English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[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 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.

--- Later in debate ---

These are small amendments. They are about making sure that mayors can operate effectively, with clear remits; have strong relationships with councils; and have unambiguous lines of responsibility. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept them, and I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

98: Clause 21, page 23, leave out lines 27 to 29
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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 98 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.