English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the arts, creative industries, cultural services and heritage as an area of competence for strategic authorities.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 6 would rectify what is, at present, a significant omission from the list of areas of competence: cultural concerns. Amendment 51 is intended to ensure that this area has its own commissioner. I share Amendment 52 with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on a related subject; they both wish to change 7 persons to 8 persons.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar for their support. I welcome the discussions I have had with Culture Commons. I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing and its support for this amendment. I support my noble friend Lady Prashar’s amendment, which has very similar intentions to my own, and look forward to her contributions as well as those of others.

I have given some thought about how this area of competence should be titled. I believe that certain cultural concerns need to be specified at this level in the Bill to know more precisely what it is we are discussing. In this, I have taken my cue from the Government, who, in talking about education, for instance, refer directly to “skills and employment support” as an area of competence, as currently listed in paragraph (b) of Clause 2.

The arts, including our theatres, art centres and more, and cultural services, including museums, libraries and more, provide what is termed the local cultural infrastructure. It is an infrastructure that, traditionally, local authorities have funded in significant part without a great deal of thought about commercial return, even though we know from countless Arts Council studies how much such investment is repaid many times over. It is therefore about funding—the funding that has survived—for the social good and the provision of a civic necessity. This is an infrastructure that, between 2009 and 2024, according to a report produced by the University of Warwick for the Campaign for the Arts, has suffered over 50% in cuts, as the Minister is well aware.

It could be argued that, without the statutory provision afforded by the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, the losses would have been even worse. This is specifically an aspect over which the mayor should have oversight because of the importance not just of economic growth but of cultural growth to a region—of course, one informs the other. Some of our councils, such as the one in Birmingham, are in dire straits in that respect. The first thing that needs to happen, irrespective of this legislation, is for this sector of the arts and cultural services to be properly funded again.

It is also true that there are a minority of councils where arts funding is virtually zero, and where councils have unforgivably said, “If you want the arts, take the train into London and go and watch a play in the West End”. The arts need to be supported—and in every local area, because local areas make up regions. That is why local growth plans, and the mapping of our arts and cultural ecosystem, are important. Despite the cuts, local authorities—and indeed district councils—are still hugely important as a mechanism for funding, not least because they have the local knowledge.

The arts are also slightly different from the more commercialised end of the creative industries. As I say, all regions should be seeking to support the arts, but not necessarily all the more commercialised creative industries, since certain localities or regions will or should be developing their own industries, such as in film or TV, gaming, digital and tech. The Local Government Association briefing helpfully points to the creative places growth fund and the Tees Valley creative investment zone as examples of these specifically industrial concerns and sources of funding, which of course are important in their own right—as is tourism, in relation to our arts and heritage. I support what my noble friend Lord Freyberg said on the previous group about the use of what will be large sums from the tourism levy for cultural purposes. If the moneys are used in this way, they will return to hospitality through making our cultural attractions even more attractive.

But tourism and cultural concerns are separate issues. Tourism drags in a lot of other things, including transport, for instance. It is important then to make the distinctions that I have made in this amendment between the arts, the creative industries, cultural services and heritage, for quite practical reasons because of the strong subtext of the Bill—one might almost say supertext —which is economic growth. There is the danger that, in the drive for growth through the creative industries, we lose sight of the importance of our basic cultural infrastructure and the importance of a region’s cultural as well as economic growth. The mayor should be as concerned about that existing infrastructure as having an effective creative industry strategy. Both of course are important and will feed into each other.

From this area of competence other things flow, whether or not they are formalised legislatively. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the treatment of cultural assets and local growth plans, in connection with amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and myself. As I said, I have tabled Culture Commons’s recommendation of a cultural ecosystem map, which would be hugely helpful. I have mentioned art centres and theatres already, but increasingly assets such as artists’ studios, grass-roots music venues and recording studios, some of which used to be able to thrive commercially, are under threat and require state intervention if we want to hold on to them. Where there are real concerns and gaps, mayors should be able to appeal formally to central government.

Finally, this should be an area of competence because every strategic authority should have these concerns. Not every mayor will have the experience or natural inclination of a Tracy Brabin, of course, but they should have the framework in which to act. I have two questions for the Minister. Does she believe that such cultural concerns should be an area of competence? I do not believe that it overlaps with any other area of competence. Secondly, if so, what does she understand as the responsibilities of a strategic authority in this respect? I have presented my argument, but I am open to other opinions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I shall also speak to my amendment, which is simpler. As I go through my remarks, noble Lords will see the rationale for my amendment. It is clear that the Bill strengthens the architecture for economic growth. It stops short of embedding cultural and heritage ecosystems within this framework and it does not provide a clear mechanism through which MHCLG, DCMS and DSIT and their arm’s-length bodies can work collaboratively with strategic authorities. It leaves the very sectors, culture and heritage, which are the lifeblood of civic life, which encourage engagement by communities and which are a crucial part of the creative industries’ ecosystem, outside the formal machinery of devolution.

Cultural heritage, in my view, needs to be part of the core toolkit for mayors, since devolution is more than just economic growth. If this new architecture is to work, civic and cultural capabilities, which are the connective tissue of local life, have to thrive, so we need to create spaces where intercultural dialogue can take place.

Intercultural dialogue is not just a slogan but a bridge builder, where an ongoing practice of listening, understanding and negotiating difference to sustain social cohesion prevails for people to meet across boundaries, build trust, shape a shared sense of purpose and see themselves as part of a common story. Culture can be a powerful lever, used properly, to avoid the balkanisation of communities and arrest the intensification of difference in an era where identity politics are rife.

As we begin to develop a more robust regional tier of governance, we must ensure that the aims of fostering understanding and strengthening social bonds are woven into the strategic functions and that this change is seen as an opportunity for genuinely building social inclusion, not social division. I would argue that social cohesion matters for our national security, because we need to ensure that local devolution will help to harness national cohesion. This amendment will, in my view, go a long way in helping to ensure that there is deliberate engagement to coalesce around common issues that deepen what are called democratic behaviours and citizenship.

This amendment will not impose any fiscal or bureaucratic burdens but will ensure that culture and heritage sit alongside other competences. We need national economic renewal, but we also need social renewal. These measures as a whole will build trust and a sense of belonging. I am aware that culture and heritage are often characterised as cross-cutting issues, but the same could be said of other competences. It is because they sit across so many parts of people’s lives that they should not be left to discretionary treatment but should be integrated purposefully into the remit of this Bill.

This amendment is not just an adornment but is foundational and will give human meaning to structural changes. I also want to make it clear that this amendment is not prescriptive about scale, timing or configuration, because it will be rightly worked through by mayors with central government. I hope that the amendment will be looked at sympathetically and I thank Culture Commons for the support that it has provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I am grateful for all the support across the Committee that my noble friend Lady Prashar and I have had for our amendments. I am disappointed by the Minister’s initial response. I am very happy to meet her; it is essential that we do so between now and Report.

I will pick up on a couple of points. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, mentioned education, which is so important. We are basically saying that we have an area of competence that has its own identity; it is not covered by anything else. I am not sure whether, for “local infrastructure”—which is the competence in paragraph (a)—the first thing that people will think about are the arts. There is a massive danger that local arts will get forgotten in favour of the commercialised end of the creative industries. That worries me more than anything else.

My noble friend Lady Prashar spoke about social cohesion, which is an important part of this. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, talked out the transformation of cities. This amendment would have a huge effect on cities. Having this as its own area of competence would make a massive difference; it would be a game-changer in how strategic local authorities and the public look at the legislation when it becomes an Act. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendments and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of spatial development strategies in the new devolution framework.

Amendment 45 would require strategic planning authorities to identify the policies in their spatial development strategies that are of strategic importance to address the local growth priorities identified in local growth plans. I very much agree with the need for spatial development strategies properly to address the priorities identified in local growth plans where they are of strategic importance to the area, such as the issues that the noble Lord mentioned around skills and infrastructure. There is an expectation in the revised NPPF that that is exactly what will happen.

The Planning and Infrastructure Act, to which the noble Lord also referred—we recently sat through many hours of debate on it—requires strategic planning authorities to have regard to any plan or strategy they have published. This would include a local growth plan. In the draft revised NPPF, which was published just before Christmas, we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans, and that would include all of the issues mentioned by the noble Lord. We also set out in the draft revised NPPF that spatial development strategies should be tested against national policy when they are examined; that will include the industrial strategy, for example, and will shine a light on whether they are meeting the expectations we have of the SDS.

A number of Peers spoke to Amendment 46. I say to my noble friend Lady Young that I found her extrapolation of this through to losing lots of elections in May and then having a whole reshuffle a bit depressing. I hope that will not happen, and I also hope that my noble friend will have a wander through one of her new forests and cheer herself up a bit. Amendment 46 would require a strategic planning authority to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan and the land use framework for England while preparing a spatial development strategy.

I absolutely agree with noble Lords on the importance of these national documents relating to land use and the environment. The provisions detailing the required content of spatial development strategies and the factors to be taken into account in their preparation were introduced less than two months ago in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, following very thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary to revisit or amend these requirements before they have even had a chance to be tested in practice. The documents in question are expected to inform the drafting of national planning policies, and strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with the current policy.

For example, if we found that the land use framework or the environmental improvement plan were being ignored in strategic development strategies, we would keep that under review. Should any gaps or misalignments emerge between strategic development strategies and these documents, we can consider future changes to the National Planning Policy Framework or planning practice guidance, or even secondary legislation to ensure that they are taken into account in preparing an SDS.

A number of noble Lords asked questions on the publication of the land use framework, which I know is eagerly awaited. The Government consulted on land use in England from January to April last year. The responses, as well as the feedback from supporting workshops that have been held since, are being analysed. The responses will inform the preparation of the land use framework. I cannot give noble Lords an exact publication date today, I am afraid, but I know that my colleagues in Defra want to publish it as quickly as possible.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about regional plans, I used to be on the regional assembly, so I sat thought the entire process of the east of England regional plan; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, did so as well, I believe. There were a lot of lessons to be learned from those regional plans, particularly around the co-ordination of data and so on, and I know that officials in the department have taken into consideration how that was done. We need to reflect carefully on those experiences and how they fit in with what we are about to do with strategic development strategies.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about London. The London plan sits outside this Bill, I think, but there is an expectation on London boroughs that this will be done. Indeed, my own borough is quite a way outside London—well, 28 miles; we are in Hertfordshire, so not that far—and we were consulted on the London plan as part of the Ring Around London consultation.

On my noble friend Lady Young’s question about the local nature recovery strategies, it is a requirement that SDSs take account of those; indeed, the London plan has to take account of local nature recovery strategies as well.

Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would require mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to set out in their local growth plan what is needed in spatial and infrastructure terms to realise the economic growth opportunities presented in the plan. As with Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I agree with the need to ensure that places are identifying these needs. Local growth plans will be required to set out an economic overview of their area, shared priorities agreed with the Government, and a pipeline of investment opportunities. Where infra- structure or development presents a relevant investment opportunity, we would expect it to be included in that pipeline. We are clear that local growth plans should provide an overarching framework for growth, identifying actions and investment that can drive economic growth and productivity.

But, when it comes to addressing the spatial implications of local growth plans and identifying the development and infrastructure needs for realising growth, the right vehicle is the spatial development strategy. That is why we set out that spatial development strategies should give spatial expression to strategic elements of local growth plans when we published our proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we will come to local growth plans and culture. Can the Minister confirm that the spatial development strategies will include cultural growth as something to look at?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said before, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Before I speak to my Amendment 221, I will discuss this group more broadly. As my noble friend the Minister has demonstrated, local government is better placed than Whitehall to understand the possibilities of local regeneration and strategic planning; place-based regeneration that is owned and directed by local people; effective skills training for local high-GDP jobs in emerging local industries; industry relevance coupled with creative thinking; and creativity, which is the linking of ideas to technique. As my noble friend said, what is important is politics being done with communities, not to them. Every child should have access to quality green space, clean air and a creative education. Who can plan better the walking pram distance to a school than a local parent or carer?

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on spatial planning, my years as chair of economic development in Liverpool City Council came flooding back. I know that Liverpool City Region is looking forward to the opportunities of tourism tax, and indeed we should consider whether this will work and how it can go further. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, advocated so convincingly last week, devolution done well should and can build social cohesion and inclusion. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that culture may be considered as a competence.

Having represented combined local authorities in the European Parliament, I have had the pleasure of witnessing how devolved strategic government can mobilise regeneration, growth and job creation, and provide better access to public services, including affordable and—I hope—accessible green transport. The only way forward with hydrogen is green. I firmly believe that no city, town or rural community should be left behind, as has sadly been the case so far. We must afford these opportunities of well-audited devolution further and create an exchange of practice between regions and sub-regions to share learning, both on what is good and on where to avoid mistakes.

Amendment 221 is technical but also practical, widening the pool from which an elected mayor can appoint a deputy mayor. Current rules tightly limit who a regional mayor can appoint as deputy: only members of their cabinet, except for exceptional circumstances—that is, the leaders of the constituent local authorities. This new clause would amend Section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority’s members of the combined or strategic authority, thus widening the pool both of choice, and, as others have said, expertise. Among the wide opportunities afforded by the Bill, I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider this.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be quite brief and will make a point of principle to start with. If something is important enough to be an additional area of competence, it should have a dedicated commissioner to go with it, which is in line with what the Government have done so far. I say that at the outset.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has given us an intriguing, rather creative amendment in terms of flexibility, but I have a couple of concerns. I know that the noble Lord is an enlightened individual arts-wise, who I am sure would like to see—like me—the arts, culture and heritage thrive in the new strategic areas. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I pointed out last week in the debate on my Amendment 6, not all councils are quite so enlightened. Even if every mayor was conscientious enough today to ensure that their strategic authority did everything it could for the arts, culture and heritage—I say this simply as an example of an area of concern rather than competence—there is no guarantee that those who follow would have the same commitment unless there was a statutory commitment. This is very much in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, was saying earlier. I very much support Amendment 51A in her name, and the other amendments that she proposed as well.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly support the amendments in this group that seek to remove the cap on the number of commissioners and the appointment of special advisers. In doing so, I restate my support for Amendments 6, 10 and 51 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to add the arts and culture as an area of competence, which would allow a modest increase in the number of commissioners from seven to eight.

I fully recognise that the Government wish to maintain a coherent and settled devolution framework, to limit additional costs that such appointments would incur and to exercise caution around unelected roles. Here I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to those numerous and very important questions.

I also accept the argument that further powers may be pursued within the existing areas of competence. That said, the question here is one of governance rather than architecture. A small degree of flexibility in the commissional model, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, have argued for, would allow mayors to organise their leadership teams and their advisers in ways that reflect local priorities and circumstances without altering the framework itself.

Different regions face very different challenges: a dense metropolitan authority and a largely rural combined county authority may reasonably require different internal arrangements. For those reasons, I generally support these amendments and the flexibility they seek to introduce.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

100: Clause 22, page 25, line 38, after “social” insert “, cultural”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, many public service providers will be commissioned and contract-managed by local authorities. Superimposing a parallel mayoral duty would blur lines of accountability, cut across established commissioning arrangements, and risk duplication, confusion and delays. With these explanations, I hope the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[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.

Amendment 100 withdrawn.