Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)
Blears, Hazel (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Blomfield, Paul (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
† Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Denham, Mr John (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
† Glen, John (Salisbury) (Con)
† Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Hendrick, Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab)
† Kelly, Chris (Dudley South) (Con)
† Lancaster, Mark (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Lewis, Brandon (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government)
† Sawford, Andy (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Stevenson, John (Carlisle) (Con)
† Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
† Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Leoni Kurt, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended (Standing Order No. 118(2)):
Brady, Mr Graham (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 16 March 2015
[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2015
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The order was laid before the House on 25 February. If approved, it will enable the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to make governance changes to increase the capacity of its leadership. Stronger leadership is needed so that the authority can begin to deliver the Greater Manchester devolution agreement, which was made between the Government and Greater Manchester in November last year. Greater leadership capacity will be provided by the authority being able to appoint an 11th member who will chair its meetings and hence facilitate the collective decision making of the leaders of the 10 Greater Manchester authorities as they take the initial steps to implement this major devolution agreement.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 3 November last year, this is a ground-breaking devolution agreement. It is a key part of the Government’s plan to create a northern powerhouse to maximise the economic potential of the north and build a more balanced economy. The agreement will result in Greater Manchester having significant additional powers over transport, housing, planning and policing. Greater Manchester will be responsible for integrated business support services, for apprenticeships, and for working closely with Whitehall Departments to tailor services such as the Work programme. It includes a revised earn-back scheme—worth £900 million over 30 years—that will provide greater certainty on the funding stream available, based on a payment by results basis, enabling Greater Manchester to finance the Metrolink Trafford Park extension.
In introducing the order, my right hon. Friend considered the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government, as required by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, working with the local authority to deliver what it wants for Greater Manchester. In short, we are clear that this change is an important first step along a journey that will fully implement the ground-breaking devolution deal that we have reached with Greater Manchester: a deal that will be the foundation of greater prosperity and a more balanced achievement of economic success across the country. I commend the draft order to the House.
4.32 pm
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I know that neither you nor I are complaining in the north of Northamptonshire. I am reassured by that.
The Labour party is committed to a radical plan of localism, inspired by the work of Labour councils around the country, which have been at the forefront of developing combined authorities. The 2009 Act was passed by the Labour Government. It was envisaged that local authorities would come together, as we are now seeing in Manchester and many other parts of the country, to work together more closely in the interests of local communities, to drive local economies, and to forge much stronger relationships with local enterprise and local universities. We want to go further to allow local authorities to take on significant new powers, particularly where they come together to form combined authorities. We want London-style transport powers and Work programmes. Local authorities can—uniquely—play a really important role in getting people back into employment, particularly if they combine together and work with their local enterprise partnerships.
Instead of what appears to be a selective approach by the Government, we want all areas to have the opportunity of substantial devolution. I want to see city and county deals. I want my own area of Northamptonshire to have the opportunity to look at London-style transport powers and how we might use them. At the moment, the Government’s approach is a little like Willy Wonka’s. The Chancellor issues a couple of golden tickets to a few areas that get to come forward for a discussion. Such tickets are entirely conditional on jumping through certain hoops that central Government dictate, including what type of leadership or governance model there will be in a local area.
The Opposition’s view is that, having tested the support around the country for the mayoral model, it should be up to local areas to propose the model that they think will work best. There have been some hugely successful elected mayors of different political colours, including independents, throughout the country: for one reason or another, that model has really worked. It is also clear, however, that the model is not a panacea. Sometimes it has not worked, and in some parts of the country there is scepticism from the public, including in some of our great cities, as was demonstrated by referendums held earlier in the Parliament. That leads me to questions on how the model will work and, in particular, the detail of the statutory instrument and questions that flow from that on what the future will hold if it goes through.
Will the Minister set out much more clearly what powers the interim mayor will have? What is the basis for holding those powers at this stage? Given that in every respect this is an interim statutory instrument, which envisages primary legislation in the next Parliament if the model is to develop, will he set out the current basis for any powers that the interim mayor will hold?
What will the process be for appointing an interim manager for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority? How will nomination, shortlisting and selection or election of the interim mayor be carried out? The public will want to know that the person appointed to that powerful new role has been through a thorough, fair, transparent process in which candidates have the opportunity to
make their case and be considered, and that a decision was arrived at on as much consensus as possible among the members who will appoint them.What role, if any, will the constituent local authorities of the Greater Manchester area and their members have in the process, both in how it will be conducted and who will ultimately be successful in being appointed interim mayor? There will be a view, which I am sure the Minister understands, that that person will be in a powerful position if in years to come they should wish to stand for the substantive post if it is created through subsequent primary legislation. It is important that the process has an element of probity.
How will members of the constituent local authorities be able to scrutinise the interim mayor’s work and hold him or her to account? Will that only be through the leaders of local authorities who sit on the combined authority’s board, or will there be a direct relationship? Other directly elected mayors have such a relationship with local authority members and in London, for example, there are other structures for scrutiny and accountability that, at least on the face of it, appear to be clearer and more transparent than any that we are aware of that will underpin this new structure. Will the Minister provide assurances on that point?
The interim mayor will have to make many important decisions and perhaps some controversial ones, because they will be responsible for policing, health care and other important policy areas. As I understand it, the Mayor and five other voting members could impose decisions on health care, work, transport, policing and so on on up to five constituent local authorities without support from their representatives. Does the Minister accept that that is a cause for concern, particularly as, in the interim phase, a decision that affects one area of Greater Manchester could be made without the support of a single elected person in that area until such time as there is a substantive elected mayor with a direct mandate from every area?
In the interim period, one borough could face decisions made to close a local police station or to change health services significantly, which are opposed by its leader on the combined authority board but pushed through under this model. The Minister may say that that is necessary and perhaps an improvement in some respects on decisions being imposed from Whitehall without any real ability to hold people to account. That is reasonable, but we need to be clear whether that is how it will work. What other recourse, if any, will a local area have to challenge decisions imposed on it?
What steps have been taken to build public support and create a basis of consent? The Minister was in the Chamber earlier for Communities and Local Government questions, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) expressed serious concerns. There has been no real attempt to build public support and consent for what is a significant change.
Will the Minister say why a referendum—either at the stage of moving towards an interim appointment or before moving towards the substantive election of a Mayor—has been ruled out? The Government supported referendums on elected Mayors earlier in this Parliament and believe that referendums are appropriate in other circumstances, for example, on local council tax. Why
was the decision made to rule out a referendum either now or in future on an issue of such importance as the introduction of a substantive mayoral post?What electoral system is proposed for the substantive post? Some directly elected mayors around the country are elected under a different system from the first-past-the-post system used in elections for local councillors and Members of Parliament. Members of the European Parliament, who may be able to stand for this post, and police commissioners are elected under different electoral systems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has raised a particular issue with me, not as a statement of intent but simply to seek clarity. Is it true that Members of Parliament will be required to resign from their seat before seeking election or even selection as their party’s candidate for the post? Does the Minister have any further advice on that particular point, which seems to be a source of some confusion? Clearly all elected representatives should be treated equally in the process, whether they are a Member of the European Parliament, a police commissioner, a local councillor or a Member of this place.
Those questions might suggest a level of concern. That concern reflects the views expressed by some hon. Members from the area of the combined authority and others who are looking at the process and wondering what, down the line, may come to their area if the Government are trying to force through a particular model. It comes down to a question of motive. I do not doubt the local authority’s motive; it has been brilliant at driving forward localism in its area and working together with others. It has set an example not just for its area but for the whole country. I look forward to hearing, in a few moments, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, who has experience of local leadership in Manchester. It has been a pioneering area and will continue to be so. In that, it has my support and the support of the Opposition.
The questions arise more from wondering what the Government’s motive is. Is it to devolve the axe in the next Parliament, given their stated intent of significantly slashing public services? Is it to break up the national health service, in the way that we have seen with privatisation—a further fragmentation of our national health service? That is a big question.
In terms of vision, it could well be that the combined authority is able to achieve the kind of integration of health and social care for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has been strongly arguing in this Parliament. There is a real opportunity to bring huge benefits to the local area across major public services, but some of the concerns and the questions that arise from the failure to build any public consent stem from questions about the Government’s motives.
As a supporter of devolution and a lifelong localist, I am keen to support changes that move decision making closer to communities. However, it is important that we create a national consensus behind what should be a radical plan to do so in every area of the country. The Prime Minister’s response to the Scottish referendum, in which he said that we had to change how this House works with regard to how England is governed, missed the point. Of course there are issues about how this House will work if there is further devolution to the other nations of the United Kingdom, but there is also
a really important opportunity to devolve power away from Westminster and Whitehall—out of SW1—and into local communities. I very much support that, but want to see every area have that opportunity. At this stage in the political cycle, just days before a Budget and weeks before a general election, I am sure the Minister can understand why some people think that this particular statutory instrument is motivated more by political calculation than by genuine commitment to localism.I would be grateful for answers from the Minister. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, because I understand that it has the strong support of the Greater Manchester authorities, and if I were them I would embrace any opportunity for significant devolution. I have a great deal of confidence in how the authorities will use the powers, but some scepticism about the Government’s motivation in introducing the statutory instrument.
4.44 pm
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, who has posed some important and serious questions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.
We are broadly united in Parliament, I suspect, and certainly my constituents and others around Greater Manchester are sympathetic to greater devolution: more devolution of decision making and of expenditure in the localities. Greater Manchester has demonstrated a good record over many years of working together. The record of AGMA, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, and of the combined authority is a good one. They have provided a good, solid base for further progress, but the picture is fast moving.
Only a week or two ago, we heard further proposals to suggest that health and social care might be brought into the purview of the new authority and perhaps into the remit of an elected mayor, should one come into being in future. That is so important for my constituents that it becomes critical that we ask searching questions about governance and accountability to ensure that that big transfer of power is done responsibly and sensibly.
I look ahead to the possibility of an elected mayor, but I am sceptical about the wisdom of such a move and I certainly think that there should be a referendum in advance of anything, as has been allowed previously. I will not try your patience, Mr Bone, because the creation of an elected mayor is not in the draft order, but questions about the role and nature of the office of a so-called interim mayor are critical. The draft order provides for an appointment of up to two years, subject to reappointment for another two years. It is not entirely clear from my initial reading—I am sure that the Minister can satisfy me on this point—but there appears to be a single opportunity for reappointment, so there is in effect a sunset clause and the whole thing will lapse should no final conclusion be reached within four years of its establishment.
A further significant democratic concern was rightly expressed by the shadow Minister. Is the creation of an appointed office of interim mayor, a precursor to any elected office of mayor, within the bounds of propriety unless any candidate for the office of interim mayor
rules him or herself out of the possibility of standing for elected office immediately afterwards? An appointed de facto mayor would have a term of two—or even up to four—years to establish a profile and a platform for election, which would clearly be improper and unfair. I hope that the Minister will give me some reassurance and comfort.To conclude, I again make it clear that the principle of devolution of decision making and expenditure to Greater Manchester and elsewhere is a good one, but that it is critically important for us to get things right.
4.48 pm
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow my Greater Manchester colleague. On such affairs, we often agree with each other across party political lines. I strongly support the devolution agreement reached between the leaders of the 10 authorities in Greater Manchester and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is worth putting that into context: both parties over the past 70 years have made this country one of the most centralised countries in what used to be called western Europe and in north America. More than three quarters of public expenditure goes through central Government—the highest proportion of any of the western-styled democracies.
I say two things: first, that the existing system has failed; and secondly, that I hope both parties will support the order as the first step in decentralising resources and functions to local people via local democracy. I say that the system has failed because, if we look at public expenditure in Greater Manchester over the past five years, we see that it started off at approximately £23 billion and, after huge cuts in public services, it is still at £23 billion. It is just that it has gone from more productive, useful services to less productive services supporting people who are no longer in employment or who need other services. I think—I hope the order will test this—that devolving power to the combined authorities and eventually to an elected mayor, via an appointed mayor, will mean that that £23 billion will be used more effectively, economically and efficiently in Greater Manchester.
Having said that, there is a second point. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby discussed rolling out the system throughout the country. I agree with that, because I strongly agree with devolution, but I would add the caveat that it need not be uniform. Let us not pretend that if power is devolved, we can have the same level of services everywhere in the country. Local choice means—to use a term I hate—that there will be a postcode lottery. I would not describe it like that. I would describe it as local choice for different kinds of services and different levels of services and taxes. That is what local democracy means, so we cannot pretend that services will be exactly the same everywhere.
Having an interim mayor is predicated on the idea of eventually having an elected mayor—there would be no appointed mayor if that was not the final destination. The Minister introduced the idea by saying that it would lead to stronger leadership. An elected mayor should deliver that, but I very much doubt that an interim mayor will. As I understand it, an interim mayor will be there mainly in an administrative capacity. Let us not put too fine a point on it: for officials
garnering new functions and resources, dealing with 10 leaders will make herding cats look easy, so they would like to have a point of contact. I am happy for the Minister to correct me, but I do not believe that the new interim mayor will have executive powers. He or she will effectively be there to chair the meetings and to be a conduit for the officials, who will have quite a tough job to do, and for the leaders of the councils.I support the order as a necessary consequence of the timetable of moving to an elected mayor, but it is unfortunate. It would have been better had we moved straight to an elected position, because it gives a false sense of what is happening. Some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in the north of England have expressed increasing concern that, although it is an excellent initiative from the 10 local authorities and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the public are beginning to feel left out of the process. That has been partly out of necessity, but there perhaps could have been greater public involvement. The consultation was very short and involved the local authorities. They came to the agreement, so would of course say yes to it. I hope that, once the general election is over, Opposition and Government Front Benchers can reach agreement, not necessarily on the detail of the new legislation, but on the principle that we need the legislation quickly to move from an administrative position to an elected mayor. If that does not happen quickly, there will be a large democratic deficit.
Let me respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West on a referendum. I rarely disagree with him on local matters, but there is an important distinction to be made. When electorates have been given a choice about having an elected mayor, it has usually been a choice between their current system of democratic accountability by elected councillors and a council, and a different system that effectively delivers the same services with the same resources. In almost every election that has been fought for as long as I can remember in Greater Manchester, local authorities—this is certainly true for Labour authorities, and I think it is also true for Liberal Democrat and Conservative authorities—have said that there is too much central power. This proposal responds to that point.
There are three choices about how the extra functions and powers will be brought to account. First, we can leave it as it is, and have the combined authority—the elected leaders—control the new powers, but I think that that would lead to a democratic deficit. Many of the functions affect the whole county, and those leaders—individual councillors for individual wards—are not elected on that basis. Secondly, one could recreate the old Greater Manchester county council with different functions, either as it was or in the form of the Greater London authority, but that would be ridiculously cumbersome and I do not think there would be any support for it. Almost inevitably, therefore, we will be led to having a county-wide election for a mayor.
I understand why the proposed legislation does not envisage a referendum. The political basis for devolution is there, and where there is devolution it is sensible to have political accountability in the system. Having said that, the Minister and Opposition Front Benchers should take into account the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and other hon. Members from Greater Manchester, which is that the public are being left behind because of the narrowness of the consultation.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I am enthusiastic about the agreement that has been reached, and I hope that this intermediate stage, which is less than satisfactory, is as short and painless as possible.
4.58 pm
Brandon Lewis: I will try to deal with all the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Corby made some points that are outside the direct remit of this statutory instrument, which is just two clauses long, but I will do my best to cover all the points without moving out of order.
The hon. Gentleman commented on combined authorities and said that he wants to see devolution for all areas. I agree. It is good to see the Labour party coming to the table, albeit some 13 years too late, but we have led the way. As Minister, I have taken through a number of combined authorities, and the Government have said that we are keen to see more areas come forward. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we say continually to local areas that we are willing to talk to them about local deals, city deals, county deals and combined authorities. However, it has to be locally-driven by local areas coming to us. There will not be a top-down process under this Government. We are very much driven by what local people want.
Andy Sawford: It is important to recognise that the combined authorities are being created under an Act passed by the previous Government, and all the combined authorities that have come forward have a significant majority of Labour councils and councillors that are driving them, so it is churlish of the Minister, given my track record, to make the issue of localism too political. We should celebrate the consensus.
Brandon Lewis: To an extent, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point that I was making. We have taken the majority of the combined authorities through. In terms of localism and further devolution, not only did the previous Government not actually do it, but they centralised further. As a councillor at the time, I remember being on the other side of that. We are not devolving power where the Government think best. We are saying to local areas, “You come to us with what works for you, and we will devolve it in a way that is right for your local area.” That is very different from what the Opposition seem to be saying.
The Chair: Order. As is my wont, I try to be as generous as possible. I seem to have opened us up to local government reorganisation in general. Let us try to stick to the instrument.
Brandon Lewis: Moving directly to the instrument, the hon. Gentleman asked whether Members of Parliament have to resign to stand for the mayoralty. I do not know whether he is already looking for what he might be doing after 8 May, but I can reassure him that Members will not need to resign. He commented on the mayor and five others being able to outvote others. The voting arrangements have been requested by the 10 authorities working together and in agreement among themselves. The 10 local authorities and the combined authority are content with the split of responsibilities between
the combined authorities and the councils, and the arrangements therein, and the order is as requested by them directly.Mr Brady: On that point, will the Minister explain the logic of giving the interim mayor a vote if he is an elected member of one of the local authorities, but not if he or she is not?
Brandon Lewis: If my hon. Friend bears with me for a second, I will come to the interim mayor’s position. On his earlier question about a sunset provision, the order provides for the appointment of an interim mayor initially, as he rightly said, for a term of just two years. It provides for further appointments if necessary, but this is very much within the curtilage of the devolution agreement between Greater Manchester and the Government, which is that there will be an elected mayor from 2017. The logic of just one term is absolutely right, but there is that ability if things need a delay.
The arrangements for the elected mayor will be provided for in the proposed primary legislation. I will not cover that now because it is outside our remit, but the interim mayor will be appointed by the councillors following an appointment process, which will be specified by the combined authorities. We expect that to be a transparent process whereby the combined authority councillors will have a chance to put questions and be involved.
As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton rightly said, the interim mayor will not have the democratic accountability of an elected mayor. They will not be given powers to exercise personally. Instead, they will have one of the 11 votes on the combined authority’s cabinet. I presume that the 10 authorities wanted to make sure that all 11 members have a vote to make sure
that decisions are made as and when they need to be made, but, until the mayoral election in 2017, the combined authority, chaired by the interim mayor, will assume some of the mayor’s responsibilities: specifically, control of the housing investment fund and the renegotiated earn-back deal.The hon. Gentleman asked about moving straight to an elected mayor. I understand that point. I am sure we would all want to move as quickly as possible to a final solution, but the interim mayor was considered by the combined authority and the Government to be an appropriate transitional step as we move towards having a directly elected mayor.
On the question asked by the hon. Member for Corby, I will clarify further. The elected mayor, with a clear mandate from the citizens of Greater Manchester, will have personal responsibility for a number of key new powers that are being devolved, and will take over the powers of the existing police and crime commissioner, but that is for the future. In the interim period, the combined authority has no policing powers.
To make it clear for the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, the order is a modest first step in implementing the devolution agreement. It provides merely for an 11th member of the combined authority to be appointed. Although some may call this an interim mayor, let me be clear that this person will have no powers that they are personally responsible for exercising. That will sit with the combined authority itself.
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Amendment) Order 2015.