English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.

I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be here at the previous sittings—I had clashes of different obligations in the Lords last week.

I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lady Pinnock called the structural consistency issue. In preparing for the speech that I am going to make on Amendment 195, in the past few days I have read through a number of recent reports, including Labour Party as well as government and parliamentary reports on the governance of England, and I am struck with the frequency with which everyone from Gordon Brown through to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee say that one thing that we should be aiming for is consistency in the boundaries of different authorities so that, as far as possible, they coincide and the question of accountability is therefore relatively clear.

I was therefore struck when the Ministry of Justice produced a White Paper on policing that suggests that we might change the current structure of police forces in England—in Yorkshire that at least now coincides with the four mayors—by perhaps six to eight police authorities, which would not coincide at all with the 30 to 35 strategic authorities that we are heading towards in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.

Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.

If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Have the implications of the strategic defence review been taken into account in all this? Chapter 6 of the defence review talks about the need to mobilise a “whole-of-society approach” in response to the threats we now face, in which there will be more volunteer firemen and police, and civilian rescue will be expanded. That means that volunteers at the local level have to feel confident. If decisions will be taken a long way away at the top, I suspect we have not yet thought through how we will get the sort of volunteers and local resilience we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment.

To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen.

As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time.

I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions.

I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job.

It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help.

I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall.

Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more.

On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”.

So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I totally share his view, and we will come on to that matter in the next group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for what he said, which was important. I am sure that the Minister, through this grid that the Government are now producing, might clarify what is happening in terms of delivery as opposed to simply the powers.

On a previous day in Committee, I spoke about there being powers, responsibilities and resources in devolution. They are not the same thing. So I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that many more powers could well be devolved, alongside the responsibilities for delivering the powers, without the resources to do the job. The point was well made by the noble Lord; I thank him for that. A little more will be said on this in our debate on the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, drew our attention to Greater Manchester and the improvements in the health system. Since the decision was made to devolve some responsibilities in health to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its mayor, I have always regarded it as a pilot of what we should all be doing. It is now for the Government to double-check all of the figures produced on improvements in public health and to assess whether, having had devolution, the resources have been provided to match the responsibilities and powers devolved—and, at the same time, to assess whether the achievements and outcomes in Greater Manchester are better than what has been secured elsewhere where there is no devolution.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said something that was terribly important to me: the NHS cannot be run by a central command and control system. We learned that during the Covid epidemic, but it is more than that. You cannot run 56 million people in England out of Whitehall and Westminster. The noble Lord helped us a lot by saying that what is to be devolved is a national decision and how it is to be delivered is a local decision.

I therefore come back to the grid that the Government are producing. It should now have a “what?” and a “how?”. Some greater meaning to the word “devolution” can then be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, in the end, without greater fiscal responsibilities and powers, you do not have devolution—you have decentralisation. I think I recall making that point at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, because it is so very true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to kick off this group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leaving at this crucial moment. I know that there are lots of other people with amendments here, so I will not dwell too long on what I want to say. On my amendment, I believe it is reasonable and genuinely important that, before new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority has a credible plan to improve local services, drive efficiency and deliver better value for money.

I was going to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she seems to have dashed off as well. I confess that I was a little saddened on the first day of Committee, when I thought I could perhaps work with the Lib Dems, but they were not able to support one of my amendments that follows this vein. Given the breakout of love on that last group, I hope I can get their support. That was on Amendment 12, which sought to ensure that people receive the best possible service on the ground as part of that intended reorganisation. As I say, this is my second attempt to win them over.

I genuinely believe that, if we do not build in something along the lines of what I suggest in this amendment, we are effectively just rubber-stamping the creation of swathes of new authorities without requiring them first to demonstrate that they will spend the public’s money well, and without any obligation to show that things will improve. To be clear, my amendment here simply states that, when we create these new authorities—which we are in this Bill—we should do so with the taxpayer front and centre. After all, surely one of the main tenets of devolution is that not only do people have a greater say but they have a better service in their local area based upon local desire and need.

As part of the process of reorganisation, I am saying here that new authorities must develop a plan as part of that reorganisation, because I genuinely do not believe that there is any point in going through all this reorganisation, with all the costs, energy, rebadging, delays of elections, hirings and firings—you name it—if there is no guarantee or even a requirement or plan for services to improve as a result. I say to my Lib Dem amigos that, although their argument against my past amendment was that it was not in the vein of the Bill, if they feel this is not the right Bill, let us try to work together to make it better. Let us try to put devolution in and put local people front and centre.

If we are choosing to impose this system on the people, which we are, we have a responsibility to make sure that it works for them. It is worth stressing that point: we are forcing devolution on to the people—rightly or wrongly, whatever noble Lords’ views—so we have a duty of care, in my view. There is no choice in this matter. In this Bill, we are ultimately giving a blank cheque, with respect, to the Government, so I do not think there can be a credible objection to saying that we owe it to the people that services should improve before we do so. If the power to create these entities lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, surely he or she has a duty of care to ensure that what will now appear across the land will deliver and look after the people in those communities.

As I said on day one, we cannot trust that this will all be fine. Some local authorities are already working well and, for those people in those authorities, perhaps things will continue to work well or even improve. However, when we are forcing authorities to combine with perhaps less well-performing authorities, we again have a duty to the people on the ground before these changes happen. It forces everyone involved to deliver and to work up a plan in advance.

Finally, and briefly, I will not name names but it was suggested in Committee that, because I have worked in Downing Street, I perhaps have very skewed views when it comes to devolution. I do not. I assure the Whip that I am not going to err into a Second Reading speech, but my real concern with this entire Bill is that it completely misjudges what I think people want. For context, I grew up in a working-class family in a terraced house in East Lancs. It was a long time ago, but there were some issues and those issues remain. In many northern towns, there are some deep and real issues. Twenty years ago, there was some scepticism of politics and how London dominated everything—this was in Lancashire by the way, the right side of the border—and things needed to be fixed, yet nothing changed.

That feeling has grown. However, that desire for change does not, in my view, equate to local government reorganisation, nor wanting mayors for mayors’ sake. Respectfully, the reason I say that is, if we look at the polls and at what focus groups say—I will not be the first to say this—if we go outside Westminster, there is a world between what we think people think and what they actually think. People are not clamouring right now for tinkering, nor are the masses out there with their pitchforks demanding local government reorganisation, but there is a building, growing unease. It has not happened overnight or certainly not solely under this Government, but people are struggling. They are feeling ignored and let down, and they want things fixed.

I give one quick example. The other day, I stumbled across the Electoral Commission’s 2025 public attitude report—I highly recommend it—which states that:

“More people now believe Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules”.


A little later, it goes on:

“Support among Labour supporters rose from 27% to 38% following Labour’s victory”.


It has other breakdowns for other parties as well, but I will not go into that. To me, what that shows is exasperation. People want things fixed; they want things to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is sadly not in her place, talked about my views on levelling up. I worked for the guy who coined that phrase. We can have a debate about whether he did any good or not on that specific issue, but levelling up does not always mean devolution—certainly not this version. One of the many things that used to drive me into an absolute rage when I worked in Downing Street was that, whenever many in Westminster talked of devolution, it always felt that it was more Westminster, not devolution. The answer to everything seemed to be more structure, more governance and more politicians. We seem always to overlook the crucial thing, which is the people themselves. It is they who want things fixed and to work and, in my view, that is what levelling up is. That is also why I think we need to put something into this Bill that helps to deliver it and puts the people front and centre. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 187. There is a fair amount of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—on both sides of the Pennines—about the nature of the problems. This is not a devolution Bill; it is a decentralisation Bill. The Government believe that delivery is what matters but have not yet understood that, unless the people on the ground are helped to understand why delivery is difficult and that they have some part in seeing what is delivered and in helping with delivery, they will not feel that it is them.

My amendment therefore starts from the need to re-establish public trust in the delivery of government on the ground, at the local level and, therefore, to provide a degree of financial transparency. Unless we have a more transparent process of fiscal negotiation about the distribution of funds between central and local government, we cannot succeed in improving the governance of England or in gaining the acceptance of people outside London and the south-east that the governance of England is fair.

There is a deep sense of disillusionment across the north of England that people have been neglected, that London does not understand them and that the Civil Service in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, has grown in the last 15 years while local government has languished and, in many cases, faced bankruptcy. The city of Bradford is not yet bankrupt but is struggling on the brink of it. We have to explain to local people why the services they used to have are no longer being provided. I challenge the Minister to explain how devolution, which helps to resolve the enormous crisis we have with public trust in our democratic politics, can take place without a more visible process of fiscal devolution, without beginning to reform local taxation and without Ministers as well as local council leaders explaining to their public what is and is not possible in strict financial terms.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 190 in my name would place an obligation on the Government to introduce devolved fiscal and revenue-raising powers within 12 months of the introduction of the Act. Fiscal devolution is the transfer of financial powers and responsibilities from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise and manage their own revenue and tailor tax policies and spending to meet local needs and ambitions.

The UK is widely recognised as having the most centralised system in the world. The dead hand of the Treasury is firmly on the purse strings, holding back local potential, opportunities and energies. Overcentralisation has held back regional economic growth and increased regional inequalities. Vast numbers of reports have been written on this subject, urging central government to empower local government by devolving powers close to the people they affect. Charities and think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation, the LGA, the Centre for Cities, Core Cities and many more have produced well-evidenced reports as to how financial devolution could empower the UK’s communities to boost economic growth and greater public participation in governance, but progress has so far been extremely slow.

There are many ways in which fiscal devolution could be achieved in England. Evidence from other countries demonstrates effective and achievable systems in such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland. Measures include raising direct tax revenues, expanding the tax base, taking a proportion of locally levied income tax, placing different conditions on business rates and making council tax a buoyant and progressive local tax, which it certainly is not at the moment. There is ample evidence available for the successful introduction of fiscal devolution in England. There are many advantages, such as democratic accountability and voter turnout at elections. Anybody who has ever campaigned in local elections will have experienced the challenge of persuading people to go out and vote when they understand that virtually all the funding comes directly from central government. “What is the point of it?”, they ask, when their hopes and aspirations are slapped down because of no funding coming from central government, only more cuts.

Economic dynamism benefits enormously from fiscal devolution in that the regions and cities of the UK are able to take actions that add to economic strength, such as attracting inward investment, job creation, skills training and development of specific infrastructure such as transport that enable more locally focused dynamic economic activities. There is also greater transparency and clarity. My colleague talked about the loss of trust among the public, part of which is because of the perception by many voters that money just goes into a great big hole: it comes from central government and they have no influence over how it is spent or raised. If they had more involvement there would be much greater trust and participation in local governance, which is a vital factor in the delivery of key projects.

The Government claim that the Bill will provide devolution and empowerment, but clearly it will keep firm central control over the finances. Funds are allocated from Whitehall, and mayors continue to be local outposts of central government who are responsible, in essence, for ensuring that central government policy is delivered at a local level. As my colleagues here have said, unless revenue-raising powers and financial powers are devolved, this is not devolution but decentralisation, and opportunities are likely to be lost: the opportunity to underpin local powers with real financial powers and responsibilities, and the opportunity to give people hope and optimism that they can achieve their local ambitions, with a realistic chance of them being financed, and improve their local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to clarify something. You cannot compare Salisbury as it is now to Salisbury as it was before as a district council. It was a far larger area; it was Sailsbury and south Wiltshire, not just Salisbury city.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am staggered at the thought of a parish council with a population over 50,000; it does not make sense to me. I am also staggered at the thought that, if we are talking about getting back to place-based communities, we are denying to places the size of Scarborough or Harrogate, both of which I know well and which have or used to have important assets, in conference centres and major hotels, the sense of local community or parish, thus increasing the sense for most of our public of total alienation from the politics that we are providing them with.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I just explain to the noble Lord that a parish council is a name given to parishes, towns and cities? It all comes under the same legislation as parishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Shipley have had to leave for another engagement, leaving me, a non-expert on climate change, to comment from this side. It is particularly important to put this in the Bill when we stop to think that, after next May, there will be rather more local councils that are run by members of a party that does not really believe in climate change. Indeed, within the next year or two we may have a number of mayors who also hold to climate-sceptic views.

We recognise—particularly after last month, when Aberdeen, for example, had 31 days in which it rained for part or all of the day; and when flood warnings are now out across substantial parts of England, Scotland and Wales—that we have some real problems and that they have to be faced at the local as well as the national level. I come back to the point I made earlier about the strategic defence review’s reference to a whole-society approach, galvanising local volunteers and people who need training as part-timers and volunteers in dealing with civilian rescues. We see that already and we need more. If we are to have that, it has to be local councils and not just combined authorities that help to respond.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell left me with a note that says how valuable it is to collect the sort of biodiversity record that is required, but that the climate emergency UK scorecard, with its 93 questions across seven sections, threatens to overwhelm the ability of local councils to record what is required. So yet again, one needs volunteers. One needs to engage people.

My deep scepticism about the Bill is that it seems to me to be taking government further away from local people, which would make it more difficult to engage volunteers and others in local democracy, and thus make the whole problem of the governance of England much more difficult. Having said that, I very much support these amendments and hope that the Minister will take them into account before we come to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

195: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“English Local Government Council(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a national body called the English Local Government Council.(2) The general functions of the Council are to—(a) to represent English local government in matters relating to devolution,(b) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power to English local government (“the Devolution Framework”),(c) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(d) to identify a representative or representatives of the English Local Government Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.(3) The members of the Council are—(a) a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority to represent the combined local authority in the proceedings of the Council, and(b) the Mayor of London.(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about the operation of the Council.(5) The Regulations must, in particular, make provision about—(a) staffing of the Council,(b) proceedings of the Council,(c) accounting and other record-keeping by the Council,(d) publication of proceedings of the Council, and(e) publication of guidance and advice by the Council.(6) In making regulations the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) provide for transitional arrangements to ensure that upper-tier authorities that are not part of a combined local authority are represented in the Council,(b) allow for weighting of the voting power of strategic authorities to account for combined local authorities having different population sizes, and(c) require the Mayor of London to consult with representatives of London authorities in performing functions as a member of the Council.(7) Members of the Council must pay annual fees to the Council, which must be set by the Secretary of State in regulations.(8) The Secretary of State must pay the costs of the establishment and maintenance of the Council, except in so far as those costs are met from annual fees.(9) Regulations made under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and(b) may include incidental, consequential or transitional provision.”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Bill about local government reform, but it is also a constitutional Bill. It is about the structure of governance within the UK and in particular in England. Perhaps I should say by way of introduction that I have had some very helpful advice in preparing this amendment from John Denham and Sir David Lidington, so in some ways, this is a cross-party amendment, and it is a matter of much concern to those who are thinking about the structure of the UK and how it holds together. I have also looked at the report from the Labour Party’s commission on the UK’s future, from December 2022, three and a half years ago, which strongly recommended a statutory council of England. I have also looked at various reports from the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has reported on the governance of England on a number of occasions in the past five years.

There is now a Mayoral Council for England, which I gather has met five or six times since the last election. It does not have statutory powers. Currently, it has the 14 elected mayors on it, and when we have gone all mayoral it will have some 30 to 35 when complete. I heard Andy Burnham talking 10 days ago about how well it has operated since the last election.

That takes us back to early intergovernmental relations, when, in 1998, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales were set up and relations between central government and the devolved authorities began to operate in a relatively informal way. The intergovernmental framework worked very well when you had Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales and a Labour Government in London, and began to work very badly when you had different parties in power in those countries. I say that by way of emphasis, because we are facing a situation in which, after May this year, we may well have different Governments in power in Scotland and Wales, and we will certainly have some different parties in power in parts of England. The question of how we manage that and how, if we really believe in devolution, we set up some means of bargaining negotiation between those who represent devolved authorities and central government, matters a great deal. If we want to make it work, we have to talk about the place of the Mayoral Council for England and give it proper authority to operate.

I remind noble Lords that we had these various intergovernmental councils under the previous three Governments. I note that under Conservative authority, we even set up joint executive committees to negotiate on the Barnett formula. The Joint Exchequer Committee for Scotland last met in June 2022; the Joint Exchequer Committee for Wales was created shortly before the Wales Act 2014 received Royal Assent and last met in October 2016. That is what happens if you have only informal and non-statutory arrangements.

The complexities of intergovernmental relations across the UK also include the British-Irish Council, which now has not only a north-south body but an east-west body on relations between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. From what I have heard from talking to Scots involved with this, it is clear to me that the Scots will not accept 35 mayors from England as representing England alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish on the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, I am afraid, is simply a rebadging of the old intergovernmental conference. Gordon Brown’s image of what the Council of the Nations and Regions should be was a great deal more ambitious than what we now have, and it was absolutely a statutory body. It is a sad reflection of how timid this Government are on all matters of political and constitutional reform that so much that was valuable in Gordon Brown’s report has so far not even been discussed further, let alone put into action.

We want the Mayoral Council for England and the Council of the Nations and Regions to be able to negotiate, bargain and hold the Government to account. We also want government departments in London to have to negotiate with and take into account the views of these sub-regional authorities that we will be creating. I was talking to another noble Peer who is actively engaged in this today who said that they regretted the regional centres of government, because it meant that those in the regions could get together with central civil servants and talk through some of the relations and regional areas of policy with them.

We have many more civil servants in London than we had 15 years ago, and we have fewer local government civil servants. That is the sort of thing that we clearly need to have. The purpose of my amendment is to say that we need some degree of clarity within the Government on the role of the Mayoral Council for England and how that governance arrangement for England fits in with the governance arrangements for the UK as a whole. This will become a much more difficult matter once we no longer have Labour Governments and Labour mayors as the majority, and we will therefore need statutory functions and statutory status to make sure that they continue to meet, argue and, one hopes, co-operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.

This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.

I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.

It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am of course entirely willing to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to stress that this is a very important point. We are about to enter another difficult period in which we have no idea how this year’s elections will come out and which parties will be in control in different parts of the United Kingdom, and in which the relationship between the devolved authorities and what is intended to be the stronger combined authorities within England will come under some strain.

What happened between 2015 and 2024 is that these things did not work well and, in many cases, they ceased to meet. We do not want that to happen again. If this proposal for stronger mayoral authorities is to work, we need to make sure that it fits into the governance of the United Kingdom. If it is to work, the institutions, not just the Council of the Nations and Regions but also the Mayoral Council for England, need to have a good deal more power than the LGA has in standing up to central government—and, as in most other democracies, they need to have some sense of how one bargains over fiscal redistribution. One of the central aspects of the German federal system is the bargaining over how money is distributed between the centre and the richer and poorer regions. That is something that we need to do in England as well—it is done a certain amount between the devolved authorities and the United Kingdom. I speak as someone from northern England, and we are always deeply conscious of the fact that we do not manage to bargain with central government about that.

I would be very grateful if the Minister would have further conversations off the floor before Report, because otherwise we will want to push the issue that the Mayoral Council in some shape or other must be given statutory authority. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.