My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the basis for this new type of mayoral combined county authority. The regulations establish the East Midlands combined authority and are required in advance of the first planned combined authority mayoral elections in May this year. We consider them to be very important for the economic and social development of the region and its population, so we will not be objecting to this important SI, but that does not mean that we do not have any questions about it. Indeed, we are very excited and hopeful that our candidate, Claire Ward, will be the first East Midlands mayor elected and, as mayors do up and down the country, will make a great difference to communities in the areas that the Minister set out—housing, transport, public health, and education and skills.
We also noted the degree of consultation that took place from 14 November last year to 9 January this year, but further note, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the numbers are very low in these consultations. We need to think about how we engage the public more in these very important discussions about the future of their areas. We also noted that there is a distinctive emphasis in this devolution deal on the combined authority reflecting the local communities within the combined authority area. We can do more of that, and I think that might help to engage people even more.
5.45 pm
I pay tribute, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to the local authorities within the combined authority area, especially the leaders who have worked together with the Government to bring us to the point where
we have this instrument before us today. As I know from experience, achieving consensus across local government boundaries can be demanding and challenging. We should thank all concerned for putting the interests of their area first above their very parochial issues in their own areas.
However, it cannot be ignored that the financial pressures facing local government are profound, particularly in the East Midlands region. The combined authority will be only as successful as the component local authorities beneath it. The Government really must address the financial uncertainty in local government. It is a fact that devolution under this Government has, to date, been fragmented, piecemeal and has not gone far enough or fast enough. The powers and resources do not touch the sides of what is required for communities to have real control over their areas and futures. Like much else, what appear to be very large sums of money being allocated to areas—of course, you cannot blame local authorities for wanting to get deals in place that attract that funding—are not compensating areas for the considerable amounts of funding that they have lost since 2010. Therefore, will the Government please set out the extent of that funding lost in government grants since 2010 across all the authorities in the combined authority area so that residents can see whether this is a good deal for the East Midlands or whether it does not even replace the funding that they have already lost?
In relation to funding, all local authorities are having to place a heavy burden on council tax payers as funding reduces, demand continues to rise and inflation takes its toll. Of course, most council tax payers do not access the specialist services that are the high-spend areas for councils, and the services that they do use are increasingly being cut to meet the demands of those high-need areas. In other words, they pay more council tax and get less for it. I note that the mayor in this combined authority will be able to levy another precept on council tax payers, a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Can the Minister say more about the limit of this precept and what it is intended to cover? What responsibility do the constituent councils have for funding support for the mayor’s office should the mayor decide not to levy a precept?
On a separate issue, will the independent remuneration panel be set up immediately on approval of this SI so that those seeking office can understand what their remuneration might be before they set out to seek office and the election takes place? Will the Minister clarify why mayors are not being given equal status to PCCs and MPs in relation to pension arrangements? I understand that the mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire have already written to the Secretary of State on this issue. The removal of access to the pension scheme for all councillors was a retrograde step. I always remember the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, saying that we should be treated like scout leaders. For many people with responsibility for huge budgets and the whole of their areas, that was a step too far. For mayors, who have responsibility for even bigger areas and powers over the functions that we have already discussed, it is incomprehensible.
I have a number of questions for the Minister relating to governance matters, but before I ask them, and without labouring the long discussions that we had during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I highlight again that district councils in this area are to be given the reductive role of non-constituent members of the combined authority, as the Minister set out. Again, I ask for it to be noted that, quite apart from sidelining their independent electoral mandate, in two-tier areas it is district councils that hold planning, economic development and housing powers, so shutting the door in their face when it comes to strategic decision-making about any local area seems at best unwise and, at worst, could lead to chaos in trying to implement the decisions of the strategic body.
I have a few questions on the governance. First, is it the intention that the post of political advisor to the mayor be politically restricted? Looking at the SI, that seems to be the case, but it seems a little unusual. Secondly, is it the case that the mayor will need to have the agreement of each constituent council, not just the combined county authority, to make changes to transport arrangements, even after transport powers have been completely transferred after the transition period? Thirdly, as responsibility for public health is conferred on the combined authority, is it the intention that any money will be allocated by government grant to enable the combined authority to meet that responsibility? As the mayor requires the consent of two-thirds of authority members to pass significant decisions, have the Government given any thought to what mediation might be carried out in the case of a deadlock which prevents the mayor moving on the strategic plan in a timely manner?
I refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the Tees Valley issues. I will not go into the detail, because the noble Lord has already read out pieces from the report, but if there is to be a mayoral development corporation, significant lessons of audit and oversight need to be learned from what happened in Tees Valley. Clear requirements are needed for procurement transparency, and so on. Have the Government fed into this process the outcome of that report on Tees Valley, which was so clear in saying where the deficiencies were?
In conclusion, my party fully supports devolution. In fact, Labour would push power out of Westminster with a take back control Act that would give communities a direct say in their future, starting by giving all mayors the powers and flexibility to turbocharge growth in their areas on matters such as planning, housing, transport, net zero and adult education offering all places the right to negotiate with the Government for powers that have been devolved elsewhere. The principle will be no area left out or held back. Areas that can move faster will be supported to do so. We have seen that true devolution can be transformational but, too often, at local level it has felt like a further extension of the Government’s Hunger Games approach to funding, which has seen local partnerships and coalitions having ongoing battles to be allocated powers over the services that they believe can be transformed to the benefit of their area. We need a position of default devolution. Only by doing this can we give Britain its future back.