Title

Coverage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 receiving Royal Assent was, understandably, dominated by the Government's retreat from its commitment to enforce devolution.But if you read the Act, a broader picture emerges of what government now thinks mayoral governance is for, and how it expects it to operate.That is certainly true of scrutiny, an aspect of the Government's devolution plans that until early spring felt underdeveloped.When the Bill was published, the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) was among those arguing that expanded mayoral powers needed to be matched by a more ambitious framework for accountability and oversight.CfGS assessed the amendments in March. At first sight they appeared modest and much of the detail will follow in regulations. They do not create the local public accounts committees that CfGS first proposed, which would have the powers and resources to scrutinise not only mayoral activity, but the wider landscape of public service delivery and spending.The Government appears to have listened – introducing amendments in March for a strengthened scrutiny framework – dubbed ‘local scrutiny committees' – in established mayoral strategic authorities.While we did not get everything on our wish list, the amendments suggest scrutiny will become a more integral – and consequential – part of how mayors govern.CfGS assessed the amendments in March. At first sight they appeared modest and much of the detail will follow in regulations. They do not create the local public accounts committees that CfGS first proposed, which would have the powers and resources to scrutinise not only mayoral activity, but the wider landscape of public service delivery and spending.Instead, overview and scrutiny committees gain stronger powers to compel attendance and information from ‘key persons', including mayors and deputies with provision for financial penalties for non-compliance to be introduced through regulations. There are also provisions for local petitions, alongside regulation-making powers covering resourcing and the use of independent experts. Most importantly, there is a redrawing of scrutiny's purpose.Previously, it was concerned with ‘the area or its inhabitants', just as at local authority level. Under the new regime, it is tied more directly to mayoral functions and competencies. It must consider value for money – much as CfGS envisaged for local public accounts committees.On paper, that is a narrowing of remit. In practice, it may turn out to be the basis for a deeper role – given the Act grants more powers and competences to mayoral authorities and creates a mechanism for mayors to request additional powers in future.The Government has already indicated that the list of ‘key persons' can be expanded beyond the authority itself through regulations. That is likely to encompass mayoral development corporations, for example, but could extend further.Because mayors will get ‘integrated settlements', tying together previously separate funding streams, the discretion available to mayoral strategic authorities over spending and strategic priorities increases. We await, too, a promise of fiscal devolution at the Budget in the autumn.But it is the wider reform agenda around strategic authorities that makes the scrutiny provisions particularly significant.The Government has signalled its intention for mayors to take on police and crime commissioner functions in areas where governance boundaries align – requiring new arrangements for scrutiny currently undertaken by police and crime panels.And in March, the then health secretary Wes Streeting announced plans to trial new health devolution arrangements in South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.He said integrated care board chairs would in effect operate as ‘deputy mayors for health' with mayors taking a leading role in driving improvements across local health systems.You do not have to join many dots to see where this all leads. Scrutiny will encompass the growing list of systems mayors preside over: policing and public safety, health, regeneration, transport, economic growth, housing and the environment.The Government said in March this new model will be adopted by established mayoral strategic authorities in 2027, then by all mayoral strategic authorities in 2028. It will make scrutiny one of the principal ways in which the legitimacy and effectiveness of England's new strategic tier of government is tested.But that test now is not all in the Government's hands. It will fall to strategic authorities and councillors to meet these developing obligations.For officers, the changes should offer no great surprise – good scrutiny practice focuses on outcomes and financial value. A provision to involve ‘independent experts' will need management, but scrutiny often accommodates external expertise.Similarly, the requirement to provide two officers for day-to-day work should only make the job officers do supporting councillors to deliver effective scrutiny more visible.Officers will now want to focus on the relationships that scrutiny develops beyond the authority's doorstep, and how they work effectively with local authorities.Combined authorities and principal authorities will need to be aware of the different focuses for scrutiny at the two levels, coming together to address work programming so issues affecting the local area are well managed.Similarly, local authorities hold many key external relationships that will come into combined authorities' purview. So, officers will need to build relationships between councils and mayoral authorities based on trust.For councillors, the picture is less clear at this stage. Our initial conversations with combined authority scrutiny members indicate that the role is already a challenge. That is in part because so many members perform responsibilities on top of local authority professional and personal commitments.We know combined authorities will want to understand more about how the Act and how all the changes it will bring to scrutiny – and governance – can be appropriately applied. It is therefore good that the Government will be working with the sector – and CfGS will play its part too in supporting those conversations and combined authorities.However, if that sounds challenging, it is because scrutiny at mayoral level should be. These are organisations tasked with making big changes, where multi-million – even multi-billion – sums are now commonplace. Holding them to account on behalf of millions of people is not just a job worth doing, but one in which we all have a stake.Natalie Rotherham is director of practice – governance and devolution at the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS)

Title

GOVERNANCE

English devolution: Redefining mayoral scrutiny

By Natalie Rotherham | 20 May 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING