Amendment tabled by Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat) which would prevent a combined county authority (CCA) becoming dominated by one of its constituent members.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. We support greater devolution across England, and welcome that new county combined authorities provide options for devolution for non-metropolitan areas.
- This amendment would prevent a combined authority becoming dominated by one of its constituent members, and mean that CCAs would have to have equal representation from each of its member councils.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour), which would seek to prove how the CCA boundaries will intersect with other boundaries, such as those of police forces and NHS trusts.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. It provides an opportunity to discuss the impact of the rollout of ICSs on the potential for future health devolution.
- Evidence from the Greater Manchester Population Health Plan update shows significant health benefits for local residents following the devolution of health and social care. This includes a substantial increase in school readiness and a smoking prevalence rate falling twice as fast as the national average.
- We would welcome further information from Government about how they envisage further devolution of health or police and crime commissioner powers working where geographies are not coterminous.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour), which would ensure regulation relating to constitutional arrangements of CCAs can only be made after consultation with the CCA.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. It ensures that changes to constitutional arrangements of a CCA would not happen without discussion with, and ideally agreement from the CCA. CCAs should not be forced to change their constitutional arrangements against their will by central government.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour), which would mean a non-constituent member ceases to be a member when they form part of a different CCA.
LGA view
- We oppose this amendment. Local areas should be able to ‘look both ways’ i.e. be a non-constituent member of more than one authority if they have close economic or cultural ties with more than one combined authority or devolution deal area.
- This amendment would also set a precedent contrary to the current plans for the City of York, which is currently a non-constituent member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, but become a full member of the new York and North Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour), which would mean that a CCA can request regulations are introduced in relation to them.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. It gives CCAs greater flexibility and ability to ask Government to vary their constitutional arrangements based on what works best at a local level.
Two amendments tabled by Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat), that would ensure that the CCA cannot refuse to publish a report of an overview and scrutiny committee and this would prevent a CCA from restricting the work of an overview and scrutiny committee without good reason.
LGA view
- We support these amendments. They empower overview and scrutiny committees to effectively scrutinise the work of CCAs, and prevent a CCA from refusing to publish or refusing to allow an overview and scrutiny committee to carry out their work.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour), which would seek ensure that a CCA may request that the Secretary of State publishes an assessment of their funding, including in relation to any new functions.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. We support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders, but these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding for services. This amendment would ensure that an assessment can be made and published of the funding of new functions that have been devolved – although we would prefer it if this was independent, rather than carried out by the Secretary of State.
Amendment tabled by Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat), that aims to enhance public confidence in the audit process by increasing the number of independent people on the audit committee.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. The use of independent co-opted members on audit committees is a good thing. They can be helpful in providing expertise and capacity which supports elected members of audit committees in achieving assurance.
- Having multiple co-optees enables them to have complementary skills. (eg finance, risk management, governance)
- The constitutional rules should still require the majority of audit committee members to be elected members. This is for two reasons (a) audit committees are fulfilling a role delegated by elected members in general who are jointly and severally ‘those charged with governance’, and (b) elected members represent the community and are in a unique position not enjoyed by independent co-optees to understand what the concerns of local people are in relation to assurance. (For similar ideally audit committee chairs ought to be elected representatives).
- Auditors have sometimes told us that co-opted members get too much deference from elected members of the committee and do all the talking. That is another reason for making sure that the meeting dynamic is essentially one of elected representatives supported by co-optees.
- The issue of remuneration arises. The more demand there is for co-optees, the more likely it will be necessary to pay higher stipends for their services.
- It is sometimes said that there is insufficient supply of suitable individuals to fill all co-opted roles. We suspect that is overstated and the real issue is market reach and remuneration.
- What happens if a combined authority cannot achieve the necessary three members? We would want the committee to be able to operate with a lesser number if vacancies arise.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman (Labour). This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
LGA view
- We support the principle of this amendment in ensuring that any conflict between the development plan and national development management policies should be resolved in favour of the development plan.
- Local development plans are subject to robust and extensive testing during its preparation, which includes a thorough examination process to establish its soundness. Therefore, the development plan should carry full legal weight and particularly over policies and plans that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny.
- We would like to see this principle being applied to all local development plans, not just where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman (Labour), meaning that regulations can only be made with a majority of members of the constituent councils.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. Changes to the governance of local areas should be locally led, with consensus from across all parts of the area wherever possible. We support this amendment as it means that changes to local authority functions must have the support of the majority of members of the constituents, indicating widespread agreement about the proposal.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour), to probe the possibility of Mayoral by-elections.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. The Bill currently lacks clarity on what would happen in the extent that a CCA Mayor resigned or left office for any reason, and this amendment would provide some welcome clarity.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). Clause 27, page 22, line 16, at end insert – “(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the scrutiny of deputy mayor appointments.” (no members explanatory statement available)
LGA view
- We support this amendment. This gives greater power to combined authority members to hold the Mayor and the Mayor’s choice of Deputy Mayor to account.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). This amendment would require public consultation to take place before the amendment of a CCA area.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. As public consultation is required before the establishment of a CCA, it follows that public consultation should be required if areas were to be added (or removed from) a CCA.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). This amendment would require public consultation to take place before the dissolution of a CCA.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. Similarly, as public consultation is required before the establishment of a CCA, it should also be required before dissolving the CCA. We support greater engagement with the public around changes of governance.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). That the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming what additional funds will be made available to a Mayor when making regulations under this section.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. We support the transfer of powers from central government to local leaders including CCA Mayors, but these powers must be accompanied by appropriate funding levels, and devolution should not be used as an excuse to reducing funding for services. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would have to confirm what funding was allocated along with the powers being conferred.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). This is to probe whether the public will be informed of their CCA’s functions.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. We support greater engagement with the public around changes of governance, and this amendment would require the government to publish guidance explaining to residents of the new CCA what the role of the combined authority would be.
Amendment tabled by Baroness Taylor (Labour). This would ensure a Minister publishes draft legislation for a Devolution Bill.
LGA view
- We support this amendment. The LGA has been making the case for more local responsibility not just because our members believe that decisions are best taken as close as possible to the people they affect, but because the evidence shows that devolution leads to better outcomes.
- Where councils and combined authorities have taken on devolved powers, they have begun to demonstrate the possibilities of devolution. We would welcome a Devolution Bill setting out how greater powers, functions and funding could be transferred from central Government to local areas.
Amendment tabled by Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat). This amendment would require the Government to obtain an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of mission statements, and to follow consultation processes with relevant devolved authorities before publishing further statements.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. We support an independent evaluation being carried out of the missions to ensure greater accountability. The LGA’s Levelling Up Locally Inquiry is launching a report on 14 March in which we recommend that the Government work with diverse and underrepresented groups to shape the levelling up metrics and missions and evaluate tangible progress over the longer term.
Amendment tabled by Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat) and Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat). This amendment would require a Minister preparing a mission statement to consult the relevant devolved administration or local authorities where the mission relates to a devolved function, and to amendment the mission at the requestion of the devolved authority.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. It is right that local authorities and devolved authorities who are expected to deliver levelling up missions are consulted on these missions and have the ability to flag to Government if aspects of it would not be appropriate, and ask Government to amend the mission accordingly.
Amendment tabled by Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat) and Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat). This amendment would require the Government to include an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of missions as part of the reporting requirement under this section.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. We support an independent evaluation being carried out of the missions to ensure greater accountability. The LGA’s Levelling Up Locally Inquiry is launching a report on 14 March in which we recommend that the Government work with diverse and underrepresented groups to shape the levelling up metrics and missions and evaluate tangible progress over the longer term.
Amendment tabled by Lord Carrington (Conservative). This amendment would ensure that all Government levelling-up policies take into account rural proofing principles.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. Levelling up missions must be relevant to the whole country, not just urban areas. We support the rural proofing of the missions and the inclusion of a statement on how each missions has met the principles of rural proofing policy.
Amendment tabled by Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat) and Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat).This amendment would require revisions to statements to be approved by Parliament and follow consultation processes with relevant devolved authorities.
LGA View
- We support this amendment. This amendment provides greater parliamentary oversight of changes to levelling up missions, and also gives devolved authority the right to be consulted on changes to mission statements.