Last week – on 27 November – we co-hosted the excellent London Assembly Mayoral Scrutiny Conference. The energy in the room was unmistakable – and of course largely down to the excellent hosting and organisation provided by the Assembly team. And it has got us all thinking a lot more about the future for a burgeoning sector. Briefly, Camilla, Ed and Andrew have jotted down our main reflection points from the conference – where Camilla and Ed were very busy holding and chairing sessions.
A moment of real momentum for mayoral scrutiny
There was a strong sense that we are at what Ed called “an inflection point”. With more mayors being created and greater powers flowing to them, scrutiny is entering a new and more significant phase. The sector is growing in confidence – and in visibility.
- There’s obviously growing enthusiasm for mayoral scrutiny and recognition that it is becoming an essential part of the governance landscape.
- Devolution offers a significant opportunity for places to shape their own solutions, but scrutiny must be ready to help shape the policies, direction and reality that matches this ambition.
- Perhaps we are reaching a “critical mass” where scrutiny must seize the moment and define its future role? Time will tell.
- As mayoral competence and delivery capacity expand, scrutiny will nonetheless need to keep pace and demonstrate its value – and decision makers will need to recognise the role and need for scrutiny in developing place-based solutions (More about this later!)
Imperfect reform and an imperfect world don’t negate the positive
While recent devolution represents real progress, it would be hard to argue the system as it is – or as it is going to be for a while yet – is perfect. We heard repeatedly that there are opportunities but also the gaps, contradictions and unanswered questions that still need resolving in how mayoral scrutiny works. Not least that we are yet to hear how the growing power of mayors will be met with a revised, and more powerful, scrutiny system – a point CfGS has made in our submission on the Devolution Bill.
- Some of these imperfections reflect deeper issues in the central–local relationship, including trust and willingness at the centre to hand over real power.
- The lack of meaningful fiscal devolution remains a fundamental limitation – one that could hinder real autonomy or innovation. It’s worth asking if the key to resolving this lies in demonstrating to government that the burgeoning mayoral sector is ready for more responsibility.
- Despite these imperfections, the progress of devolution is real – and it is worth recognising that a centralised system does not give up power easily (a point made forcefully by Lord Heseltine in his opening remarks).
Systems and models under strain
Combined authority governance and scrutiny is being tested by new powers, new geographies and new expectations. How it will stand up to these tests, however, doesn’t just rely on Government. It requires thinking about, and understanding, the way those changes are happening and what they mean. Which is why the conference was such a welcome moment – there is a need for more reflection.
- Combined authorities are becoming increasingly complex, multi-partner bodies that require governance arrangements that are increasingly different from councils.
- Emerging CA geographies raise questions: some may be too large to maintain strong resident connection, others too small to act strategically.
- While mayoral governance has been most prominent and arguably successful in urban contexts, it remains to be seen how effective it can be at adapting to the unique challenges of a more rural economy, which may be based around multiple nodes of economic geography rather than a single conurbation.
- As roles evolve, the accountability structures around them will also need to shift, potentially beyond what is currently proposed.
Power, autonomy and trust
The reforms present opportunities for mayors to expand their remit, but real but how they grow will of course depend on central government’s willingness to trust local leadership.
- New provision in the Devolution Bill means mayors will be able to request further powers. This creates expanding authority.
- The extent of this autonomy remains shaped by funding dependencies, political pressures and expectations tied to national priorities.
- Ongoing uncertainty remains about whether central government will fully commit to further devolution– especially in areas like fiscal devolution. Again, we have to ask what role mayoral scrutiny can play in ‘winning the argument’ that more power can be adequately held to account.
- The future role of mayors, particularly as conveners of local systems, will require an accountability environment capable of matching that responsibility.
Scrutiny and governance will need to evolve – and fast
Growing mayoral power means that scrutiny must grow with it. There is agreement that scrutiny needs to be more than retrospective checking – it must be forward-looking, strategic and citizen-focused. This is just about scrutiny, however – it’s also about governance. The focus of the event was Mayoral scrutiny but we surfaced some broader issues about an expansion of the more traditional local government framework into something more innovative and suited to CAs’ needs as institutions.
- Scrutiny cannot rely solely on measurable outputs or backward-looking review; it must shape decision-making as it happens.
- It’s probably the case that the tasks associated with LPACs – review of value for money, rigorous financial oversight, a cross-partnership, place-based approach – will be necessary but the formal structures for this remain to be seen.
- Future arrangements must include value-for-money assessment, rigorous financial oversight and cross-partnership, place-based scrutiny. Read Ed’s mot recent piece relating to mayoral place governance.
- We must be clear on what the terms mean – e.g. is audit financial audit? Scrutiny cannot be only retrospective. Comparisons cannot be only reduced to the measurable.
- Much of this work is happening in real time, with little space for reflection, meaning the sector must build capability while adapting to fast-paced reform.
Resources remain the biggest constraint
Ambition is outpacing available resource. If scrutiny is to meet this moment, it needs investment that matches the scale and complexity of the mayoral model.
- Capacity gaps – on the part of both officers and members – remain among the most pressing barriers to effective scrutiny.
- Funding uncertainty continues to undermine the ability of places to innovate or strengthen governance.
- New CAs and CCAs are especially stretched, trying to build systems within tight or static financial envelopes.
- There is a strong case that governance and scrutiny should be resourced proportionately to the budgets and responsibilities combined authorities now hold – particularly those receiving integrated settlements.
Looking ahead: A sector preparing for its next chapter
The conference made one thing abundantly clear: mayoral scrutiny’s moment is coming. The tests ahead for national government – the passage of the Bill, the detail in secondary legislation, the signals around fiscal devolution – will set the tone. But the tests for the sector itself may be even more important.
Scrutiny practitioners, mayors, combined authorities and partners can also show that this field is ready: to build capacity, to innovate, and to professionalise, and ready to demonstrate the value of scrutiny in improving governance and outcomes for citizens.
All news