The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr Graham
Brady
†
Binley,
Mr Brian (Northampton South)
(Con)
†
Birtwistle,
Gordon (Burnley)
(LD)
Clwyd,
Ann (Cynon Valley)
(Lab)
†
Coffey,
Dr Thérèse (Suffolk Coastal)
(Con)
†
Hammond,
Stephen (Wimbledon)
(Con)
†
Hemming,
John (Birmingham, Yardley)
(LD)
†
Keeley,
Barbara (Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
†
Kirby,
Simon (Brighton, Kemptown)
(Con)
†
McClymont,
Gregg (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)
(Lab)
McDonnell,
John (Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
†
Neill,
Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government)
†
Pawsey,
Mark (Rugby)
(Con)
Simpson,
David (Upper Bann)
(DUP)
†
Skinner,
Mr Dennis (Bolsover)
(Lab)
Stuart,
Ms Gisela (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab)
†
Weatherley,
Mike (Hove) (Con)
†
Wiggin,
Bill (North Herefordshire)
(Con)
Winnick,
Mr David (Walsall North)
(Lab)
Glenn McKee, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Third
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 14
March
2011
[Mr
Graham Brady
in the
Chair]
Draft
Greater Manchester Combined Authority Order
2011
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Robert Neill):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined
Authority Order
2011.
May I say
what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Brady? The order
relates to a part of the world that will be more than familiar to you
as a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament.
The order will
give effect to the joint desire of all the authorities in Greater
Manchester to exercise the powers that are available under the Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to establish
a combined authority for the purpose of improving their joint working
in relation to economic development, regeneration and transport. It is
key to stress that the proposal is entirely voluntary and bottom-up.
Local authorities of all three political parties support it, and in any
event, there is a history of co-operation: for 20 years or
so, there has been a voluntary partnership. The Association of Greater
Manchester Authorities carried out a governance review and, as a
result, produced this proposal.
There has been
discussion about some of the details and terms, to ensure that all
authorities are comfortable with the measure and that it is genuinely
localist. The measure involves the authorities having competence
concurrently with the joint authority, so the Government are satisfied
that this is not a regionalising and centralising model, but that it is
something of genuine collaboration. Considering that the order contains
appropriate safeguards in relation to voting procedures and the
future—if at any stage things need to change—the
Government are happy to give effect to what is the local
authorities’ desire. Unless hon. Members have any questions, I
hope that, without further ado, the Committee will support the
order.
4.32
pm
Barbara
Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab):
It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. The Opposition
support the order because it will lead to more effective governance and
more effective services for the people of Greater Manchester—at
least a couple of hon. Members here have an interest in
that—across the strategic policy areas of economic development,
regeneration and transport. Indeed, there is a conclusive case for
re-stamping this the first combined authority, because Greater
Manchester is a coherent economic area, as has been laid out by the
Manchester Independent Economic Review.
Given that
support—I shall not finish my speech straight away—I have
a comment and a question for the Minister. If the Committee approves
the draft order—that seems likely today—and it is
approved in the other place, it will be of great potential
benefit to transport services in Greater Manchester. As the Minister
knows, under the Localism Bill, the 10 authorities in Manchester will
have a general power of competence and planning, and the delivery of
transport will benefit from the power of those authorities. The
Minister will know that my contention is that the same should apply to
other transport authorities, and I hope that Ministers are reflecting
on that.
That was the
comment; this is the question. Under the Localism Bill, Manchester city
council will be singled out to have its leader transformed into a
shadow mayor and the Secretary of State will have the power to grant
extra powers to that mayor in Manchester. Does the Minister realise
that that effectively creates an anomaly? The order does not create an
anomaly; the Localism Bill creates an anomaly over and above the order,
with different powers for Manchester among the 10 authorities who will
work together as equals in the new combined
authority.
4.33
pm
Robert
Neill:
I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Lady’s
question as much in the spirit of the order as her point is. As she
rightly says, the key bit is the creation of a mayor or
otherwise—ultimately, that will be a matter of choice for the
residents of Manchester—but that does not affect the combined
authority itself because the authority’s powers are set out in
the order. The representation of Manchester will not be changed, and
the intention is that there should be one member per authority. That
will normally be the leader, although it might be an elected mayor if
there is an executive mayor. However, in each case, that will be a
matter for the city to change. The measure does not, in fact, affect
the authority’s
competence.
Our
question was what the appropriate power of competence for a
single-purpose authority would be. The hon. Lady served on the
Committee that considered the Localism Bill, so she knows that we
concluded that it was appropriate to grant what one might term the
full-blown power of general competence to all-purpose
authorities—to principal local authorities of one kind or
another. However, with what are in effect single-purpose
authorities—normally, fire and rescue authorities, although they
could be police authorities—it may not be appropriate to grant
the general power of competence. That applies here because this
authority is the first of its kind. Read in a certain way, such a power
could enable this authority to set up schools, for example, which would
go beyond the purpose for which the authority is established.
Therefore, we have limited its powers, just as we limited the powers of
fire authorities.
If there are
future issues relating to such authorities and it is thought to be
necessary to go further, the best thing would be to discuss that with
the Department for Transport. Importantly, the constituent authorities
are happy with the powers in the order, and it seems sensible to
proceed on that
basis.
4.35
pm
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
It is sad that we in
Birmingham cannot find the same
co-operation between the black country and Birmingham that there
obviously is in Greater Manchester, where people have done well to get
all the local authorities to work together. In Birmingham, we have
managed that with all the authorities except those in the black
country, which do not want to
play.
Integrated
transport authorities have a representative system, whereby there is a
balance of political parties. This system has a representative and an
alternative. Was that requested by Greater Manchester Combined
authority? Do the Government have a view? Will that issue be kept under
review, given that this might not be an entirely pluralistic way to
proceed?
4.36
pm
Robert
Neill:
I am helpfully reminded about that by my hon.
Friend the Member for Wimbledon, who served on the Committee that
considered the 2009
Act—[
Interruption
]
—and who
clearly remembers it vividly.
The composition—one member per authority—is a requirement
of that Act. It seems that the authorities in Greater Manchester are
content with that arrangement, and in the current climate, this is not
the vehicle with which to revisit that matter. As this authority is the
first of its kind, there is scope to learn from experience. The power
of general competence might suggest other vehicles that might be more
appropriate in other parts of the country.
4.37
pm
Barbara
Keeley:
I thank the Minister for his answers. I think that
there are still some anomalies, and we will therefore have to have to
keep an eye on things. I am happy, however, to support the
order.
Question
put and agreed to.
4.38
pm
Committee
rose.
