English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing this 371-page Bill. I declare an interest as a deputy lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I am well aware of the high regard in which the Minister is rightly held in our county, across the political spectrum.

Noble Lords may wonder why the Government are pushing for more elected mayors while, at the same time, forcing areas that still operate under a two-tier system to switch to a single-tier system. This move involves dismantling traditional counties and creating new unitary councils. On the one hand, the Government claim that two-tier local governments are bad, because people feel remote from decision-making—hence the push for unitary councils; on the other, they seek to impose new second-tier authorities in the form of strategic mayoral authorities through a top-down approach.

The closest level of local government to communities are town and parish councils, which deserve more attention, especially after the abolition of district councils. If the aim to replace county councils with smaller unitary councils is to bring decision-making closer to communities, why are the Government transferring powers to larger strategic authorities? Moreover, the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including the authority to create new strategic authorities and mayors without local councils’ consent.

I know that the Minister loves Hertfordshire, but I am concerned that the implications of unitarisation and the break-up of counties are not fully understood. The word “unitary” is horrible. I regret the destruction of our historic counties. Philip Larkin wrote in his 1972 poem “Going, Going”:

“And that will be England gone,

The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,

The guildhalls, the carved choirs”.

The guildhalls are going, including the magnificent County Hall in Hertford, where I recently attended a mayor-making ceremony. I wonder what Larkin would say about the ongoing local government reorganisation.

The Minister argues that the identity of traditional counties will not be affected by the move to unitaries. I am far from convinced. As a child, I remember that Sussex was thought of as one county but, after the Local Government Act 1972, even the lord-lieutenant’s and high sheriff’s offices were replaced by appointments for East and West Sussex. The historic counties of England were established by the Normans for administrative purposes. They have also helped to define local culture and identity. Stripped of any relevance to local government, the so-called ceremonial counties will gradually be confined to the history books and lose their practical relevance. If counties such as Wiltshire, Dorset and Buckinghamshire can basically remain as single counties, why cannot Hertfordshire and Essex?

Aside from the significant extra costs involved in setting up a new tier of local government, I am sceptical that there will be any savings from this reorganisation. Many councillors who support it do so for political not administrative reasons. Hertfordshire has been well managed as a county and the old adage—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—should apply in this case. The Government seem to lack understanding of the importance of community identity or of the function of history and political geography. I believe that we proceed with this compulsory reorganisation at our peril.

The argument that people do not understand where decisions are made between county and district councils is not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The new strategic authorities created by the Bill will control most of the funding and services, such as police, fire, social care and NHS. This means that decisions affecting residents will be taken further away from communities, not closer, as the Government claim. Does the Minister believe that people will understand the complex web of new authorities—CAs, CCAs, SAs, MSAs, FSAs, EMSAs, et cetera? Most people could understand the difference between district and county councils, but the confusion began when districts stopped calling themselves district councils. I suspect that, in the future, people will have much less understanding of where crucial decisions are made.

Councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, has stated that mayors should not undermine the role of councils but work with them to drive growth, build infrastructure and deliver better local services. However, it is clear that the creation of mayors will significantly diminish the role of councils, which are undergoing expensive and unwanted restructuring at the same time. This has the makings of a disaster, particularly in the absence of strong leadership to manage such a large-scale reorganisation.

A recent headline from the Bishop’s Stortford Independent about the “dog’s dinner” of the plans for new authorities sums up the situation well. The Conservative group at Hertfordshire County Council staged a walkout on 19 November, because it was given no option to vote against all three proposed options for unitary councils. I agree with Councillor Nick Cox of the Green Party, who said that Labour’s plans are

“a coup against local democracy delivered with a smile and a flow chart … We are asked to choose between two, three, or four unitaries. That’s like asking the passengers to vote on the band’s encore when the Titanic is already sinking”.

There is a credible alternative—a single county-wide unitary authority, with as much power devolved to local town and parish councils as possible. Even in districts where the majority of councillors support one of the three proposed options, there is widespread doubt about any savings and concern about the disruption that this will cause to vital services such as social care. Some councillors fear years of chaos as new structures bed in. Anyone who believes that breaking up the county’s £1.7 billion highways deal into smaller contracts will lead to savings is mistaken.

In conclusion, the Government’s plans for local government reorganisation are fraught with risks. They undermine both local identity and efficient governance, and they add unnecessary complexity and costs without delivering any clear benefits. I look forward to working with others to persuade the Government to reconsider their approach before it is too late.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting set of amendments so far, but what strikes me about them is that they all seem to run counter to the principle of election—be that either direct or indirect election—and we need to be very careful about that.

I have given notice to oppose that Clause 9 stands part of the Bill for two reasons. First, elections are important for public posts that require the expenditure of large sums of public money. I believe that most of those positions should be elected. Secondly, there is a huge absence of detail in the proposal within new paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 for the appointment and scrutiny of commissioners.

The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 74 states that commissioners will be,

“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”.

I have difficulty understanding quite how they will be independent if they are made by and accountable to the mayor and function, as the Explanatory Notes explain in the same paragraph, as “extensions of the mayor”. Can the Minister say in what way they are independent and why “independent” does not appear in this paragraph? The Explanatory Notes then state:

“Commissioners would not replace elected members”—


and there has already been a debate about that as part of this group, but they then say that areas—whatever an area is defined as—will,

“have the freedom to use a combination of commissioners and elected members to lead on different areas depending on what works best for them”.

Will the Minister say who makes the decision about whether elected members have the capacity to lead an area of competence, whether that decision made by the mayor alone and will the appointment of commissioners be public appointments, subject to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the posts will be advertised and subject to equal opportunities legislation. Will there be an agreed job description and a person specification? Will there be competitive interviews or is it all a matter, in practice, for mayoral patronage? Will councillors of constituent councils be able to scrutinise the full-time commissioners—for they are full-time appointments—that the mayor may decide to appoint?

Schedule 3 states that:

“The mayor must determine the terms and conditions of a person’s appointment as a commissioner”.


Can the Minister tell us what scrutiny is planned about what those terms and conditions actually are?

We should just note that the appointment of a commissioner will end when the mayor’s term of office comes to an end. That means that a mayor who decides to resign will cause all the commissioners they have appointed to lose their jobs, which are, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, full-time jobs. It seems that the clear implication of the wording of the Bill is that if a mayor was to quit the post, all those appointed by the mayor would have to leave. I seek the Minister’s clarification of that point, for that is my reading of Clause 9 and Schedule 3.

I have noted that commissioners cannot approve local growth plans, local transport plans or spatial development strategy, but they are writing them, planning them and will be advising the mayor on them. I understand the formality of a decision to approve a plan, but what the plan is and how it has got there will clearly be heavily dependent upon the commissioner.

I understand that:

“The mayor must obtain the consent of the CCA to any arrangement for a commissioner to exercise a function”,


but does that extend to the appointments process itself? I wonder why there is no discussion by the Government of using the professional expertise of local government officers. So, not only are the Government dispensing with the ballot box in terms of any form of direct election to strategic authorities, but they are simply leaving an election of a mayor, following which we simply have a world of appointments. I am very concerned about what that means. I ask myself, “Whatever happened to the primacy of the ballot box?” because commissioners will not be elected, so voters will have no say in their appointment because the electorate will elect a only mayor and will have no role after that. Indeed, unlike with a Member of Parliament, the electorate will have no power of recall of a mayor.

We then have Amendment 196A in this group on special advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about them, but I have not understood the difference between a full-time commissioner and a special adviser. The noble Lord talked about a special adviser having professional expertise. I understand that professional advice is needed—of course it is—but I have not understood what is wrong with professional local government officers, with their expertise in the areas that might, at the moment, be proposed for a commissioner.

There are a lot of very important questions for the Minister to answer. The level of expenditure has been mentioned twice so far this afternoon, and the consequent level of the precept, which might then be high. We must be really careful about this and not duplicate. I remember, because I was around when metropolitan counties were abolished and we moved to joint boards, that the expertise in each of the areas of concern we have proposed was held by an individual local authority that had a lot of officers dealing with that specific policy area on behalf of everybody else. The joint boards had councillors; I was privileged to serve as a councillor on a number of those joint boards at different times.

I just do not think that the Government have gone far enough in examining how to deliver some of their proposals on, say, local transport, which used to function in Tyne and Wear with a joint board. What exactly is the problem with that? As I said last week, I fear that we have upwards mission drift in this Bill, taking powers away from established local government. I believe that to be true, but I also think that we are in danger of reinventing processes that have previously worked pretty well. I do not think that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 can stand here without us challenging what the Government intend to do because there is already a demand in this group for us to have yet more commissioners.

I am, by the way, in favour of culture’s status being raised—it is absolutely correct to do that—but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that every area of concern should have a commissioner. Indeed, that is not the Minister’s proposal. The Government are not proposing that that should happen because there will be a mixture of commissioners, with the elected leaders of the councils of the combined authority and the strategic authority.

I shall stop there, but I hope that the Minister can allay some of my concerns around the failure of the Bill to have anything worth reading in it and with nearly everything that is going to happen next coming in the form of guidance. As I said last week, I would be happier if I knew a little more about what the Government are thinking in terms of guidance.

With that, I shall respond at some point when we come to the right moment, but I very much hope that the Minister will take on board some of my comments.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said. I have been unhappy with much of Clause 9 since I first read it, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends have to say about it, because they have also added their names to the intention from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to oppose the Question that the clause stands part.