English Devolution

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 16 December.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the publication of the Government’s English devolution White Paper.

This Government were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to transform our economy and our country through a decade of reform and national renewal that reverses the chaos and decline that we inherited. We will rebuild Britain from the ground up, so that it works for working people, through a mission-led plan for change that unlocks growth and raises living standards in every region. We will deliver new homes, jobs and opportunities for all by matching investment with reform to improve local services, and to maximise the impact of every penny we spend.

The British people deserve an economy that works for the whole country, and to have control over the things that matter to them. That is why we are moving power out of Westminster and putting it back into the hands of those who know their area best. The White Paper that we have published today sets out the means through which we want to achieve that, backed up by our landmark English devolution Bill, which will finally redress the imbalance of power between this place and communities up and down the country.

This change cannot be delivered soon enough, because for all the promises of levelling up, after 14 years, our nations remain economically divided, with living standards in many parts of the country stagnating. We have an economy that hoards potential and a politics that hoards power. As a former councillor and council leader, I have seen the immediate and tangible difference that local leadership can make. However, I also recognise the frustration that local leaders face in delivering the change that their areas need. In fact, it mirrors the frustration that local people feel when they cannot effect change in their neighbourhood or on their high street. That hits at the heart of what it means to live a decent life. Pride of place and security are rights too often denied in the places that need them the most. This Government are determined to end the top-down approach to decision-making in this country, and to replace it with a principle of partnership.

The last Labour Government began the process of change by creating the London Mayor, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I saw the transformational impact of empowered local leadership in Greater Manchester when in 2014, a decade ago, I was one of the local council leaders who worked in co-operation to agree the first English devolution agreement outside London—an agreement that created the combined authority, which has delivered genuine change under the leadership of an elected mayor, working hand in glove with local leaders.

Crucially, none of the now 12-strong mayors would claim that they act alone. Whether they are attracting investment in clean carbon and renewable energy, growing digital and creative industries, bringing buses back under public control, or tackling violence against women and girls, all would point to solid local partnerships and the importance of local government in delivering change, but the truth in England is that the process of devolution remains unfinished. Today, we are introducing to the House the measures to finally get the job done.

At its core, this White Paper sets out how the Government will strengthen and widen the mayoral model of devolution across England, shifting power, decision-making and money away from Westminster in a completely new way of governing and driving growth. We are empowering more mayors by introducing integrated funding settlements, and by giving them a statutory role in the rail network, and greater control over strategic planning, housing funding and skills training, so that they can deliver change that local people can see and benefit from. Ultimately, our goal is mayoral devolution that means that powers can be used to shape local labour markets, integrated transport systems, clusters of businesses, and housing development. That is the sort of strategic decision-making that is not possible over a smaller geographic area. By creating strategic authorities—a new tier of local government—we will give our cities and regions a bigger voice in getting the resources and support that they need.

The Government will shortly set out their devolution priority programme for areas that stand ready to progress devolution on an accelerated timescale, and a plan for inaugural mayoral elections to take place in May 2026. Each of those areas will have an elected mayor sitting on the Council of the Nations and Regions. We will work with those areas that are already in discussions with the Government to confirm their position. To those areas that are ready to move at pace, we say: come forward now. Be part of this movement. Be part of this moment.

We understand that devolution is a journey, and that some areas will need time to decide what course to follow. We want to walk alongside all areas—areas defined locally, not from those at the centre with a map—as they take the first step to realising the potential of devolution, for instance through a foundation agreement to unlock new powers. Our ambition is clear; we will legislate for a new power of ministerial directive that allows the Government to create strategic authorities where absolutely necessary, if local agreement has not been possible, to achieve full coverage of devolution across England. We will deliver a new constitutional settlement for England that makes devolution the default setting, with an ambitious devolution framework secured in law, guaranteeing powers for each level of devolution. All that will be underpinned by improvements to accountability, including an outcomes framework for integrated settlements, so that the system remains fit for purpose as we devolve more powers and funding.

None of this reform can be achieved without strong local government. Councils are the bedrock of our state. They are critical to driving growth and delivering local public services that people can rely on, but they have been neglected for too long. That is why we are establishing a proper partnership with local leaders through multiyear funding settlements, and moving away from farcical bidding wars for limited ring-fenced funding pots. We will give councils the respect and powers that they deserve and need to deliver the missions and the plan for change, so that change is keenly felt in every community. We said that we would reset the relationship between central and local government, and we meant it. We will give councils the certainty and stability that they need to plan ahead and prioritise their budgets, and to tackle local issues through public sector reform and prevention, rather than through more expensive crisis management, for which taxpayers are paying more and more, often for worsening outcomes. We have to tackle that head-on.

It is important that councils be the right size and shape to serve the people they represent, with simpler structures that people can better understand. Through our bold programme of unitarisation, as announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, we will ensure that local government reorganisation and devolution can be delivered in tandem as soon as possible. We look forward to areas coming forward with their own proposals. This Statement gives the clear direction that local governments have been asked for, and my door is always open for discussions with colleagues about how that will look and feel in their area. Although I recognise that this will be a challenging process for some, for many there is growing agreement that the time has come for change.

I am under no illusion about the scale of the task that we face in delivering more power into the hands of local leaders, but we are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and to working with local leaders to deliver the change that the country voted for; that is what the electorate will judge this Government on. Placed alongside the work that we are progressing on fixing the broken audit system, rebuilding the standards regime, and bringing forward plans for community power, this plan shows that the Government are determined to get our house in order and ensure a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in England, as we reset our economy, restore local government, and rebuild our country from the ground up, so that it works, finally, for working people. That is what it means to take back control, and that is what we will deliver. I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:27:00

My Lords, this White Paper will take away powers from local communities and risks making local government less responsive to the needs of local taxpayers. As my honourable friend in the other place rightly said: “This is not bottom-up local leadership, but top-down templates for local government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 38.] In government, we supported joint working between local councils, which included some unitary restructuring as well as district mergers, but Conservative Ministers were clear that any unitary restructuring had to be locally led and have local support. It was not a condition of devolution deals. If I may, I would like to raise some of the most pressing concerns of my noble friends on these Benches. Unitary restructuring does not necessarily result in better value for money for local residents, and alignment of council taxes across different councils has generally been upwards. Creating an additional mayoral tier above local authorities also risks wasting any savings achieved through unitarisation. This has been proven in Labour-run mayoral regions, where we have seen eye-watering mayoral precepts imposed on residents. Ken Livingstone and Sadiq Khan massively hiked their council tax precepts in London, now topping £471 per band D household in London under Sadiq Khan. Only Conservative mayors such as Boris Johnson have cut council tax precepts; Andy Street and Ben Houchen—now my noble friend Lord Houchen—charged nothing at all. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government’s plans to change the structure of local government will deliver better services without imposing significantly higher council tax on local residents? We expect Labour to invite proposals from councils for local government restructuring. The first wave of this restructuring would then result in county council elections in May 2025 in those chosen areas being cancelled. Does the Minister agree that no council should be bullied or blackmailed into local government restructuring? The Government’s true attitude to devolution is clear from their approach to housing delivery. Their introduction of the concept of grey-belt land explicitly removes the green-belt requirement to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. When their assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land is considered alongside the imposition of mandatory housing targets, it is increasingly clear that the Government intend to concrete over as much of the countryside as they can, while cutting building targets in cities. Despite these changes to the planning rules and the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, the Government have cut new housing needs targets in areas where new homes are needed—minus 11% in London, minus 38% in Birmingham and minus 55% in Coventry—while increasing the targets in areas where the housing need is clearly less acute: it is 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness. These mandatory targets are just one example of the Government’s centralisation of control over local authorities and reduction of the power of local leaders, who know their communities’ needs best. Can the Minister tell this House why a Labour Government have cut housing targets in Labour-run London, Birmingham and Coventry while imposing higher housing needs assessments on the Conservative-run councils in the New Forest and North Yorkshire, as well as in the Liberal Democrat-controlled Westmorland and Furness? This announcement could have been so much more. It could have been a chance to rethink from scratch the duties, responsibilities and funding of local government, and to ensure that its form follows its function. Before I sit down, I have a few final questions. Can the Minister reassure this House that local authorities will be fully consulted and given time to consider the Government’s plans fully before making any decisions about their future? Can she confirm whether local authorities will have genuine choice on restructuring? Most importantly, will local residents themselves be consulted directly before any decisions on restructuring are taken forward? In order to ensure electoral equality across the country, will His Majesty’s Government also look at the representation per capita in London and in some of the other metropolitan councils? That is really important to ensure that every person in this country gets equal representation. Finally, I understand that local councils have been asked to submit their expressions of interest by 10 January. Can the Minister confirm that councils will then have more time—the time that they need—to consider their further steps?

My Lords, I note that the Statement says: “We will deliver a new constitutional settlement for England”. That is a very ambitious claim. What we have in the White Paper is a great disappointment by comparison. There is a deep confusion between what is “local” and what is “regional”, which are used interchangeably and loosely throughout the White Paper. We are promised “regional Mayors” who will, we are told, also be “vital local leaders”. They will take part in the Council of the Nations and Regions alongside Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers; they will also sit on a separate Mayoral Council with the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no link with Parliament here, I note, nor any link to Gordon Brown’s proposal to reform the Lords as a second Chamber to give us a role in representing the nations and regions in UK-wide debates. This looks to the Liberal Democrats like a plan designed in the Treasury both to save money, by shrinking local democratic institutions, and to convert elected mayors into agents of central government, spending funds that they hope to obtain by negotiations with the Treasury—the integrated settlements—without taking into account the importance of embedding democratic government in local and regional networks. Chapter 4.1 of the White Paper begins: “England is made up of thousands of communities—towns, cities and villages”. It then proposes to squeeze those thousands of local communities into somewhere between 30 and 40 combined authorities, with fewer than 100 unitary authorities beneath them, each containing between 500,000 and 1 million people. That is not a unitary system; it is a new two-tier system in which strategic decisions will be taken by the upper mayoral tier—in effect, by one elected person. Local democracy rests on the relationship between voters in their communities and the councillors who represent them. It is the bedrock of democratic politics and of political parties, which draw their campaigners, their members and, often, their recruits into national politics from these local activities. But here is a proposal to cut further the number of elections and elected councillors and to remove them to a much greater distance from those they try to represent, with 15,000 voters or more in each ward. England’s voters tell pollsters that they deeply mistrust Westminster politics and trust their local representatives more. This measure risks deepening public mistrust of democracy further and weakening political parties; it asks voters to identify with one elected mayor overseeing some millions of people and quite possibly elected on little over a quarter of the votes cast. I remind the Minister that, in July’s election, five parties won more than 10% of the national vote in England. First past the post risks producing some remarkably unrepresentative mayors elected on perhaps 27% or 28% of the vote. We will need to strengthen the really local tier—the town and parish councils—to compensate for this shift of power upward. I could not find any discussion of parish and town councils in the White Paper. Did I miss some passing references? No other democratic state in Europe, North America or Australasia has such a thin framework of local and regional government. England will remain the most highly centralised state in the democratic world. Chapter 4 declares: “There is clearly an appetite for reorganisation in parts of England”. We are given no evidence of such an appetite among the public. We have had multiple reorganisations in the past 50 years. Now we are going to have another one, which will cost additional money—as all reorganisations do—and disrupt services during the transition. Has the Treasury budgeted for the costs of transition? It then goes on to propose that there should be new rules on remote attendance and proxy voting for councillors at meetings. This is not surprising, given the size of some of our new councils. In the new North Yorkshire Council, it takes some councillors 90 minutes or more to drive to council meetings, so remote attendance and proxy voting are necessary. That is not local government or local democracy, however. Lastly, in chapter 5 we are told: “Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will be held to account for the outcomes associated with their Integrated Settlement” by “reporting to central government”. That is mayors acting as agents of central government, not responding to local and regional issues. The Government seem to want to rush through this reorganisation without waiting for local consultation or the agreement of other parties. This is not the best way to deliver a long-lasting constitutional settlement for England at a time when trust in our local democracy is lower than it has been for a very long time.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who attended the drop-in session on the White Paper yesterday. The English devolution White Paper sets out what I will not apologise for being an ambitious new framework for English devolution, moving power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best as part of our plan for change. We want to see all of England access this devolved power by forming strategic authorities that can make the key decisions to drive economic growth, with a clear preference for mayors. We will do this with areas and will launch a devolution priority programme for those that want to be on the fast track to mayoral devolution. We will legislate for a ministerial directive for areas that are not able to agree, so that no part of England misses out on that programme. We have created a new devolution framework to be put into statute through the English devolution Bill, which will give areas a range of new powers across planning, infrastructure, transport, skills, business and energy, with consistent voting arrangements to allow effective decision-making. We will also clearly set out the criteria by which all mayoral strategic authorities will be able to access further powers, including integrated settlements, to allow greater flexibility of funding by becoming established mayoral strategic authorities. This framework will grow over time, including through suggestions from strategic authorities to be discussed at the Mayoral Council. We recognise that devolving power requires us to fix the foundations of local government so that we can empower communities at all levels. We will give communities a new community right to buy for valued community assets. As councils are the foundation of our state, we will fix their foundations through fairer funding and multiyear financial settlements to give councils the certainty they need. We will also end the destructive “Whitehall knows best” mindset that micromanages their decisions and replace it with the principle of constitutional autonomy and partnership—so devolution by default. It is important that councils are the right size and shape to serve the people they represent, with simpler structures that people can understand. That is why we will facilitate a bold programme of local government reorganisation for two-tier areas and for smaller, failing, unitary councils. We will invite proposals for reorganisation from all these areas and phase delivery—a point made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord—taking into account where reorganisation can unlock devolution, where areas are keen to move quickly, or where it can help address wider failings. We will work closely with areas to deliver an ambitious first wave of reorganisation in Parliament. Before I answer the specific questions, I would like to say that I am not going to take any lessons from the party opposite about the management of councils. When we came into power, many councils were going bust and issuing Section 114 notices, with a growing queue behind them of councils struggling with their finances. The lack of fiscal discipline in the audit regime left a backlog of 1,000 audits and £100 million that the previous Government could not account for. How has that helped democracy and local accountability? There was also a deepening crisis in adult social care. Parents were having to take their own councils to court to get the special needs provision their children were entitled to. There was a homelessness emergency that has seen the utter scandal of 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation, and councils having to use up to 40% of their net revenue budget to fund it. I am taking no lessons about the stewardship of public finances or efficiency of local service delivery. I turn to the specific questions. It is not taking away local powers to give a range of new powers from Westminster to local areas so that decisions can be taken locally. I have already outlined what some of those areas will be. Making sure that decisions on health, transport, skills, workforce and so on can be taken at a local level is an increase in local powers, not a reduction. The noble Baroness asked about the mayoral tier and whether that would waste money. Of course, she spoke about Labour-run mayoral precepts. I suppose if your principle is to deliver worse services with more cost, we could look at the previous Government’s management of funding. In a Statement later today, I will make a number of announcements about local government funding, making sure that local government is funded properly to deliver the services it is charged with delivering. The noble Baroness also said that no councils should be bullied or blackmailed into doing this. This programme has been driven by local government; the demands have come from local government ever since we started the devolution programme. It is local councils that will work together with partners in their areas to pull together the programmes. This is a locally driven programme. The noble Baroness made some points about the green belt and the grey belt. I am afraid that the assumption she made is just wrong. There is a specific proposal to protect those areas of green belt that are nationally protected areas or have sites of special scientific interest. There is a specific proposal about brownfield first. A sequential approach to the use of land is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The noble Baroness raised the new calculation on housing targets. When the previous Government withdrew the requirement for mandatory housing targets, we immediately saw a reduction in supply. We have made a new calculation based on affordability and housing need. Everywhere needs to contribute to the delivery of housing. It is really important that that happens. The new assessments are fairer from that point of view. The noble Baroness asked about time to consider the proposals. The letter that went out—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has asked some questions about this letter too—clearly set out the programme. Councils and areas that want to go faster can submit proposals, but there will be more time, for those who feel they need it, to take the time they need. On consultation with residents, it will be a legal requirement to have a consultation and the department will undertake that consultation through MHCLG resources. Turning to the noble Lord’s questions, I am not apologising for the ambition of this plan. I think it is an ambitious plan. It is certainly not a plan from the Treasury; it has come from local government. But it is true to say that it is the problems in local government funding that mean we have to consider more efficient and effective ways of delivering service. I understand the noble Lord’s points about local representation. When surveyed, only 23% of people felt they could have any influence over decision-making in their local areas. That is not good enough. We need to improve that rate. Whatever the system is now, it is not giving people a feeling that they can influence decisions in their area. When you look at some of the activity of our mayors, they can use their mandate for change to make difficult decisions and drive growth in their areas, as Oliver Coppard has done in taking the Supertram back into public ownership in South Yorkshire. Mayors provide coherent leadership for their place. We have seen this already, with mayors such as Tracy Brabin leading trade missions to drive growth in their region. We want every part of England to take its place on the Council of the Nations and Regions and to have strong, effective partnerships with councils and other partners to deliver the missions we have set out to transform the country. There is some wording about town and parish councils in the White Paper. If the noble Lord wants to contribute more on that topic, we would be pleased to hear that. I have been talking to the National Association of Local Councils and its officers about how we use them in this new system, and how the parish and town councils respond. There will be a vital role for them. There will be a vital role for front-line councillors as conveners of their neighbourhood areas in order to drive this programme forward. Mayors will certainly not be agents of central government. I know some of them quite well and it is a long stretch to describe them as such. They work very hard for their local areas and deliver really well. I thank noble Lords for their comments today. As the former Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, said about devolution to another of the United Kingdom’s countries, devolution is “a process, not an event”. We have a way to go yet. This devolution offer is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition. We want to continue to deepen devolution across England, developing policy with regions, including through the Mayoral Council. The White Paper is very explicit about engaging with the sector, seeking proposals from areas for devolution and local government reorganisation in their area, and engaging with mayors and councils on policies for the English devolution Bill, which we intend to lay in this Session. We welcome your Lordships’ input on how, but the aim is clear: a devolution revolution that helps us rebuild the country, deliver growth and change the politics of our country.

12:49:00

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a really interesting document. I wish her well, because the pressure has come from the mayors for devolution—rightly, in my opinion—and what they have come up with is a laudable solution to this. My noble friend’s challenge is how to deal with the other parts of England that are not subject to the current mayors. A variety of solutions are in the White Paper, which we all have to look at, but she is still trying to get more devolution to the other parts of the UK, which they all want. I have one question. The smallest area with a council currently is probably the City of London. How will she fit that into this new structure? Clearly, it does a good job, but it needs some kind of structure within this overall requirement. I congratulate my noble friend.

I thank my noble friend for his support for the overall programme. London already has a devolution arrangement, but I am assured by colleagues that we will look at the GLA and how it works. I am sure that we will take account of his comments about the City of London in that programme.

I bring Members’ attention to my registered interests, and I thank the Minister for the briefing yesterday. Can she confirm, now that we are in a public session, that the intention for 500,000 as a guide size for reorganisation is not a hard and fast rule but that some bids with a population under 500,000 will be allowed? Can she confirm that authorities already in the unitary system with populations of less than 500,000—all the councils in this country, bar 11, will be in scope—are also in scope for the reorganisation conversation? This is not an attack just on the Conservative-majority controlled two-tier areas; this is for the whole of the local government sector to be a representative size of approximately 500,000. That means that most of the boroughs of London are in scope and not excluded. Finally, I have a word of advice. If the Government are going to try to stick to a 500,000 unit, I tell them to forget about the number and the size of the council when they go to Rutland, because the Government have previously had some very bad experience of trying to remove Rutland.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his advice on Rutland. I am happy to confirm that. On the 500,000 number, it is very strange: ever since July, people have been saying repeatedly that we need a guideline number, but when we give a guideline number, they say, “No, not that number. That is not the right number”. I hope that was not how the Conservatives did the accounting, because that would be a problem. The 500,000 figure is intended as a guideline; it is what works best for local areas. I imagine that some sort of de minimis size will be incorporated in the Minister’s thinking as we go through this programme. We feel that 500,000 is around the right size to get the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery and the scale of managing the strategic requirements in a local area; that is why we have said 500,000. We are looking for councils to come forward with their own proposals about how this works for their local areas. On the other question, this is intended to cover all areas of England, so they are all welcome to come forward with proposals—including Rutland.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this Statement and I congratulate her and the Government on entering what are very difficult areas, as I remember well. One thing that has happened in the last 14 years—I know some noble Lords on the other Benches approved of this—was the abolition of the Audit Commission. Whatever people’s view about that, it has left nothing to give guidance and understanding to the combined authorities about audit. I hope that the Government will introduce something that gives clear guidance and authority to the audit process in these areas. Local people have the right to know that money invested there is being spent well and according to best value. Had we had that, I believe that the mayoral authority in Tees Valley may not have had the real problems that it has had, where we have ended up with 90% of the money that is invested, or of the contracts that are given there, being invested in two men who now live in Dubai. That is not best value for the public or what anybody intended in setting these issues up. I hope the Government will take hold of how we audit combined authorities.

My noble friend makes a good point. It is impossible to overstate the importance of having an accountable and transparent process for local government. I mentioned in my opening remarks that it is an absolute scandal that we have found ourselves in the position we have in relation to local government audit, with 1,000 audits outstanding—that is just not good enough. Accountability is absolutely vital. As well as a complete review of local government audit systems, and making sure that we have an audit service for all of local government that is fit for purpose, we will consult on something for mayoral combined areas. I do not know what it will be called, but it will be the equivalent of a local public accounts committee. We think that the work of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament is helpful and useful, and we will consult with local government on whether a local public accounts committee, along similar lines, would be useful.

My Lords, I remind the House of my declared interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister will know that I share her enthusiasm for strategic planning, but will she acknowledge that it may be some time before strategic authorities are established, or indeed before some strategic authorities have the necessary capability for strategic planning? In order to maintain momentum, will the Government issue guidance that will enable local planning authorities to go ahead with spatial strategies at a sub-regional level as quickly as possible?

I thank the noble Lord for that comment. It is important that we get development moving as quickly as possible. The New Towns Taskforce will make recommendations to government on the best delivery approach when it reports in July next year. The appropriate delivery vehicle will always be place-specific, and we expect development corporations to be used in most cases. Mayors, local authorities and government can establish development corporations, and we look forward to engaging local partners to understand what will be the best delivery approach for them to support future growth. If these need to come forward sooner rather than later, we will work with local areas to make sure that we facilitate that as best as possible.

My Lords, if I understand the Minister right and the policy, there is to be no financial disincentive for authorities that do not wish to go in this direction. That being the case, will any other inducements and/or sweeteners be offered in order to try to take this forward? If not, what incentive is there for an area that does not have a mayor to do this?

My Lords, there are two absolutely key incentives to this programme of going forward with a mayor. Mayors will get new powers, devolved from Westminster, in a number of areas of competence. With the patience of the House, I will repeat those again: transport and local infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, well-being and public service reform; and public safety. We are already setting out integrated budgets for the more established mayoral authorities to enable them to do that. There is a huge incentive to do that, as well as a seat around the table of the Council of the Nations and Regions. I hope local areas will see that as a positive opportunity. If they want to take more time to get there, that is fine, but it will be a great opportunity for our local regions.

My Lords, I have the dubious distinction of holding a job as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, in the role that my party wished would never exist, so we have had an interesting debate. I absolutely understand some of the positives of the mayoral model—she would say that, wouldn’t she?—but I also appreciate the issues about democratic deficit. When Tony Blair imagined and brought into being directly elected mayors, he saw that the democratic deficit and the electoral process worked against a mayor having a real broad consensus in an area to be the chosen person. So he rightly ditched first past the post and brought in what we would consider to be an inferior PR: the alternative vote system. As we know, that was abolished by the previous Government—and one can only think about the reasons they might have had to do that. Genuinely, if you want a super-mayor with superpowers to really command authority and respect over an area, people must feel that their vote counts. At least in an AV model, the vast majority of people actually get their first or second choice candidate to win. Under first past the post, the winner, as we all know, can actually receive fewer votes than the rest of the field put together, which cannot be right if you are devolving that amount of power.

The noble Baroness provided a wonderful role model for mayors going forward. Some of the innovations that she introduced during her time as Mayor of Watford are legendary, so I thank her for that service. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed. As the noble Baroness will be aware, they have both standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems directly, exercising devolved powers and attracting inward investment. They have a platform for tackling obstacles to growth that might need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable to their citizens, as she rightly points out, and have the profile to stand up for them on a national stage and to partner with and challenge central government where needed—and of course it is needed sometimes. As for the electoral system for mayors, we are not proposing to change that just now.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware, I hope, that as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber I am a huge supporter of devolution and I welcome the White Paper. However, I also know that, for devolution to work, it needs strong support through organisations such as the sadly abolished regional development agencies. To avoid what she called micromanagement, can she assure me that there will be proper support from the Civil Service, perhaps even by moving civil servants out of London to the regions to deliver the devolution settlement?

I thank my noble friend and she is quite right. I remember very well the regional development agencies, back in the day. Some of the departments in government already have a regional presence. My own department has offices in each of the regions, and we intend to extend that and offer a widespread programme of secondments to regions. I think it will be of real benefit to the Civil Service to be working in our regions and then bringing that back to central government, or the other way round: working in central government and going out to the regions. I look forward to seeing how that programme develops. My noble friend is right to say that it will be very important to see that the offices in our regions are fit and well equipped to serve the mayors and combined authorities.

My Lords, we are the most centralised country in the OECD. Can the Minister enlighten the House on the real powers and fiscal devolution that this will lead to? In particular, what is the Government’s target for the proportion of taxation that is devolved? Secondly, I appreciate the Minister’s comment on the letter. However, it is causing confusion to a number of councils, which have been told that they need to submit a letter by 10 January. Many believe that, if they do not, they will miss out on devolution and it will be imposed on them. What is the deadline, what is expected of those who do submit and what does it mean for those who do not meet the deadline? Can this be clarified to councils?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. This is about real devolution of powers and funding, and there are real benefits there to those who take up the offer. The earlier they start to get established, the more powers they will be able to take on. That is a really important step for councils to take. In terms of the letter, I have looked closely at it and it is asking for expressions of interest only by 10 January. For those who want to move quickly, we will ask them to submit their proposals by May—that is, full proposals for reorganisation and devolution. For those who want to move more slowly, they can do that at their own pace. We would hope to get proposals across the board by autumn this year.

My Lords, as a feudal hereditary being thrown out of Westminster, I am quite excited at the prospect of devolution. I have been Earl of Devon for 10 years and, in that role, have tried to understand how local government works across Devon. It is complicated and very difficult, with eight district councils, two unitaries, a county council, et cetera. I was with Exeter City Council on Monday as the announcement was being made, and people there were incredibly uncertain as to the implications for the city council and their plans going forward. Lots of people across the region are confused about the implications of this. There is so much work to be done at local government level, not least the 1.5 million new homes—and later we are going to debate economic development. I am concerned that, with yet another change in local government, and another step in devolution, people simply will not understand where they have recourse and how it works. I still do not understand it, and I wonder what effort the Government will make to inform people, educate them and make sure that local people really feel that they understand what is happening.

I thank the noble Earl. I have already started a series of meetings with councils in local areas to understand where they are with this programme. I am happy to meet with any of them, so, if he wants to encourage his colleagues in Devon to meet me, I would be more than happy to do so. I shall take back to the department the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl have made about the letter, and see whether we feel that any further clarification should be made. Of course, there will be a programme of communication with the public, but the point about this is that it is a White Paper, so it is for consultation. If there are points in it that need clarification, I urge people to get in touch with the department, because we want to get people’s responses to this and, if there are elements that need clarifying before people feel that they can respond, we are happy to do our best to clarify those—so I do urge people to contact myself or the department.

My Lords, in this age of black holes, will mayors’ offices be adequately resourced to fulfil their potential? The newly elected mayor for Warrington and Cheshire is warmly encouraged by business locally, ensuring greater accountability and focus from local leadership on local growth plans. Previously, mayors have been targeted mostly on urban areas. The ambition from Warrington and Cheshire, with a higher proportion of rural communities, is to reach out to market towns and include prosperity across the rural economy. Can my noble friend the Minister assure us that the wider concerns of subregions in the countryside will be adequately addressed by a well-funded devolution process? For example, transport solutions beyond town boundaries need to be integrated with rural areas, with planning powers suitable for the needs of rural communities.

I thank my noble friend. I warmly welcome the extension of mayoral arrangements into parts of our country outside metropolitan areas. I thank my noble friend and all those in Cheshire and Warrington—I met some of them earlier this week and I met them with him a couple of weeks ago—for the spirit of co-operation that has got them where they are in this process. We believe that there are huge benefits to urban and rural areas in having more powers and funding devolved to enable decisions to be made locally about what will work best for their citizens and to drive their local economies. I can confirm the Government’s commitment to ensure that new powers are matched with real devolution of funding. On the proposed integrated settlements, we will start with Manchester, Liverpool, the north-east, South Yorkshire, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire combined authorities. All of them will receive consolidated budgets so that mayors do not have to slalom between the complex funding pots to deliver the right solutions for their communities. I look forward to this exciting programme of devolution and to continuing to work with noble Lords on the White Paper as we go forward.