Scrutiny of the Government’s approach to devolution is, quite rightly, unrelenting.

It was just last month National Audit Office head Amyas Morse warned the Government’s stance held ‘an air of charting undiscovered territory’, with no ‘clear view of the landscape or, crucially, an idea of the destination’ in place.

This failed to conjour up the image of sun-drenched explorers like Christopher Columbus, rather likening ministers to the tragic figure of George Mallory facing the icy tundra.

Hounding the Government at base camp this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee was in no mood to grant a moment’s respite. Rather unfortunately, the committee had to first reconcile its differences over the name attributed to handing powers down to local government. In what must have been a thrilling prelude to the examination of government policy, peers were at first unsure whether to term it decentralisation or instead follow Lord Heseltine’s lead and label the process a ‘new model of partnership between central and local government’. Catchy.

Once that was settled – for those on tenterhooks, they opted for ‘devolution deals’- the committee swiftly rounded on ministers over the ‘lack of consideration’ given to the impact decentralisation would have on England’s long-term governance.

Witnesses held no punches, with Dr David Moon of the University of Bath branding the shift of focus away from Westminster and central government as a ‘classic British ad hoc muddle’ that held ‘no coherence’.

Peers voiced concern that the lack of any detail over what the Government was looking to achieve not only witheld ‘clarity’ from local government but denied Parliament the ‘yardstick’ to measure future success.

Yet protests were raised against the idea of a more systemic approach to devolution, with Local Government Association chairman Lord Porter fearing the confines of a resultant ‘centralised localism’. Similarly, Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese turned down the ‘one size fits all’ agenda, informing the committee local government was now moving ‘at the speed of the fastest, dragging other people along’.

Minister Oliver Letwin, who holds responsibility over the constitution, said the Government’s aim was ‘to arrive at an England in which there is a great deal more power a great deal nearer to the people and less of it controlled further away from them. Exactly what powers reside exactly where is something which will evolve and continue to evolve.’

So, really, the plan seemed to be to have no plan at all.

The minister also clashed with the committee over whether the Government was forcing regions to take on mayors, under a key requirement of the devolution deals.

Mr Letwin argued the Government was not demanding locations accept mayors but was instead stating ‘if you do not like our conditions you do not have to take powers’.

‘The reason for doing that is we want to ensure there is perspicuous democratic accountability where we have transferred significant powers,’ the minister added.

Peers on the committee countered that it was ‘clear’ the Government was ‘imposing elected mayors’ on regions looking to take advantage of deals. Rather than enforcing this ‘rigid’ system, they argued it would be ‘more appropriate’ to make a ‘wider range of governance structure for combined authorities’ available for negotiation.

Their focus then turned to how successfully councils involved with devolution deals had engaged with members of the public.

Committee members branded communication from council to community a serious ‘weakness’ in current policy. They called for local politicians to be required to lead on informing citizens and civil society in regions bidding for and negotiating deals.

Given the vocal opposition to metro mayors from MPs including Liam Fox, its unlikely such a demand would be welcomed by either councils or politicians closely tied to the devolution agenda.

Sir Richard admitted to the committee that he did not think Greater Manchester had been ‘particularly good’ in engaging with communities over devolution, but it was something the region was ‘now putting right’.

His comments indicated local government faced a tough task engaging with its citizens on devolution. Sir Richard said councils needed to make the conversation ‘about the real things that make a difference to people’s lives, not structural or fairly abstract concepts’.

Lord Porter agreed, suggesting that ‘no matter how hard’ Manchester had worked, it would always ‘struggle to engage the imagination of the public when trying to convince them that this has suddenly become a sexy subject’.

‘It is going to be about services: “Do I trust politicians locally to have control over services, or do I trust this other bunch of politicians?”,’ he added.

Securing that public faith will be crucial given the sheer number of people involved. When added to the population of London, the 10 devolution deals will mean 45% of England’s population could be living in areas with some form of decentralised power.

Still, lords on the committee concluded that it was ‘too soon to know’ whether devolution deals would ‘provide the answer to the English Question’ or assuage national concern about the centralised state of power.

So the expedition towards full local government devolution continues. As Mr Mallory might have said: Why devolve to local government? Because it’s there!