English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley]

76: Clause 16, page 20, line 7, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland”
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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.