LGA submission to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, Committee Stage

The Local Government Association (LGA) is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. 

We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils, so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

The LGA seeks to amend this clause to see culture (arts, heritage and libraries), tourism, and creative industries (as defined in the Industrial Strategy) recognised on a national footing as drivers of the local economy, of place-based development and of wellbeing through the form of an additional competency. These sectors contribute to national and regional growth, and this should be formally reflected within the devolution framework. 

This additional competency would empower Mayors, working in partnership with constituent authorities, to identify strategic collaborations at a regional level, taking account of any sub-sector regional specialisms or strengths (such as screen industries or tourism). It is crucial that this competency complements, not duplicates, the existing duties and responsibilities held by local government. It would assist those six Mayoral SAs to invest the devolved £150 million Creative Places Growth Fund, and the Tees Valley Creative Investment Zone funding, as announced in the Industrial Strategy. Constituent authorities would remain responsible for place-based cultural strategy and delivery, tailored to local needs and opportunities.  

Local safeguards to decision-making

Whilst the LGA recognises the need for effective decision-making, and we see the value in part in introducing more standardised voting requirements, we are concerned at the prospect of moving to simple majority voting in MSAs.  

In most instances, the Government's support for simple-majority voting is predicated upon a tied proposal being taken as disagreed. However, they have set out circumstances where a Mayor may be granted a second, casting vote in such scenarios: this includes Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) and Local Transport Plans (LTP). This would disproportionately impact CAs with an even number of voting members, and could mean that a strategic proposal is determined with the majority of local authorities in disagreement. 

We believe that there is a need for safeguards in decision-making.  

We recognise that the appointment of commissioners could add sector-specific value to SAs’ vision-setting.  

Commissioners will fulfil a significant role in new strategic authorities and should be held to the same high standards as others in public life. There is potential that following LGR, in some SAs there could be fewer constituent councils than commissioners, given the mayor’s power to appoint a commissioner for each area of competence. The LGA feels that as elected leaders of places, representing communities and residents, councils should be at the forefront of regional decision making and delivery. There must therefore be adequate safeguards surrounding the role of commissioners and their potential influence on the SA. 

Commissioners should be explicitly in scope of anticipated reforms to the standards regime for local authorities, creating a common standard of conduct and behaviour for all those in public life in local and regional government. This will ensure appointed commissioners fulfil their role whilst providing accountability to the public, given they are unelected but will have a significant mandate for change in regions.  

Whilst the LGA welcomes the safeguards set out in the Bill to enable removal of commissioners, the threshold by which the SA can agree this decision is too high. The LGA seeks to amend Schedule 3 paragraph 10, by which the SA overview and scrutiny committee and then board can recommend the termination of a commissioner’s appointment, reducing the threshold for the latter from a two thirds majority to a simple majority. This decision should be in line with other decision-making principles included in the Bill for effective governance and scrutiny. 

The LGA are concerned about the name ‘commissioner’ used in the legislation, as this has negative associations for councils to the role of government commissioners appointed to take over some or all of a council’s functions when it is facing severe financial or operational difficulties. The LGA suggests a change in name to move away from the potential optics of an external expert entering an SA and usurping the role of constituent elected local leaders.  

The LGA believes in genuine devolution, which means giving local areas the powers and tools to shape their own futures, including the ability to raise and control resources. The LGA calls for meaningful fiscal devolution, so that authorities have the tools and resources to match their responsibilities and respond to local challenges.  

As a first step, the LGA supports introducing within the EDCEB a clause empowering local areas to implement a tourist levy, should they choose, which enables councils to invest in the local services, infrastructure, and amenities that support the UK’s valuable tourist economy. 

The LGA supports a place-based approach to services, and the success of SAs relies on councils, communities and public services working together with Mayors in true partnership. Central government should be explicit that it expects public services to engage in place-based collaboration. 

The best examples of combined authority working have been founded on a willingness to work collectively and an acceptance that conflict is natural and that safe spaces will be provided to air differences. 

The LGA supports amending this clause to introduce a reciprocal duty to cooperate on all public service partners in an area with both the SA and local government, which pushes places to use the powers they already have to build local partnerships. This duty would embed best practice around cooperation which already exists at a neighbourhood, local and regional level, into statute. The duty to collaborate should be supported by an approach to regulation that includes a ‘whole place’ view of public services. 

Whilst we remain supportive of tools which may help to speed up housebuilding and infrastructure delivery, omitting section 61DC(3) and (4) of the 1990 Act, which requires local planning authority consent before the preparation and consultation on a mayoral development order, removes an important layer of democratic and local accountability and knowledge. Local authorities remain best placed to make decisions related to development of their area.  

The LGA supports retaining the requirement for local planning authority consent. This further underlines the importance of the LGA’s suggested amendments to clause 6, which would preserve the important role of constituent councils in decision-making. 

The bill rightly highlights the importance of mayors in promoting positive health outcomes and tackling health inequalities, through consideration of a wide range of determinants for health and broad scope for action. However, the LGA believes this duty is missing a crucial element: requiring the NHS to collaborate with SAs.  

The LGA supports amending this clause to include a statutory duty on the NHS and health partners to collaborate with the SA in the exercise of this duty. Without this, it is hard to see how mayors will be able to command much attention from a vast health service operating on different boundaries. The LGA calls for join up across the system with reciprocal statutory duties to collaborate from integral partners in the health and wellbeing space.  

The LGA advocates for an amendment to this clause to follow the York and North Yorkshire Combination order which gives the option of appointing a Deputy Mayor of Fire or a Fire Committee to oversee decision-making. The North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Panel continues to operate as a statutory scrutiny body, with functions including: 

The LGA supports amending this clause to ensure clear, strong and appropriate scrutiny arrangements supporting the delivery of fire services with clear lines of accountability for senior officers in the service. 

The LGA seeks clarity in legislation regarding the governance of policing and fire and rescue services, particularly in areas moving toward greater devolution. 

It is important that any changes to how mayors exercise these functions are based on local agreement, maintain clear lines of accountability and do not lead to fragmentation or disruption of existing partnership arrangements.  

Where combined authorities are seeking to integrate fire and policing functions under a mayor, this should be underpinned by transparent and focussed governance arrangements, effective local scrutiny, clear lines of accountability for officers with appropriate and dedicated funding to support delivery and oversight.   

The LGA will continue to support areas to ensure that any transfer of functions enhances local leadership and improves outcomes for residents, whilst recognising that governance models may vary depending on local context. 

The LGA recognises that Mayors require flexibility in shaping their local governance arrangements. However, it is equally important that the public can see clear lines of accountability. There must also be parity between fire and police governance. Where Mayors hold both fire and police powers, they should have the option to appoint either separate deputies for each service or a joint deputy covering both. These roles should remain distinct from, and not be conflated with, or duplicated by, Public Safety Commissioners. In some areas, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and Deputy Mayors already oversee both police and fire functions. 

The LGA supports this clause and welcomes the opportunity for EMSAs to seek further devolution to their areas. The LGA has called for government departments to adopt a ‘devolution first’ principle, embedding a culture of thinking local across Whitehall. It is therefore right that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to respond to proposals for further devolution and provide reasons for their decision.  

The LGA calls for this clause to be broader than just requesting additional powers. We seek amendment to enable EMSAs to request additional areas of competence to be added to the framework for devolution set out in clause 2. This should be included in the guidance that the Secretary of State is required to produce on the formal request process. 

The English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) set out commitments to empower SAs to act on climate change and the environment, including in helping deliver the Warm Homes Plan, the Local Power Plan and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.  

The LGA seeks to expand the environment competency within the Bill to respond to national adaptation and mitigation ambitions and include further detail on empowerment for local action on climate change and the environment.   

This is a priority for local government, and an area where local approaches can achieve significantly better outcomes for less cost, as has been demonstrated by Government-funded research.  

The LGA seeks to transpose commitments set out in the English Devolution White Paper into the EDCEB on environment, energy generation and energy systems, and Warm Homes into the Bill with similar levels of detail as included for other competencies.  

The LGA also seeks statutory duties and powers for local authorities, along with sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action. Over the coming months the LGA will undertake further analysis on the duties and set out our next steps for developing detailed, evidenced, and costed proposals for this. The LGA would welcome the opportunity to work with government to shape these duties and powers. 

Under existing legislation, councils must maintain two registers that include councillors’ home addresses. Under Clause 100G of the Local Government Act 1972, councils are required to maintain a register of the names and addresses of members and co-opted members on council committees and subcommittees. This list must be available for the public to inspect. Under Clause 29 of the Localism Act 2011, monitoring officers must maintain a register of members' interests, including pecuniary interests, which will usually include home addresses of members and their spouses within the local authority area. This register must be available for the public to inspect and published on the website. There is provision for councillors' home addresses to be withheld from the public register of interests as a sensitive interest; however, the legislation does not provide for councillors to proactively withhold their address. 

The Government has committed to removing the requirement for members’ home addresses to be published. The LGA would support amendments to the EDCEB to address this issue for multiple practical, safety and wellbeing reasons. This could be achieved relatively easily through amendments to the EDCE Bill to require councils not to publish the home address of members or those whom they live with in a public register. 

Local authorities will already have a committee whose functions include those of an audit committee. The proposed legislation formalises this and aligns the requirements and functions of councils with those already in place for Combined Authorities.  

If independent members are to be mandated, this needs to handled carefully, and the LGA seeks clarity through the legislation or statutory guidance on what constitutes 'independent', the appropriate skill requirements, renumeration levels and a solution for those authorities who are unable to recruit suitable local capacity, potentially through a national pool. 

The current and future viability of high streets and town centres is a priority for almost all councils. For most areas, the solutions lie in creating the conditions for a strong local economy and having the right size and blend of businesses, private and public services and residential that will create footfall to maintain vibrancy and help sustain the high street as an important economic and social asset. It is important that the commercial rental market supports this. 

However, whilst a ban on upward-only rent reviews for new leases may appear to help keep rents down and therefore more attractive to businesses; there is concern with potentially unintended consequences of the long-term viability and attractiveness to investors and developers. This includes for councils, many of which are significant landlords in their high streets. It is helpful that existing leases, including those with council landlords, will continue to operate under their existing terms, including any rent review clauses. 

We therefore call on the Government, before introducing any new legislation, to consult widely and collect evidence on: