendment should be accepted if the arts, culture and heritage were to be added as areas of competence.
I support the other amendments in this group. Collaboration across boundaries should be encouraged, both within and outside the strategic authorities. I have added my name to Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I look forward, too, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has to say about citizens’ assemblies.
In support of this amendment, I want to mention something that I probably did not emphasise enough in our debate last week on Amendment 6 and areas of competence but which is particularly relevant to this debate nevertheless: the importance of the arts and the creative industries as a generally well-functioning ecosystem. I say that despite the large and damaging cuts to the arts that we have seen in the past 15 years.
In some ways, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is often said that you tamper with this ecosystem at your peril because of the co-dependence of one part on another. There is considerable crossover in media and skills, as the Minister will appreciate—theatre, film and TV exemplify that—but there is also co-dependence geographically. The grass-roots arts, which are often subsidised, are traditionally where the most interesting, innovative work takes place and influence both what is taking place in London and what goes into London—for instance, into theatres in West End.
This is still true, to a large extent, but London is increasingly not the be-all and end-all of the arts. The way in which the regions negotiate the changes that are taking place—for example, with the new creative hubs—has to be done collaboratively. This is particularly true with such a significant shared cultural asset as Production Park in Wakefield, where “Adolescence”, the hit Netflix drama, was filmed.
It is also important for the regions that the new hubs are not simply colonial outposts of the big entertainment companies. The West and South Yorkshire mayoralties already have a long-standing relationship, which includes a common strategy for developing the skills that are needed to work in the many areas of the creative industries and for doing this regionally, in Yorkshire. This is something that is being fostered at Production Park, which, significantly, has its own educational facilities. There is a growing sense that work can be made in the regions—by local, original creators—that will have national, or even international, exposure. This is very exciting, but it does require mayors to come together.
Other areas of necessary collaboration across strategic authorities include cities of culture. Different regions may be rivals, but there will be much to be learned from previous experience. There are the big events, of course, including music festivals and national cultural events. Mayors should be sharing best practice for every level of cultural activity, from the provision of cultural services and access to the arts by local authorities to commercial opportunities, employment concerns, issues around trade and concerns around touring, including touring abroad. There is also the tourist levy; mayors should certainly be talking to each other about how that will be administered and how the money will be spent.
In some of these suggestions, I am talking about communication between different regions as much as I am about more formal collaboration between authorities that pass the “neighbour test”. The Minister may say that mayors are already collaborating in this area, but it is important to recognise the reality; indeed, where mayors are not talking to each other, talking absolutely needs to be encouraged. There is a real, practical use in treating culture in this context—for all the reasons I am setting out—as a separate, integral and identifiable area. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support. This flows on nicely from what we talked about on smaller-scale collaboration in the previous group. This is all about collaboration across larger geographies. I go back to something that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying in a debate back in 2024 on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions) Bill, as it was at that time. He said that devolution was something that all noble Lords could get behind and support. We would perhaps differ on the means of achieving that but it is, as a principle, something that we should all agree on.
However, by undertaking devolution, as this Bill does, we are creating joins and barriers that were not there before. We therefore need a way in which to create a holistic approach that ensures collaboration across those boundaries. This drives us to more of a pan-regional collaboration, looking at larger geographies such as the north or the Midlands. I give a few examples of why this is important. On inward investment, for example, we have vast pools of capital across the world that are mobile and can invest anywhere in the world. Selling a region and its opportunities is an excellent way in which to focus on bigger opportunities, rather than leaving it to smaller geographies to help bring in that capital and investment. Also, on large-scale infrastructure, transport is a great example. Large-scale rail projects that impact across many strategic authorities need to be considered on a pan-regional basis. I have later amendments on thematic areas such as social mobility policy but one of the key findings from the recent special inquiry committee was that there needed to be bespoke regional approaches to this long-standing problem to fit with the circumstances of each area, and there needs to be better regional co-ordination and collaboration on these approaches.
In the last Parliament, we had pan-regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and Northern Powerhouse that aimed to undertake this collaborative approach across regions. I worked extensively with the Midlands Engine. I founded the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group and led a number of work packages with the organisation, such as chairing the task force, which led to the Midlands Engine Energy Security White Paper. The Midlands Engine operated right across the Midlands region, from the Welsh border to Lincolnshire. It covered all local governments and the 11 million people in that geography, with the explicit aim of closing the gap in economic performance between the Midlands and the rest of the UK.
The economic argument sits at the foundation of all this. There is a persistent economic gap between the regions and the metropolis. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, highlighted this also. You could almost consider the UK as two countries in economic terms. We have a prosperous enclave in London and the south-east, with the rest of the country lagging far behind. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the Government need to focus on catch-up growth in the regions to meet their overall growth ambitions for the UK. I saw at first hand the benefits in the initiatives to join up the work of local authorities and combined authorities for the economic benefits of the Midlands region. So much great work was done, including setting the foundations of the Midlands Rail Hub, which has been taken forward today, large infrastructure investments such as fusion, and investment funds for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I also saw some of the political difficulties in trying to do that with the pan-regional partnership approach. There were challenges in a separate organisation, with the remit it was given, in getting political buy-in on initiatives from a broad range of stakeholders.
In reading the devolution White Paper, I was encouraged by that aspect of the Government’s plans in that they intend to keep pan-regional collaboration going but focus it more around partnerships between mayoral authorities, which could help to resolve some of the difficulties in those separate bodies. I was surprised to see no mention of this approach in the Bill, and to perhaps pre-empt what the Minister will say—I thank her for the meeting we had and the engagement on this amendment—there is of course nothing to stop mayors and authorities creating these convening bodies. There is some progress here already in the Great North partnership, for example. However, the Government do need to play a role in making this happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 102. Before I start, I must tell the Minister that, when I went home from the last session of this Committee, I found my wife watching an old episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Secretary and Treasury Secretary were discussing the threat of real regional government to Whitehall control, and how they needed make sure that some regions were set up sufficiently diversely to ensure that Whitehall and the Treasury maintained control. It deepened my already deep scepticism about whether this Bill will really achieve devolution or not.
Like others, this amendment talks about the problems of making sure that, at the regional and subregional level, we co-ordinate as far as possible. If I understand the purpose of the Bill, we will end up in England with somewhere between 30 and 35 strategic authorities with mayors. In some areas, they will meet the urban conglomerations; in others, they will be artificial, imposed on different counties. I note, however, that the Home Secretary is now proposing that we have in England perhaps some six to eight police authorities. At present, in Yorkshire where we wanted to have a regional single strategic authority, we now have four mayors and four police forces, so it fits relatively well. What the Home Secretary now proposes will tear that apart and make much more difficult again any sense of regional and local democratic control of the police. The next restructure of the NHS might well do something similar on a departmental basis. Can the Minister say how far there is any attempt in Whitehall to make sure that, when restructuring takes place, it does as far as possible attempt to make sure that boundaries coincide rather than cut across each other, as they have so often done?
Nevertheless, we recognise that there will always be different levels at which one has to co-operate. If you live in West Yorkshire, the trans-Pennine region is extremely important. If we ever get round to building Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will probably not be in my lifetime, we will have created a new region which is Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and all those between it. That will require a range of different authorities. The water catchment areas are unavoidably difficult. We have spent ages in my region discussing how far the Humberside region fits into either Yorkshire, Lincolnshire or wherever. There will be a need for co-ordination.
The question I would like to leave with the Minister—perhaps she can come back to us—is this. How, following this restructuring of local and subregional government, will they do their best to ensure that, in the next set of restructuring of other bits of public agencies, we will try as far as we can to recognise that a sense of place and regional identity is fulfilled by ensuring that, where possible, those things coincide?
To finish, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that I once spent a Saturday morning in Huddersfield marketplace—I used to be president of the Huddersfield Liberal association—trying to help people with their vote. At least half of the people who came up to me said, “Can you tell me what constituency I’m in? I do not know”. The constituency boundaries or their names had been changed, which is confusing for local people. It is all part of why public trust in our Government has weakened. The sense of place has also weakened. This Bill should be doing something to improve that, but I rather fear that it does not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 103 and 104 appear under my name. I confess that I can take no credit for drafting them; they started with my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place. I take note of the Whips’ injunction on brevity, so I will largely focus on those two amendments. They may look rather long, with pages and pages, but they have the same injunction repeated three times relative to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and the Greater London Authority Act, so they are actually much shorter than they look.
As the proposed titles state, they would create a duty on mayors to establish a deliberative citizens’ assembly within six months of being elected to inform strategic decision-making. That word “strategic” is important, because we have seen it demonstrated again and again that citizens’ assemblies provide a great way to address the big strategic questions. Proposed new subsection (6) in each amendment states that the mayor must take into account any recommendation made by the assembly, and publish a response.
Assemblies have really taken off up and down the country, if in a very piecemeal fashion—perhaps despite Westminster, rather than because of it. I am holding previous Governments responsible for that, but the current Government now have a chance to turn over a fresh leaf and act towards democracy by encoding citizens’ assemblies in this Bill. The organisation Involve, which has organised many of these, stresses how citizens’ assemblies are a way to
“strengthen legitimacy, foster trust, and solve complex problems”.
As it said in a recent blog post, it is a
“powerful answer to the breakdown in trust in our elected representatives and the wider crisis of democracy”.
Just to give noble Lords a sense of the kinds of government organisations that have been making use of citizens’ assemblies, Involve has organised various events along these lines for Innovate UK, UKRI, the Care Quality Commission and the West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a very long list; that is just a sample of them.
Under different structures and local initiatives, one area where citizens’ assemblies have proved particularly powerful is in looking at climate action. We have seen many local authorities set net-zero targets and communities have got together through citizens’ assemblies to work out how to do that. I take two examples of very different ones. In Kendal, right in the depths of the Covid pandemic, the town council organised a climate change citizens’ jury that was regarded locally as very successful. Then, in another place, very different politically and demographically, there was the Westminster citizens’ climate assembly in 2023. This is something that is taking off, but in a piecemeal fashion. This is a chance to really put a focus on deliberative democracy at the heart of this Bill.
Finally, on citizens’ assemblies, I draw attention to the powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the lead amendment in this group and the really powerful testimony from a group called Citizens for Culture, which is based in the south-west. It talks about championing citizens’ assemblies in terms of arts culture and says that:
“When diverse voices come together to learn, deliberate and decide, it leads to decisions that are more legitimate, more inclusive, and more connected to the lived experience of local people”.
Culture, brought together with a citizens’ assembly, creates a vital space where communities can make meaning, build identities and imagine new futures. I think that expresses the idea very well.
I can see the Whip looking at me so let me just say something about Amendment 104. There are many different amendments, both in this group and in previous groups, about mayors having to work with—in this case—local public service providers and other local government. This amendment would provide one more way of doing that. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that that is a really essential and necessary thing that is missing from the Bill; I am not attached to any particular way of doing it, but this would be one way of doing it.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 196D, which would place a duty on strategic authorities to work with local and community-based bodies when exercising their functions. Devolving powers to the level of the people whom they affect means that effective devolution depends not only on transferring powers from Whitehall but on ensuring that those powers are exercised in partnership with the communities they affect. Without an explicit duty to work with community-based bodies, there is a risk that decision-making becomes remote, technocratic and insufficiently grounded in local reality. This amendment would ensure that parish and town councils are treated not as an afterthought but as partners in governance, helping strategic authorities to understand local conditions, priorities and constraints before they are implemented.
Voluntary and community sector organisations also play a critical role in the delivery of local support and preventive services. They are often hubs of energetic volunteers—people who want both to be involved in their local communities and to bring enthusiasm, energy and drive to local life. Following on from the story of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when I was a member of a community council on the west coast of Scotland, volunteers and members of those communities persuaded the mighty Strathclyde Regional Council to support a town-twinning project and fund it. So you can find examples of this kind of thing all over the country.
I believe that, in all of the powers and strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. Parish and town councils are key players in local communities. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of communities. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies—parish councils—as well as the other essential local groups and agencies that are involved in delivering services at a local level.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
If the arts, culture and heritage are rightly recognised as an area of competence, as the noble Earl argued persuasively they should be, it follows logically that they should also be recognised as a basis for collaboration. Amendment 100 would simply make that explicit, placing culture alongside economic and social well-being as something on which mayors may work together, rather than treating it as incidental or discretionary.
I understand, of course, that the Bill currently frames collaboration as applying between neighbouring strategic authorities. I acknowledge that intention, but I would gently suggest that culture does not always conform neatly to a geography. Cultural ecosystems are interdependent in ways that often cut across administrative boundaries and sometimes beyond immediate neighbours; that is not an argument against the structure of the Bill but a reflection of how culture functions on the ground.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke powerfully about cultural ecosystems, and I agree with him entirely. They are both geographically and economically interdependent. Grass-roots venues feed major institutions. Studios, rehearsal spaces and local festivals sustain the pipeline of skills on which national and international success depends. As is well known, cultural infrastructure —including libraries, museums, theatres, music venues, studios and heritage sites—acts as a form of civic glue, regenerating high streets, anchoring communities and driving wider economic activity.
We already see good practice emerging. Manchester and Liverpool, for example, have used accommodation-based visitor charges through business improvement districts to reinvest in culture, the public realm and visitor services. Although these schemes are imperfect, they demonstrate how locally controlled funding can support cultural ecosystems in a way that aligns the interests of residents, visitors and the hospitality sector. In that context, I very much look forward to seeing how the tourism levy evolves and how it can best support this kind of joined-up cultural ambition.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 100. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for their knowledge in this sphere. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referencing West and South Yorkshire in this regard. I place on record how impressive Screen Yorkshire is, as well as the Rural Arts Centre in Thirsk that I mentioned previously. I am all in favour of collaboration in the areas of competence, arts and culture; they have a tremendous role to play for young people coming on to the scene.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I fully support what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said. To some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on the issue that I wanted to raise about a broader meaning of the word culture. Culture is used to bring people together and bring social cohesion. It is a deliberate action taken by people to build and deepen democratic behaviours and citizenship. I want to register that much broader meaning of the word culture, because if we can use culture as a vehicle for bringing people together, that good practice can be used across regions, which will be beneficial. I elaborated the reasons for that in my previous comments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be quick, given the time. This has been a useful debate. I am sympathetic to the principle behind Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Culture really is the glue that glues local areas together. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, because collaboration across boundaries is very important. In a similar manner, Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is both sensible and welcome, recognising again that economic activity, trade and so on cross boundaries and that we need to establish mechanisms to ensure co-operation.
Moving on, Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, follows the same theme. I shall also refer to “Yes, Prime Minister”, because I watched the same episode. I noted that Sir Humphrey had a huge concern that devolving things to local councils would actually lead to real delivery; his solution was to create a whole series of bureaucratic, cross-regional structures to ensure that nothing happened. That is why I am slightly concerned about this amendment producing additional layers of bureaucracy and additional planning boards that will potentially duplicate or confuse. Although we agree with the thrust behind this amendment, additional bureaucracy is something that makes us feel a little uncomfortable and a bit nervous—hence my referring to the Sir Humphrey situation.
I turn to Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am a huge believer in democracy. We should elect people and trust them to get on with the job; if they do not get on with the job, they should be booted out when the next election comes around. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that mayors, councils and so on should engage with their residents and listen to what they have to say—depending on what the subject is and where the place is, that may take a variety of forms —but I am hugely concerned about setting up self-appointed, unelected bodies that then hold democratic bodies to account. I just do not feel that that is the right way round; people should engage, but that engagement should be based on democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sorry but I must interrupt the noble Lord, if he will allow me one second. He said “self-appointed”; the whole idea of people’s assemblies is that they are a representative group of people usually chosen by lottery, lot or similar.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I will take back what the noble Baroness says. In this case, my point is that a random unelected body is not the same as an elected body. I genuinely think that democracy is important. If you wish to engage, you probably need to be a bit more nuanced in whom you engage with, because it should not be random; it should be those people who can really give you the feedback and information you need, depending on the subject and the place. Take central Bedfordshire, for example: a random 100 people from across central Bedfordshire will not be particularly helpful when we are discussing what is happening in my own little village of Maulden; I would rather discuss it with the residents of Maulden.
With that, I shall move on. This debate has made it clear that collaboration is important—in many cases, essential. I hope that it will be taken seriously by the Minister and that she will come back with some flexibility later on in the Bill’s passage.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that we have been pressing on time; the Hansard team and other officers were here until very late last night and we do not want to put them under any further pressure.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Janke, for their amendments on the duty to collaborate. I shall start with Amendment 100, for which I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I completely understand the intention behind this amendment—we have now had many discussions on this issue—but we ultimately think that it is unnecessary, as cultural well-being is captured in the current wording of Clause 22.
Culture underpins our creative and visitor economies; in this way, cultural activity is inherently captured in the meaning of
“economic, social or environmental well-being”.
The formulation is intentionally wide so that mayors can request collaboration on a broad range of matters; it is also intended to avoid an exhaustive or prospective list. Adding “cultural” risks undermining that approach and creating pressure to enumerate further dimensions of well-being without delivering any substantive new effect. Indeed, explicitly singling culture out could invite arguments that other aspects of well-being that are not listed are of lesser importance, or that cultural interests should be interpreted narrowly or separately from economic, social or environmental considerations.
Mayors of strategic authorities can, and already do, collaborate on cultural matters. The Mayors of South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire have come together to sign the White Rose Agreement, committing to work together on high-profile culture and sporting events and to celebrate Yorkshire’s heritage. I hope that the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who raised the issue of culture have been reassured by my agreement to reflect on how culture is treated in the competency framework.
I turn to Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which seeks to promote greater regional collaboration between mayors and other public and private partners. The Government agree with the value and benefits of regional collaboration. However, while the amendment is well intentioned, we do not think it is necessary. Strategic authorities and their mayors already have a wide range of mechanisms to collaborate across administrative boundaries, and several mayors are already doing so successfully. We heard some examples from the noble Lord.
The powers in Clause 22 are not intended to replace the wide range of positive and informal collaboration that already takes place. They are intended to supplement these existing mechanisms and strengthen mayoral leadership by providing a more formal route for cross-boundary pan-regional collaboration where this can improve outcomes for communities. However, it should be for mayors to decide for themselves how to use these powers rather than for the Government to prescribe or constrain the purposes and form that mayoral collaboration must take. More broadly, under existing legislation, combined authorities and combined county authorities can already enter into joint committees, allowing them to discharge certain powers together and jointly produce legislative documents such as spatial development strategies.
I turn to Amendment 102 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; this is not from Sir Humphrey, but from me—I am passionate about devolution and am not letting anyone get in the way of that; it is good programme, though, and I like it. This amendment would require strategic authorities to prepare joint strategic development plans, covering two or more strategic authority areas in certain circumstances. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment to join up strategic authorities, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. We already have broadly equivalent powers as a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. New Section 12B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the 2025 Act, enables the Secretary of State to require authorities to work together on spatial development strategies through the establishment of a strategic planning board. The Government intend to use these powers, in particular in areas without a combined authority or a combined county authority. The same Act gives the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in relation to the preparation and adoption of spatial development strategies.
It is worth highlighting that, where strategic planning authorities are working on separate spatial development strategies, they are required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, to have regard to the need to be consistent with current national policies. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out strong expectations on authorities to work effectively across local government boundaries.
I turn to Amendment 103. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for raising the importance of citizen engagement in local decision-making. The Government fully agree that residents should have meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions that affect their areas. However, as the locally elected leaders in their regions, mayors should have the ability to decide on how best to engage with their local communities. Mayors can convene citizens’ assemblies if they wish to, and, in places such as South Yorkshire, mayors have decided to use these powers. Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have general powers of competence conferred automatically on them, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so.
Finally, the Bill already includes a provision in this area. Clause 60 introduces a neighbourhood governance duty, requiring all local authorities to put in place arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance. That will ensure that communities have meaningful opportunities to inform and influence local decisions.
I turn to Amendment 104, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 196, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Both seek to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities work closely with their local authorities, public service providers and bodies representing local communities in town and parish councils. I recognise the spirit in which these amendments have been made. It is important for all mayors to engage with the wider public sector and the local authority family in delivering their own functions. However, strategic authorities are already expected, through existing legislation and provisions in this Bill, to work collaboratively with local partners and communities when exercising their functions.
Amendment 104 in particular would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities by placing a new duty requiring them to meet local authorities, public service providers and town and parish councils. As an illustration, North Yorkshire alone compromises 729 individual parishes, organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor to discharge this proposed duty in respect of each body would be impractical and may crowd out some of the time needed for the officer’s other strategic responsibilities. Parish and town councils continue to be supported in their work, and local authorities are strongly encouraged to work with them to understand the contribution they are able to make to the delivery of local services and the management of local assets.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply and will be very brief. I thank noble Lords for their support for my amendment.
The point about the word “cultural” is that it has an important integrity. If we do not have it then something significant will be lost, because what it embraces will get shared out among other things.
Finally, the great theme in this debate has been a plea for greater flexibility and collaboration. I agree with so much of what your Lordships have said in that regard. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.