Zoë Billingham and Professor John Denham gave evidence.

We will now hear evidence from Zoë Billingham, director of IPPR North, and we welcome back Professor John Denham, professorial research fellow in the department of politics and international relations—that is a long title—at the University of Southampton and director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics. We will have until 4.40 pm for this panel.

Q I want to talk a bit about the Bill, and I know you have publicly shown support for the direction of travel. I want to get your views on how important it is for us to be putting strategic authorities and our devolution framework on a statutory footing, in the way that we are for the first time, and what the impacts and implications are for the longevity and momentum that we are trying to create around devolution.

Professor Denham:

Thank you very much, Minister. It is absolutely crucial that the Bill underpins a really robust legal framework for devolution if it is to last—it cannot be for one Parliament. I will talk today about work that I have developed with Sir David Lidington—so that was a Labour Minister and a Conservative Minister coming together to say, “You need to have a consensus that lasts; otherwise, the Government changes.”

This is where I would say we are at the moment: there are many good things in the Bill, but there are some real areas of weakness that could lead to it being undermined quite quickly. It depends on financial commitments to integrated settlements and long-term funding, which are not even mentioned in the Bill. The Bill creates no forum in which finance can be discussed between strategic authorities and central Government. One of the ways in which that could be mitigated, at least to some extent, is to put the mayoral council on a statutory basis. Mayor Brabin said earlier today, “Well, the mayoral council is where we talk about new powers for mayors.” The mayoral council is not in the Bill. If Ministers decided tomorrow that it was not going to meet any more, it would not. It has no terms of reference and no secretariat. The mayors have no legal right to put items on its agenda.

I would give that as one example of where things could be embedded much more deeply. Parliament would have to come back and say, “We are going to abolish it”, in order to stop that meeting happening. If that sounds very radical in our system, every other European nation with a devolved system of government has a layer between the devolved level and central Government. I would suggest that it will be of benefit to Ministers, too. It is probably possible to manage relationships with a relatively small number of powerful mayors, but when there is one for every part of the country, there will be a cacophony of people demanding special treatment for their areas. The ability to corral that into a proper process would be an advantage.

This has to be embedded. Prior to this, regional arrangements lasted for about 10 years before Government lost interest in them. If you want this to be here in 30 years’ time, doing the Bill, but adding to it, is crucial.

Zoë Billingham:

I absolutely agree that it is essential that devolution through this Bill should be put on a statutory footing. I would highlight a few things that I think achieve that entrenchment, in addition to the legal aspect of that. First, the broadening and deepening is absolutely essential, with the right to request in combination with that, so that strategic authorities can decide what further powers they wish to request from Government. I agree with John that the integrated settlement is a really important entrenchment to give places the flexibility they need to demonstrate how different places make different choices about how they spend public money. That will be essential to showing how devolution can deliver differently according to the needs of different places.

The moves towards votes at 16 and returning to a supplementary vote system for our mayors is absolutely essential to broaden the number of people who can take part in in local democracy. I would urge the Committee to consider going further in a few areas in the Bill, to build on that entrenchment from a statutory footing. Fiscal devolution has so far been completely omitted from the Bill. We at IPPR North have been looking at options, including a visitor levy to start with, to start the process of fiscal devolution that we think will really help to mature the model that we have today. Accountability is another key area. I know that you have talked in previous sessions today about LPACs, and we absolutely agree that we need to beef up the accountability of mayoral combined authorities—that is a two-way street, but I am sure we can get on to it later.

Finally, in terms of public support, the flip side, if you will, of further empowering and rolling out devolution to the country is demonstrating to the public what devolution can deliver for them. The evidence shows that in places that have more powers and freedoms, voting turnout and engagement with local democracy go up, so we think it is important not just for the economy, but for democratic reform.

Q If I can pick up on the point about scrutiny and accountability, there are two parts to my question. Some evidence has been raised in these sessions about the connection between people and communities and the mayors who serve them. We have had a decade and a half of this experiment, so I am interested in your views on whether the claim of a democratic deficit—which I do not buy—is about something genuine in the experience we have seen.

Secondly, we need to ensure strong scrutiny and accountability for any institution. We heard in the last session about some of the challenges with local government accountability and scrutiny. I am interested in your views on what we need to do to strengthen that and the provisions in the Bill to build on that.

Zoë Billingham:

First, to your point on the democratic engagement of mayors, I do think, and I stand by the evidence that suggests this, that the more powers that mayors get, the more they are able to demonstrate to the public how they can tailor and do things differently in their places, according to what the public want. That is essential for the responsiveness of democracy; therefore, I also think that votes at 16 and the return to a supplementary vote are helpful additional aspects to this Bill, in terms of demonstrating that the Government are serious about broadening engagement with mayoral combined authorities.

I would also pick up the proposal in the Bill for neighbour area committees. Something along those lines is essential. We know that, as currently drafted, the Bill is proposing full unitarisation of local authorities to a 500,000 population level, which is far larger than we see in local government in our European counterparts, for example. There is a question about how those unitaries engage with those communities, not on an ad hoc basis, but as an ongoing community conversation. I wonder whether, for instance, the neighbourhood area committees could be predominantly made up of community representatives and young people, so that they do not replicate the district level that the Bill proposes to abolish, but instead create an ongoing, democratic renewal at that local level.

Secondly, to pick up your point on scrutiny, this is essential. If you speak to local leaders, mayors included, they are absolutely game for it. It is not something that central Government are imposing; it is an essential part of both enabling the further devolution of power and resources, and ensuring that the current model is not undermined because there is not enough scrutiny in place for what is already there. I totally support the proposal for a local public accounts committee—we have built on that idea ourselves at IPPR North, looking at mayoral accounts committees, which bring together overview and scrutiny, and local public accounts committees.

We think that those committees need to represent place leadership; this is no longer narrow lines of inquiry about certain budgetary lines or solely about audit. It must be much broader. This is about place-based leadership, not only by the mayor and the mayoral Cabinet, but by other public leaders locally who could be brought in front of such committees. We think that is a really important thing to go hand in hand with the future of devolution.

Professor Denham:

May I pick up and develop a couple of those points? There is no doubt that the Bill has a danger of an upwards movement of power: things are being moved from local authorities to strategic authorities and mayors have more autonomy. I understand why that is being done, but the Bill needs to build in a healthy counterpoint to that. I, too, would go beyond the neighbourhood governance proposal, which sounds a bit narrow and a bit prescriptive, as though the same model will work everywhere.

Sir David and I proposed what we called community empowerment plans, and we proposed them even when we did not know there was going to be local government reorganisation. The strategic authorities should have a legal duty to set out how they will engage with local people across the whole range of activity—I should have declared an interest, in that I am the honorary president of the Hampshire Association of Local Councils—

Hear, hear!

Professor Denham:

So I am familiar with town and parish councils, and there are some very good ones, including in Mr Holmes’s Constituency. But they are not uniform everywhere within the area, so a single prescriptive approach is unlikely to work.

There has also been, in the last 10 or 15 years, a transformation in our understanding of deliberative, participative engagement with local communities by many local authorities. We need both the strategic authorities and the unitary authorities to set out, in a document that should be challengeable, how they propose to do that. I think that would be useful.

Secondly—I will embarrass her—Zoë has written the best policy paper on local public accounts committees, so I will not say any more about that, except that I agree with Gareth Davies in an earlier panel: the challenge here is not local council audit, but the whole of public spending across a mayoral area. I was delighted to see the new Secretary of State backing the concept of total place, which is something I was involved in as a Minister 15 years ago; but, if that is going to work, you cannot combine that with upwards accountability to departmental accounting officers.

Local authority scrutiny has very good people, but it is not up to the job. You have to create a new local institution, the local public accounts committee and, picking up on what Mayor Houchen said earlier, make the chief executive within the area the local accounting officer. So you have a complete audit model at local level that is not then channelled upwards through departmental accounting officers. I think that is what we need to work towards. Those two things would not only empower local people, but ensure that you have local scrutiny of what is being spent and what is being done with their money.

Could that paper be sent to the secretariat and circulated around the Committee?

Zoë Billingham:

Certainly.

Q I would like to ask you to enlarge on this subject. The point at which Professor Denham finished was a helpful starting place. I think we all share the desire to see that level of community empowerment. What is very striking, when we compare local government in all its forms in the UK with what is well established in other countries, is how little of it there is, relatively, and how few powers people in local authorities already have. One of the concerns we flagged is that the chosen footprint of half a million envisages, in shire England, the elimination of 90% of existing local councillors in one fell swoop. I am interested in how, in the context of a country that is already massively under-represented at local level, we can address that manifest democratic deficit in this process.

And to come to the point that both of you have touched on, the Bill as drafted assumes power upwards to mayors, and it introduces a raft of powers—in chapter after chapter of the Bill—whereby the Secretary of State will direct the mayor and the authority, requiring them to produce various strategies. In a country that is already very centralised anyway, how do we develop and encourage local leaders to come forward in a context where there will be significantly fewer roles for them to fulfil, and where those roles will be significantly more constrained than they have been used to?

Professor Denham:

Let me break that down into a number of sections. First, on local government reorganisation and size, I will be straightforward: Sir David and I did not propose local government reorganisation. We proposed creating what would now be called strategic authorities from what we generally call upper-tier authorities—the unitaries and the counties. I am not saying that there would not have been a need down the line to do something about what will be a messy system, but in terms of getting growth plans and those things up and running—I just put that on the record, because I am not going to get too far into the issue. However, if you are where you are at the moment, I would commend the idea of community empowerment plans and a proper legal framework for devolution below those levels.

What I would say, though, is that there is a level of devolved function that needs to operate at the level of strategic authorities. If you are going to have really good local growth strategies, and if they are going to tie into a national industrial strategy, it could not be done, say, at the level of a city such as Southampton, where I was an MP for a long time. You need a bigger body. However you do it at the micro level, that strategic level must operate effectively.

To tie my threads together, if you go to other European countries with a higher level of devolution, they have an intermediate forum between the strategic body and the national, where these issues are thrashed out, best practice is worked out and, in a sense, the Secretary of State does not exercise their direction powers without discussing it with the mayoral council first. You actually say, “How is that going to work then? How is that power going to be used?” So building in that layer means the right sort of compromise between the desire of Governments to get on with things and the need to engage people at local level. That would be one way of dealing with it.

You are inviting me to say we should keep all the district councils, but I am going to pass on that one, because that was not part of our proposals.

Zoë Billingham:

Let me just build on that and the question of scale. As John says, the proposed 500,000 scale of the unitaries post-reorganisation is very large compared with European counterparts, and that poses some big questions, not least whether the projected efficiency savings will be realised. However, town and parish councils still exist within the system, and we have previously done work that looks at what we call the hyper-local tier of governance. While they are imperfect bodies, there are improvements that can be built upon at that hyper-local level, in addition to having some sort of formal forum, as John says, to engage with communities.

If the neighbourhood area committee proposal continues as planned, I would really urge that to be—the Majority—taken up by community leaders and young people. There are other ways that we can help to counterbalance this through democratic innovations. There was talk, for instance, about remote meetings and remote voting, which are not currently available. Especially when you speak to young people about why they do not engage with local politics, they say that meetings are at the wrong time and too far away, and if you do not have a car, you cannot get to them, especially in rural communities. So I think this could be a real opportunity to see how normal council business is done and improve on it.

Finally, to build on the point about participatory methods, it is about making sure that unitaries are committed to properly engaging with their communities on the big questions they face, and not seeing it as distancing from communities.

I call Perran Moon.

Meur ras—thank you—Ms Vaz. Dohajydh da—good afternoon. I will declare straightaway that I am Cornish and my question is about Cornwall.Q

In order for Cornwall to access the highest level of devolution, as the Bill is drafted, it requires the Government to breach article 16 of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. The Cornish are the only people in the UK that have national minority status but do not have access to the highest level of devolution. How flexible should the Government be when determining what powers different types of strategic authorities can exercise? Is there a case for exceptions in places such as Cornwall? I ask that you try to avoid the temptation to talk about identity—we can identify with lots of parts of the country and with football teams and pop bands—and talk more about national minority status.

Professor Denham:

I confess that I am not an expert on the framework convention, so I am not sure I will address that from a satisfactory legal point of view. In terms of the devolution policy, it was always my view that whether to have a mayor should have been a local choice and not a national prescription. That boat may have sailed, but that was my view. Clearly, there are cases where mayoral leadership is seen by everybody as an advantage, but I think there was a case for having some flexibility over that.

The other thing that I think is worth exploring is that one size fits all is not always going to be the right arrangement. I would imagine that, in the case of Cornwall, there are some functions on which it is in Cornwall’s interest to collaborate very closely with Devon, and maybe the new Wessex strategic authority around strategic transport, and other areas on which you would not want to. There should be a way in the Bill—we have talked about the pooling of regional powers—to enable strategic authorities to build larger bodies with neighbouring strategic authorities when it is in their interest to do so, without requiring the agreement of central Government.

I suppose my in-principle answer to your question, which is very unhelpful to the Minister, is that maybe the choice whether to have a mayor should have been given more local discretion. As we are where we are, certainly I would like to see a system where Cornwall can build the sort of strategic authority it wants but also have the benefits of collaboration across the south-west peninsula, or whatever, on areas of common interest and where everybody might benefit from having a regional rather than a county-based approach.

Zoë Billingham:

I speak only from the experience of pan-northern collaboration, which has changed and been flexible, and has taken the form of transport co-ordination. Its latest guise is the Great North, which is a great innovation and a great step forward for northern leadership. I think that is an example of how flexibility should be offered to all parts of the country where they see benefits beyond devolution just in their patch, so to speak.

I think you speak to a larger point about inconsistency in devolution. As many have said, it is very much building the plane while it is flying, and I think we need to be comfortable with that. We are far behind many of our OECD counterparts in terms of decentralising power. We are yet to settle on a model, and we should not settle on a very rigid model at this stage; we should be open to it being flexible in the future. I am sure that the Bill will be a very important first step in this Parliament, but it should by no means be the last word; the question of how devolution is taken forward in this country will need to be revisited on an ongoing basis.

Professor Denham:

It might be worth exploring in Committee whether the right to request powers is sufficiently broad. For somewhere like Cornwall, even if you are currently on the lowest tier, you could none the less have the right to request powers specific to Cornwall, for the reasons that you want. There may be scope in the Bill to create something that does not necessarily guarantee you what you want, but gives you a route towards it.

Q My question is in a similar vein, building on a lot of the conversation so far. My Constituency is an outlier in the south-east of England and in the county of Kent, which is likely to become a devolved authority. Sittingbourne and Sheerness are two properly industrial towns. They really stand out for the amount of manufacturing and manual jobs in the area, compared with the service industries that predominate in the rest of the county and the south-east, and that has a lot of effects. Over the years, a misunderstanding, or ignoring, within the county of Kent of the industrial nature of my towns has strengthened the inequality and the depth of deprivation in certain parts of my constituency.

One of the concerns that has been raised locally is that, by replicating the electoral and political structure of Kent and having Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are very different types of towns, predominate the political nature of the mayoralty, we will just replicate the same problem and our needs in terms of economic development, and therefore social support and social economics, will be overridden. Effectively, we can be categorised as a little bit of the red wall in the south-east of England. One of the dangers to me is that we—

Order. Is there a question?

Sorry, Ms Vaz—there is. What do you think we can do when setting up mayoral authorities to prevent aberrant areas—I say that in a very positive way—within a broader, more homogenous mayoral district from being neglected?

Zoë Billingham:

We have some similar dynamics in the north, where certain combined authorities comprise some areas of low and modest incomes and some areas of great wealth, so some parallels can be drawn. Setting and influencing early mayoral priorities is really key. While in the north-east there are some areas of great wealth, Kim McGuinness’s priority is child poverty, and she has made that very clear. Obviously, that speaks directly to the areas of the north-east that suffer most from high levels of deprivation and child poverty. The initial setting of the mayoral agenda is absolutely essential in that.

Professor Denham:

I recognise a lot of what you say, because I live in Hampshire. We have Southampton, Portsmouth and the island, which was mentioned earlier and is completely different.

There are two things that are crucially important. First, the unitarisation approach must be sensitive to those local geographies. Simply forcing people into a 500,000 unit because, mathematically, that is what came out of a PwC report two years ago would be counterproductive if that meant you lost the focus on those areas. That is a part of it: we need sufficient flexibility in the unitarisation approach.

The second thing is to try to build in from the beginning the idea that not every combined authority needs to replicate the structures that evolved initially in Manchester and the west midlands around a centralised authority. There are different ways of structuring a combined authority, its functions and its leadership that recognise the different constituent elements in an area. If I have one concern at the moment, it is that because we are asking people to reorganise their district councils and create a combined authority at the same time, it is very hard to find the headroom for that creative thinking about, “How are the internal dynamics of this going to work in the future?”

That is two things. First, we need flexibility on unitarisation, so that you do not disappear into an area that does not understand your needs. That is replicated in cathedral cities and all sorts of places right across the country. Secondly, we need to look at structuring a combined authority that builds in an understanding of those different geographies from the outset, and does not necessarily create a superior tier of authority.

Zoë Billingham:

May I add one more point? It is about interventions at the neighbourhood level. A welcome focus of the Bill is that, as you raised, there can be as much inequality within combined authorities as between combined authorities. Sometimes the Intervention needs to be at the neighbourhood level, so that should also be introduced as a focus of the combined authority. The basis on which they intervene and where is also a useful way to address disparities within regions.

I want talk about district councils. Lots of councils have gone through unitarisation, and when they come out the other side, lots of them set up area planning committees and delivery teams based on the old district boundaries. What is your view on the savings that might come through that process? I think there are hardly any.Q

On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council?

Professor Denham:

I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons.

I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one.

Zoë Billingham:

I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do.

On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the Majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.

We can squeeze in one more quick question and answer.

Q I am interested in community empowerment plans and accountability within them. I will read up on them more, but to Zoë’s point, to what extent do you feel that you need to require different communities, so that it is not just the people who shout loudest, and the standard people you go to in a community, who are heard? How do you make sure that the whole breadth of the community is heard?

Professor Denham:

My view is that it would be reasonable for the legislation to enable Ministers to set out the broad parameters of the plans, but not to do that in a way that specifies exactly how it should be done in particular areas. It will vary: if you have strong town councils, you would sensibly build them in, but if you have communities that do not engage at all, you would use deliberative participation. People should be required to set out which tools they are going to use, why they are going to use them, how they would monitor the effect of that, how they will keep an eye on who is taking part in those processes, and so on. It is not just a slogan; it is a proper structured framework for doing it.

Zoë Billingham:

I absolutely agree with that, and with allowing local tailoring. You are right; sometimes even community conversations can be captured by usual suspects. That is why using participatory methods on an ongoing basis is really important. We have seen some innovation in this space already through the mayors; they do mayoral question times, or invite young people to come in and ask them questions in a public forum. There are lots of ways it can be done.

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both very much for your erudite evidence.