7 Dec 2015 : Column 768

I want to dwell on amendment 56, which was tabled by my hon. Friend—and indeed real friend—the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Normally I agree with him about most things, but on this occasion his amendment concerns me, and I want to make a few points about the situation in Lincolnshire and give the Minister the opportunity to reply.

My hon. Friend represents north-east Lincolnshire, and I represent Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is a very conservative county. It is so conservative that the Gainsborough constituency—which I am proud to represent—has had only three MPs in 90 years, and all three have been Conservative. People do not like change in Lincolnshire, and they are wary of any device such as that in amendment 56. The Government appear to have accepted the amendment, albeit with a sunset clause, and it is quite unusual for a Back Bencher to table an amendment that the Government then accept.

People in Lincolnshire—and, I suspect, other rural counties—want to proceed by consent, which seems an admirably conservative point of view. Normally, proceeding by consent means dealing with the tried and tested, and taking things forward together. Many people are scarred—this has already been referred to—by the events of the 1970s, when ancient counties were swept away. There were different enthusiasms then. They may not have been in favour of elected mayors, referendums or unitary authorities, but everything was done on the basis of Heath-ite efficiency. We now know that that drive towards Heath-ite efficiency was fundamentally wrong and unpopular, and it imposed Whitehall centrist ideas on what local people wanted. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is here. As a result of 1974, we created the ludicrous county of Humberside, destroying Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire—what madness. We know that is not the right approach.

Speaking as a Conservative—not just as a party politician, but as someone who tries to understand Conservative values—I appeal to the Minister to proceed with great caution and to take people with him on this matter. Now, elected mayors are all the rage, but a few years ago so were police and crime commissioners. We had a mixed history with that—low turnouts, lack of interest, and not necessarily democratic accountability.

Lincolnshire County Council is generally well run, popular, and has been in place for 130 years. The district councils have been in place for more than 40 years. It is not for me to speak for local councillors in Lincolnshire, but since they cannot speak in this place and have only me to say these things, I hope nobody minds if I say that we do not want a solution imposed on us. What worries me about the amendment—and the Government’s ready acceptance of it—is that, as the county council and district councils recognise, in terms of unitary authorities, elected mayors and devolution, we do not want a bruising battle over many years between district and county councils about which should be abolished.

We want to proceed by consent and to get together. We are happy with the idea of central Government devolving more powers to a county such as Lincolnshire, but we recognise that we are not Manchester, Birmingham or London. We are a large, quite poor county with a low rate base and a scattered population. There is no question that we could run the NHS or anything like that; we are not in the business of devo-max. We want to leave the

7 Dec 2015 : Column 769

present structure in place with district councils and county councils, and perhaps form a new body on which those will be represented. We would then accept new powers for that body. That is how we want to proceed by consent. Given many of our discussions so far, I am worried that in our rush for change and innovation, we may ride roughshod over what local people and councillors want. Being sensible people and knowing their area, they generally want to proceed slowly, cautiously, and by consent. With that, I feel that I have made my arguments and I will let others speak. I am sure they will be far more interesting than me.

Nigel Mills: I am in the unfortunate position of not only having to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), but in disagreeing with them both. I always thought that if I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I should sit down and think again. In this case, however, I disagree with his arguments, because I think that when electing an individual who will have significant powers, we should try to ensure that they are elected with a larger proportion of the vote than is required by first past the post.

I suspect that no one would want some kind of extremist to win a powerful mayoralty in a fluke election where there were 14 candidates and the winner ended up with 16% of the vote. I accept that that is unlikely, but it would be a horrible situation. I am sure that the people of France, having seen their election results over the weekend, are glad that they will have a run-off in their presidential election. If the Front National were to win the first round, people will get a chance to elect a non-extreme president. I disagree with my hon. Friend, because when electing an individual who will have power, I am not sure that first past the post is the right answer. We should have the system currently used for the London Mayor and police commissioners, where there is a run-off after the original vote to ensure that the person who wins commands 50% of the vote.

I also disagree with my hon. Friend that not having an elected mayor is the least worst thing. If we are to devolve significant amounts of money and power to a new body, that body must be accountable directly to the people. We need people standing and being elected on the basis of how they will use that power and money.

When people elect a leader of a district council that has a small £10 million budget and mainly does planning and refuse collection, I am not convinced that they will be thinking, “The party I am voting for will choose the leader of the council and will effectively have a veto over the new super body that covers at least two counties in my area.” That is not accountable to the people, and I think it is bad for democracy. We risk recreating the police authority model that we did not think worked, but on a much larger scale and with more powers. That would be a retrograde step for our constituents’ democratic accountability over key public services, and that is why I do not support the amendment.

On amendment 56, I am a supporter of devolution to English regions. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made the right arguments, because areas such a Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire do not

7 Dec 2015 : Column 770

have a long-standing, coherent geography that makes people think, “That’s a natural body of government I identify with.” We must proceed carefully, and ensure that we produce Government bodies that people identify with and say, “Yes, I see a coherent natural fit. That is where I look to for decisions to be taken.”

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that some parts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire might feel better suited to the Sheffield region rather than to Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I am pretty certain that Amber Valley, which runs along the boundary between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and has the strapline, “The Heart of Derbyshire”, sees itself firmly in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area, rather than somewhere else, but it is right for individual local districts to have the democratic right to say, “We represent our people, and we think that that region is the right place for us to be.” If people vote for that, that is what should happen, and there should not be a veto from a higher authority that covers a different area.

In exercising that right and making that decision, the Secretary of State should try to achieve consensus, consider the broader picture, and ensure that we do not achieve some strange, farcical democratic situation where, if the people of Bolsover choose to go with Sheffield, they suddenly have no say in holding their own police force to account because that is handled by the elected mayor for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. We must proceed with caution regarding what powers go to the mayors. If they are mainly economic powers and interests, and perhaps transport, perhaps elected mayors should not replace the police commissioners if we are to vary the geography, as that could be a dangerous step.

I know that people in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are keen to replace their police and crime commissioners, but I am not sure how one person can hold to account two different police forces. That seems a little strange, because someone could be using one mandate to hold to account two forces with very different policies. We must think carefully about such functions. We ought to think properly about the geography, not just rely on some historic, centuries-old set of local government boundaries that may not make sense in the modern world. We should step back and think about what a good system of local government would look like if we added that extra tier. I am not sure that our constituents would thank us if we had four different tiers of local government.

My constituents in Heanor or Ripley elect 21 town councillors and 45 borough councillors. They elect two councillors to the county council, which has more than 60 councillors. I am not sure that they will fancy electing a new mayor and another tier of government, and paying for all that as well. I am not sure that many of them understand exactly what functions those three council tiers have, and what a fourth one on top would do. They would probably think that all four had some role in economic development and regeneration, largely because that features significantly in most of the election literature that we see.

7 pm

If we are going to have this devolution we ought to step back and consider whether it is a sustainable, effective and efficient system of local government that our constituents can understand and support. Should we use this Bill as the driver for looking at changing that

7 Dec 2015 : Column 771

local government system, perhaps with unitary councils and a new elected mayor for a larger region? I put my name to amendment 56, which would make it easier, where there is consensus in an area, to create those new unitaries. It would not allow one small district to cross two counties to block the whole thing and reject the unitary authority. If there were consensus, that proposal should be allowed to proceed.

I am not sure that about the drafting of the amendment, which would allow the Secretary of State to create unitaries if only one council wanted that. It would be perverse for the Secretary of State to have such a power if one of the nine districts in Derbyshire were in favour and the county council and the other eight district were against. Where the majority of districts and the county council are in favour, or if all the districts but not the county are in favour, the Secretary of State could use that power to create unitary authorities, which would be a more efficient, cost-effective and effective form of local government overall. I welcome the fact that the Government appear to have accepted amendment 56 with the change proposed in manuscript amendment (a). If the Lords accept the proposal, perhaps they should consider whether the consent of only one authority is the right model. Perhaps the power would be fairer if it were half the authorities, or two thirds. Apart from that, I commend amendment 56 to the House.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I am concerned about amendment 56 and the Government’s acceptance of it, albeit subject to the proposal in amendment (a).

The reasons for my concern go back some time. Twenty years ago, before I was privileged to be a Member of Parliament, I served on the Local Government Commission, which looked at structures of local government in England, including at whether councils should switch from a two-tier structure to a unitary one. The method we adopted in those days was to invite local people and councils to submit evidence, and to hold public inquiries and hearings on the evidence. It was very much a bottom-up process. That was decided by consensus in the commission. In due course, it made recommendations to the Government, which were adopted by Parliament if changes were involved.

In Dorset, which I have the privilege of representing in Parliament, there was a lively debate about whether Poole and Bournemouth should become unitary authorities, with Dorset County Council remaining a county council and a two-tier system operating in the rest of the county. In the end, it was agreed that Poole would become a separate unitary authority, as would Bournemouth, but the remainder of the county council area would be two-tier, with Dorset County Council dealing with the main services such as education and social services, and the borough or district councils dealing with the services closest to the people.

Nothing that has happened in the 20 years since leads me to believe that people in Christchurch, East Dorset or Dorset are anything other than content with the current arrangements. When there was all this talk about the possibility of change being forced through by the Government, I was assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that nothing would happen to change things in Dorset unless it had the wholehearted consent of the councils concerned. On that basis, a half-baked

7 Dec 2015 : Column 772

proposal introduced by Poole, with support from Bournemouth, to try to set up a new unitary authority incorporating Christchurch and East Dorset, could not work. Dorset County Council understandably said that it would mean that part of its area, which enables it to provide good services and make economies of scale, would be taken away and no longer be included in Dorset county. The line, which the Secretary of State articulated to me very persuasively, was that there was no need to worry, because nothing would be imposed from the centre. It was something that would only come from the bottom up.

That is where we were until today and the inclusion of amendment 56 on the amendment paper. I assumed that the amendment did not have Government support, and I had not applied my mind to the question of opposing it. I assumed, on the basis of what I had been told, that it would be opposed by the Government. Much to my amazement, I found that a manuscript amendment had been tabled, suggesting that the Government were going to accept amendment 56, albeit on the basis that it would only be in operation until 31 March 2019, which coincides with the end of the current period for district councils. The terms of office for all the district councils that were elected last May expire at the end of March 2019.

That is the effect of the Government amendment, and they have not provided any detail about the criteria that they will use to exercise their significant power to intervene against the wishes of one or more local councils in, to take my county example, Dorset.

Sir Edward Leigh: I hope that the Minister is listening, because it is open to him to intervene on my hon. Friend, to make it clear that in areas such as Lincolnshire and Dorset we should only proceed towards a unitary authority by consent.

Mr Chope: Of course, it would be open to the Minister to do so. I understand—I have been told privately, not on the Floor of the House—that the Government are neutral on this. They do not have an agenda to try and create unitary authorities.

James Wharton: May I take the opportunity, as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), to confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention to build that consensus? We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it. However, we have been persuaded, as proposed in amendment (a), that areas should not at the same time be prevented from being part of devolution deals. We are seeking to build consensus, not impose change on areas, but we should have the flexibility to ensure that we can deliver the deals that local people want.

Mr Chope: I am grateful for that, so far as it goes, but will the Minister explain how he will deal with the situation in, for example, Dorset? The county council wishes to retain control over the area that it currently governs. If one or more district councils in that county council area wish to enter into a unitary arrangement with, for example, Poole and Bournemouth, who will prevail? Is it going to be the will of the county council or is it going to be the will of, for example, Christchurch Borough Council? In my constituency, a number of

7 Dec 2015 : Column 773

councillors serve on the borough council and on the county council. To which group will the Government pay heed, or will they say, “Because there is no agreement, there can’t be any progress”, which I understood was the Government’s policy?

James Wharton: Of course we want to find consensus. Tempted as I am to go down the route of discussing individual proposals in too much detail, there is no intention to set out here or at any other time some sort of rule that would allow districts always to determine what happens, or counties always to determine what happens. We want to talk with local areas, take representations from those local authorities and local people, from local enterprise partnerships and, of course, from hon. Members representing those areas to build a consensus as to how best we should go forward with this process. The Secretary of State will apply a statutory test, which I will talk about later, but I hope I can at least give my hon. Friend that reassurance.

Mr Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, so far as it goes, but basically he is saying that the Government will now decide. A few months ago the process was to be bottom-up, driven by the local councils: if they wanted change, they would be able to introduce change. Now we are told that nobody will be able to dictate, neither a borough council nor the county council, but ultimately the Government will decide. This is a significant change of Government policy, announced in the form of a manuscript amendment to amendment 56.

Sir Edward Leigh: This is an interesting triangular discussion and it is terribly important. What I think my hon. Friend is looking for, and what I am looking for—again, the Minister can intervene on my hon. Friend—is an assurance that if either Dorset County Council or one of the district councils does not want change, that would effectively be a veto, and the same would apply to Lincolnshire and other rural areas. In other words, change would proceed only by consensus. The Minister says he wants to proceed by consensus, as I understand it, and that is extremely important. Again, he can intervene on my hon. Friend.

Mr Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his suggestion that we might be able to find a modus operandi between the two of us, who are very concerned about this, and the Minister, who I know is doing his best to give us assurances which will enable us to support amendment 56, as amended by the Government, rather than dividing the House on it. I am happy to give way once more to the Minister if he is able to give the sort of undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was suggesting he might like to give.

James Wharton: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I will talk more about this issue when I speak to the new clause and amendment later. It is important to be clear that this is not about allowing areas to veto. We want to allow flexibility to build that consensus. The Government’s intention is to work with local areas to deliver economically sensible areas of devolution, with structures that sit beneath them that allow those things to be delivered and that potential to be realised. So it is

7 Dec 2015 : Column 774

not about giving one area or another a veto or taking a particular mandated approach; it is about having the flexibility to deliver what different areas need. That is what the amendment allows, which is why we are looking at it so closely and are keen to see it discussed further and delivered as part of the Bill.

Mr Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I am afraid that what he said goes against the position that we have already established, which was explained to me by the Secretary of State—namely, that the Government were not pushing any of this agenda, but that this agenda could be promoted by individual councils if they wished and if they had the agreement of their neighbouring councils. Now we are told that it no longer depends on their having the agreement of their neighbouring councils, but that the Government will intervene if they think the consent of a neighbouring council is, for example, being unreasonably withheld. That has not been spelled out yet in the legislation, but it is implicit in what the Minister says—a completely different proposition from what we had before.

This is a sensational change in the Bill, because up until now we had been told that the Government were neutral and that they were enabling councils to do what they want. If this measure goes through as the Government obviously want it to do, one of the consequences is that between now and 2019, in counties such as Dorset, instead of getting on and running local services for local people, the councillors and their officers will be preoccupied with arguing the toss about new structures—structures which, as I have already said, were established 20 years ago and have not been criticised at all. Small councils such as Christchurch Borough Council—the ancient borough—are threatened with losing their independence. Likewise, East Dorset District Council is threatened with losing its independence, ultimately at the whim of the Government.

This is all done, supposedly, in the name of devolution, but a district council is a highly devolved body because it is close to the local people. It decides those all-important planning applications in accordance with the wishes of the local people. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) in his place. He will know that one of the reasons that Bournemouth has great tower blocks on its clifftop is that for many years it has had a different planning policy from that of Christchurch, which has an equally delightful clifftop but has not wrecked it by allowing enormous tower blocks on it. That is why Highcliffe is still an attractive place in which to take a holiday, like Friars cliff and other places in Christchurch, which are gems on the south coast.

7.15 pm

Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a characteristically robust speech. I am slightly concerned that he does not seem to be taking account of the fact that there is a very good photograph of the four leaders of the four local authorities that he refers to, shaking hands about wanting to explore coming together in a new formation. Surely localism is exactly what the Government are doing—providing them with the opportunity to do that. True localism would be for us to let them get on with it.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 775

Mr Chope: It is interesting that the opposition leader on Poole unitary authority said he thought it was important that this issue should be dealt with by the people of Poole and that there should be a local referendum. That was pooh-poohed by the leaders of Poole and Bournemouth. My hon. Friend refers to leaders, but we must ensure that the leaders accurately reflect the wishes of local people. At present they have no plans properly to consult the people of Christchurch, East Dorset, Bournemouth or Poole. They are just rushing into some discussions. If those discussions are given the extra momentum that the Minister wants to give them by accepting amendment 56, they will create an enormous amount of anxiety among the people in my area.

Christchurch and East Dorset have recently had a local plan inquiry. They now have a new local plan, under which they are able to preserve most of the green belt in their area. My constituents are very jealous of the green belt. Why is it that Poole and Bournemouth want to get their hands on the land in East Dorset and in Christchurch? It is so that they can impose their planning policies on the green belt and expand outwards into our area. That is the perception of my constituents and that is why they are so concerned about it. Up until today, I have been able to say, “Don’t worry. That is never going to make any progress,” because I know for a fact that Dorset county council regards as anathema the idea that it should have two boroughs within its two-tier system taken away from it, because that would make Dorset county council less viable. I had assumed up until now that that would give Dorset county council a veto and therefore that none of these half-baked ideas would make any progress.

Mr Skinner: The situation is very difficult, and it is pretty clear that the Government are making decisions on the hoof. It is almost a fag packet job. I live in and represent an area that is involved in two of these structures. One of them is dominated by Sheffield and the four adjoining council areas of Barnsley, Rotherham and so on. That is now attracting the attention of at least three, maybe four, councils in north Derbyshire—Bolsover, Chesterfield, North East Derbyshire and possibly Derbyshire Dales. On top of that, there is the D2N2 power structure which covers Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It is time that the Minister got to his feet and explained precisely what will happen if Sheffield demands the powers that currently reside with Derbyshire County Council around transport and takes them away from the county. We have got two power structures both vying for the same thing. Although Dorset is complicated, this is even worse.

Mr Chope: I instinctively think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I say that not only because I have on my wall at home a picture of his constituency that was presented to me by his council when I was a junior local government Minister—a picture that I chose—but because I think that his experience means that he understands the complexity of these issues and their potential impact on ordinary people.

The Government can sometimes give the impression that they get rather intolerant of those us who want to raise issues such as this.

Graham Stuart: I have tried to follow this closely but I may not have understood amendment 56, which I am trying to square with the assurances from the Minister.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 776

If his assurances are right, why would the Government support amendment 56, which will allow the imposition of this if only one affected local authority says so?

Mr Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and perhaps the Minister will reply to it. If we are talking about genuine consensus—in other words, agreement between local authorities—then we do not need amendment 56, which is designed to enable the Government to intervene when some local authorities do not do as the Government think they should be doing. That is essentially what this is about. We might as well face up to the reality that this is a very centralising part of the Bill because it brings power back to the Government to enable them to change the structures of local government boundaries in areas such as Dorset.

Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), if amendment 56 is accepted, could it not, despite the promises from the Minister, be used as a lever against a recalcitrant council to say, “You’d better fall into line or amendment 56 will be brought into play”?

Mr Chope: My right hon. Friend knows all about levers, having been a deputy Chief Whip. That is exactly how I envisage this power being used. I am sure that that is why there was an attempt to smuggle it through at the last minute. Now we are, I hope, exposing it for what it is, which is a power grabbed by the Government to try to ensure that they can have the final word and beat their stick against a council that is not doing as they wish it to do.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I am making the assumption that my hon. Friend would support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) to have a referendum.

Mr Chope: Absolutely. I am very supportive of that amendment, but I have not yet had a chance to talk about it because I am so concerned about amendment 56 and amendment (a). I am not going to restate the case about the referendum, but I think it is a necessary safeguard.

If we look at the history books we see the unintended consequences that can flow from local government reorganisation. When the Inner London Education Authority was set up in London, it was only because Wandsworth council started a campaign to abolish it that education was given back to the inner London boroughs, which were then able to gain economic growth as a result of having good-quality education within their boundaries. The same thing happened with the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council was interfering in the lives of the boroughs in inner London and outer London, so those in charge of the boroughs at the time persuaded the Conservative Government to abolish it. As a result, parks such as Battersea park are run by the local authority—Wandsworth council—rather than by a remote authority for Greater London.

If we are not going to put proposals like this to the electorate, we must have the necessary safeguards. None of this stuff was in our manifesto. There was no suggestion that a Conservative Government were going to restructure

7 Dec 2015 : Column 777

local authorities so as to try to squeeze out small councils that are closest to the people. If we are not going to test this in a general election and amendment 56 is going to be on the statute book until the end of March 2019, it is all the more important that we should be able to have the safeguard of a referendum—the very safeguard that the Poole People party and the Liberal Democrats have sought, in vain, from the leaders of Poole, Bournemouth, East Dorset and Christchurch Borough Councils.

We are on the threshold of a big spat at local government level between different councils at different tiers and different councillors with different personalities and political parties. This threatens completely to preoccupy local government for the next three or four years. We will look back and say that this all started with the Government wanting to interfere in areas where they should not be interfering at all. They should be trusting local councillors and local people to decide what is best for them. They should not be taking away from Dorset County Council or East Dorset District Council, for example, the power to veto any proposals to change the boundaries in which they operate.

I very much hope that the House will not accept amendment 56 as proposed to be amended by the Government and push them back to their previous position, which was that this is genuinely for local councils and local people to decide, and the Government are not going to interfere.

Graham Stuart: I will try to keep my comments brief, because contrasts are always a pleasant thing. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who spoke powerfully about this issue.

Jon Trickett: And lengthily.

Graham Stuart: And at length, it has to be said.

I want to tell the House about something that happened in the East Riding of Yorkshire. For many years, people who think about these things have looked at the boundary of the city of Hull and thought it is too constrained and has too little of the hinterland within it. A lot of people thought that it would make sense for it to be expanded outside, but East Riding of Yorkshire Council is a very successful council and the residents are relatively happy with it. The city of Hull announced that it would set up a commission to look at the boundaries—in effect, at the possibility of Hull expanding outwards. It did so with little or no involvement from East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The response of the council was to call a referendum for the surrounding communities of Hull to see what they thought. This was a one-off referendum: nothing else was going on at the same time. One might think that the arcane issue of boundaries could occasionally capture the public imagination, but generally people would just accept a sensible top-down solution given to them by leaders and Governments and so on.

We need to be careful. I do not have the figures to hand, but, off the top of my head, there was a 75% turnout and a Ceau?escu-esque election result—96% said that they did not want the expansion to go ahead. I mention that in the context of amendment 56 and the argument

7 Dec 2015 : Column 778

that, because not all councils are quite in line, perhaps all they need is a little push to get a sensible result. We should be remarkably sensitive to how strongly the population can feel about such things.

7.30 pm

Expanding Hull is not an utterly absurd idea—it is not necessarily evil. People sat quietly, the letters of the local papers were not full of it and nobody talked about it in my street surgeries, yet when they were asked 96% of three quarters of the population said, “No, no, no”, to the three questions. I add that to the debate to illustrate just how sensitive we ought to be and how easily this could spiral out of control and cause political difficulty and real dissatisfaction.

Sir Greg Knight: Does the experience of the East Riding and Hull referendum lead my hon. Friend to be in sympathy with amendment 56 or against it?

Graham Stuart: It leaves me in a position of having profound doubts about amendment 56. I really appreciated the Minister’s interventions setting out what the Government want to do. The police reorganisation under the previous Labour Government was top down and people did not like it. It is not that we are neutral—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was wrong to say that the Government have always said they would be neutral. The Government have a position and a vision, but I think it is much smarter to offer reassurances and tell people that, whatever we think, we are not going to push it on them, because we have seen that that does not work. People have to consent to it. There will be difficult council leaders who we will think are being a pain because of their own individual interests, but we should bind our hands and restrain ourselves from just pushing them aside. We need to listen and say to everybody, “Unless you can bang heads together yourselves and get a consensus, we’re not going to come piling in, because we’ve seen where that ends up.”

It might be a Labour Government’s instinct to think that they know better than the people, but it should be a Conservative Government’s instinct to recognise that they do not know better and that even if, in their opinion, the people are wrong—and history might show that they were wrong—it is the people who get to decide, and if they feel strongly about something that should be respected.

Mr Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend has had a fair crack and I am going to sit down.

Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab): This group includes a number of new clauses and amendments, so I want to focus primarily on those in my name and those of my hon. Friends, although I will also touch on some of the others as I go along. I do not want to detain the House for too long and there is quite a lot of ground to cover, so I shall try to romp through it at a reasonable pace.

New clause 10 proposes votes at 16. The Government seem to be a little confused on this issue: the Secretary of State has said that there is a debate to be had; the Minister for the northern powerhouse says there is not;

7 Dec 2015 : Column 779

and the Prime Minister is against it altogether. Yet we know that the Government are considering it for the European Union referendum and that they supported it for the Scottish referendum.

There are more than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK. They can get a job or an apprenticeship, get married, pay taxes and join the armed forces, but apparently they are not responsible enough to be able to vote for their local councillor to take decisions about the local services in the area where they may well have bought a home and live with their family. The Bill is the ideal place to bring about change. Incremental change is how the British constitution develops, and allowing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local elections seems to me to be a good place to start.

The Electoral Reform Society argues that lowering the voting age will improve registration rates. Nearly 90% of eligible 16 and 17-year-olds registered for the Scottish independence referendum, and a high proportion of them took part in it. Research in other countries suggests that the turnout rate for 16 and 17-year-olds is higher than that for 18 to 34-year-olds. Establishing the habit of getting involved and voting in elections at an early age makes a lot of sense if we want people to continue voting throughout the rest of their adult lives. The Scottish referendum set the precedent. It is unreasonable to extend the vote in one part of the Union and not in another. Local elections suffer from low turnout, so that is a good place to start, but if the Minister thinks that this is not the time to introduce the change, perhaps he can answer the question: if not now, when?

On new clause 11, the Government have been very unclear about plans to devolve fire and rescue to mayors or police and crime commissioners, but we know that the Home Office is pushing for it and it is included in the Greater Manchester devolution deal. Our new clause calls on the Secretary of State to publish a review of how the Bill affects fire and rescue services. As we have seen over the weekend, and as we heard in the flooding statement earlier, the fire and rescue service is doing an incredible job, despite extremely severe cuts that have limited its capacity and reduced the number of jobs by almost a third. The cross-party Local Government Association believes there is “no pressing need” for police and fire services to merge. Any changes of the kind being considered will heighten public concerns about safety. The new clause would simply add a level of scrutiny and oversight to the provisions, so I hope that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister will welcome and support the proposal.

Since 2010, local government has faced cuts of 40%, and last month’s spending review imposed a further 56% reduction in central support to councils. We know there will be changes to business rates once they are localised, and we were promised details in the autumn statement about how an equalisation mechanism would work, but no such details were given. Councils have simply been left to plan their future budgets in the dark, despite cuts on a scale that they have never been asked to deal with before. The LGA has warned that local authorities are struggling, and that is even before the spending review hits them. Lord Porter, the Conservative chair of the LGA, says:

“We know we’ve got probably 12 or 14 councils that are very close to the edge now.”

7 Dec 2015 : Column 780

They need to know what is going to happen to them in future if they are going to be able to avoid falling off the edge of that particular financial cliff.

The funding settlement is deeply unfair. The 10 most deprived communities have suffered cuts that are 18 times higher than those made to the least deprived communities. Councils with the highest rates of children in care have suffered cuts that are three times higher than those made to councils with the lowest number of children in care. Although Labour councils are disproportionately hit by the cuts, they are also the ones that are protecting front-line services. Tory councils have shut half their youth services since 2010.

The unfair funding settlements are made worse by England’s local government finance arrangements, which are among the most centralised anywhere in the industrialised world. Councils lack the freedom to innovate so that they can spend on local priorities. Even London, which currently is more devolved than anywhere else in the country, is reliant on central Government funding for three quarters of its revenue. That is far higher than 30% in New York and just 25% in Berlin. London is the world’s greatest city, and yet this Government insist on keeping it on far too tight a financial leash. The Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that local authorities in England

“have limited control over local taxation and, as a consequence, rely…disproportionately on central Government funding.”

Our new clause 13 does not prescribe a particular settlement, but calls on the Secretary of State to publish plans for a package of fiscal and financial devolution that addresses three areas. First, on business rate retention, councils need an equalisation mechanism to ensure that those communities with the least capacity for economic growth are not left to sink. Labour supports the localisation of business rates, but it has to be done in a way that incentivises areas to grow, without penalising areas that have less capacity to do so at the time or in the future.

Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box that details of the equalisation mechanism would be made available during the autumn statement, but that did not happen. It still has not happened and we have not been given a date by when it will happen. We simply cannot allow rich communities to get even richer while everywhere else struggles to provide basic services. The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to introduce an equalisation mechanism to ensure that the least well-off are not hammered by the change.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman, as an expert in this area, will be aware that people in rural areas are on average poorer than people in urban areas. He will also be aware that his Government—the Government of his predecessors—left a system in which there was 50% more support per resident in urban areas, which are wealthier than rural areas, than in rural areas, and that it is more expensive to deliver services in rural areas. It is no surprise that we are not seeing the same reductions in services in rural areas as in cities, because such services do not exist in the first place. His party left it that way. Are Labour Members now committed to a fairer system?

Mr Reed: The hon. Gentleman seems to support my case for a fair equalisation mechanism, which I am pleased to hear.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 781

Secondly, on greater local control over tax rates and discounts, England has one of the most centralised funding arrangements anywhere in the world. Whitehall takes the key decisions on council tax, which means that it is barely local at all. The previous Secretary of State capped rises, while the Chancellor is now encouraging councils to push up council tax to make up for his cuts. Labour wants the Government to publish plans to introduce greater local freedom over tax rates, banding, valuation and discounts.

Thirdly, on multi-year finance settlements, every successful organisation needs to be able to plan for the future, and local authorities cannot plan complex services without knowing what level of funding is available to pay for them. As powers are devolved away from Westminster, local authorities need to know that they have the resources to exercise those powers properly. Local enterprise partnerships could operate more effectively if they had longer-term funding streams. Indeed, the regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, could make single, three-year funding agreements, while LEPs have access to a smaller budget, with too many small funding pots and with constraints on their use. We want to make sure that combined authorities do not suffer from the same problem. Our new clause 13 calls on the Secretary of State to publish plans to allow for multi-year funding agreements, which would give combined authorities the resources and time to ensure financial stability, and allow them to make better long-term decisions about local services.

On new clause 14, we welcomed in Committee the proposal that new sub-national transport bodies must consult adjoining authorities before taking decisions. On transport, the Government have recognised that the devolution of powers to combined authorities concerns neighbouring authorities that do not wish to, or cannot, join a combined authority. That is an important principle, but it extends to other areas beyond transport, and the Minister’s response to our amendment in Committee was disappointing. The Minister said it was not “necessary or appropriate”, so perhaps he will reconsider and support this new clause. For example, local authorities on the periphery of the Greater Manchester combined authority have concerns about health service decisions that will affect them, but which they are unable to influence. We want to give them the right simply to be consulted. If the Government are prepared to concede that such authorities should be consulted on transport, then why not on health or other key services?

Whatever the Government say, they are imposing mayors by making them a non-negotiable condition of devolution for metropolitan areas. We believe that the spirit of devolution demands that local areas should choose their own model of governance instead of having it imposed from the centre. If areas want a mayor, that is fine, but it should also be fine if they do not want a mayor. Government amendment 7 and related amendments are disappointing. They will allow the Secretary of State to impose a mayor on a combined authority even if one or more constituent councils do not want one. It is no surprise that the Local Government Chronicle wrote about amendment 7 under the headline, “Boost to government powers to impose elected mayors”. The Government are acting in opposition to their own claims to support local decision making in that respect.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 782

If the powers are agreed to this evening, they must be used with extreme caution. Where a potential combined authority is divided on the details of a deal, which it may well be, local co-operation must be the preferred way forward. I would welcome a statement by the Minister or the Secretary of State to that effect. Our amendment 58 would reintroduce the change made in the Lords, stipulating that devolution deals cannot be made dependent on having a mayor. That view has support from Members on both sides of the House, as we have heard again this evening.

On amendment 59, we discussed the general power of competence earlier. The Localism Act 2011 introduced the general power of competence, which was intended to give local authorities more power and freedom to innovate. That is a good idea, but LGA research shows that the power is

“limited by significant constraints set by central government”,

and that local government needs far more independence from interference by central Government. The constraints the LGA identifies are financial, structural and regulatory. Our amendment encourages the Secretary of State simply to review the power of general competence to learn how to make it more effective and to encourage greater take-up than the disappointing level so far.

7.45 pm

Finally, on Government amendment 27 and associated amendments, amendment 27 would allow districts to join combined authorities without the consent of their county authority and vice versa. Our general approach to the Bill is that decisions should be in the hands of the local area and the local people affected. That has shaped our view on models of governance and on the amendment. Districts or counties should be free to join combined authorities if that is their preference.

We want the Secretary of State to confirm that he is aware of and understands the risks and will build in appropriate safeguards, especially in relation to manuscript amendment (a) to amendment 56, by which the Secretary of State will take the power to impose a decision. That seems a little draconian, and we need to hear that it would be used only in extreme circumstances. Authorities outside the arrangements need protection to ensure that they can remain viable after any change is made. We would welcome assurances from the Secretary of State that the powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances, and that seeking consensus will always be the priority. Will the Minister also confirm that where districts that are part of a county choose to participate in a neighbouring combined authority, their electors will still have a vote in elections for the county council, the authority in which the district lies?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those points. I give notice of our intention to test the will of the House on amendment 58, which would allow devolution deals to be agreed without the pre-condition of accepting an elected mayor, and on new clause 10, which seeks to lower the voting age for local elections to 16. In our view, these changes would greatly strengthen the Bill, and I hope that they will succeed.

James Wharton: The watchword throughout the debate in Committee and, indeed, today has been “consensus”, but I never thought that it would be consensus between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). That goes further than I anticipated we could achieve.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 783

Mr Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

James Wharton: I will give way when I touch on some of the points discussed earlier if the hon. Gentleman wants to comment at that stage.

As I have already spoken about new clause 1, I want to talk about new clause 5. It proposes that a commission be set up to consider devolving tax and fiscal powers to local level. I well know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is an advocate for devolving power from central Government, so he will be familiar with the successive inquiries that have covered similar ground to what he proposes. I therefore do not think that a further inquiry into tax power devolution to local government would serve a particularly useful purpose at this time, although I recognise, as always, his consistency and eloquence in bringing such matters before the House. I hope that he will not press his new clause 5 when we reach the end of this group of amendments.

Mr Graham Allen: Given that there is now no need for an inquiry, since there is a precedent in Scotland—I congratulate Scotland on being able to retain an element of income tax—there is nothing in the water in England to stop us from having income tax assignment as well. On the basis that there is now something stronger than an inquiry in the form of a precedent, approved by the Treasury and by this House in the Scotland Act 2012, I gladly agree not to press new clause 5.

James Wharton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I recognise what he says. There are complexities in devolving such matters to local government, but I am sure he will continue to argue, as such matters are discussed, that he wants those complexities dealt with in reality, rather than just in theory.

New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), would provide a cooling-off or probationary period for the conferral of functions from a local authority to a combined authority. I know that my hon. Friend has raised that matter in discussions during previous stages of the Bill, and that it is of great interest to him.

I can see the attraction that the flexibility to reverse a conferral of powers might have for an individual local authority, but there are considerable downsides. The very fact that the combined authority might be responsible for those powers for only a year or so might be conducive to little action being taken under what would perhaps be perceived as a temporary conferred function. The combined authority would almost certainly be reluctant to base any investment or other major activity on a function that it could lose in a few years’ time. Moreover, partners, whether businesses or other public bodies, would almost certainly be reluctant to enter into arrangements that could so quickly be reversed. We consider, therefore, that it would be very doubtful that activity within that probationary or cooling-off period of any such conferral of powers would give a realistic picture of how a combined authority might operate in the future or of the full range of improvements that might be achieved.

We consider that a better alternative, if local authorities are not sure whether they wish to confer a specific power, would be for them to trial such joint working across the area of a combined authority through informal

7 Dec 2015 : Column 784

arrangements, such as a shadow combined authority or joint committee. Those models are available to local authorities and combined authorities without the need for secondary legislation to be made. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West not to press new clause 8 to a Division of the House.

New clause 10 seeks to reinsert the clause that was inserted in the other place to amend section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to lower the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. We debated that provision at length when we last met in Committee, after which we agreed to remove the clause by a significant majority of 95. The message was clear then and it remains clear now.

We have discussed quite widely the age of majority and the things that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to do or are prevented from doing by law. It has been suggested that because young people are politically engaged, and quite rightly so, they should be given the vote. That is a conclusion with which I do not agree. The debate has exposed the wider truth that there is a range of views, many of which are enshrined in legislation, that can best be described as encompassing the transition from childhood to adulthood. There is probably no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but it is at 18, not 16, that society normally draws the line.

Any change to the entitlement to vote must be considered properly. We should not make piecemeal changes to the franchise. We cannot make changes and simply assume that there will be no implications for other areas where our laws and our society treat 16 and 17-year-olds differently. The voting age for UK parliamentary and local elections is set at 18. The age that is used in most democracies is 18. The Government have no plans to change it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) reminded the House last time we debated this matter that we have no manifesto mandate to do so. Recognising that the shadow Minister says that he intends to test the will of the House on this issue, I encourage all hon. Members to support the Government and oppose the reinsertion of this clause.

New clause 11 requires that the Secretary of State must, within 15 months of the Bill being passed, publish a review of the fire and rescue services affected by the provisions of the Bill. The new clause is not necessary. Devolution is about enabling local areas to determine how best their services are delivered. It is therefore only right that fire and rescue authorities, in agreement with local partners, should decide how and when to review and assess how the provisions of the Bill may affect fire and rescue services. I remind hon. Members that the requirements of the fire and rescue national framework will continue to apply. With those explanations, I hope the Opposition will not press the new clause.

Turning to new clause 13, we are already taking major steps to devolve local taxes and have only just set out plans for a radical devolution of fiscal powers. By the end of the Parliament, the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. For the first time in decades, local areas will see the full direct benefit of business rate growth in their local area. We will also grant new powers to directly elected mayors and to authorities. We will give all local authorities the power to reduce business tax rates to support businesses in their areas. As was confirmed in

7 Dec 2015 : Column 785

the spending review, we will set out detailed proposals in due course. In the light of that, I hope the House will agree that this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers, is unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the shadow Minister will agree not to press it.

New clause 14, which was tabled by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to combined authorities on co-operation with peripheral authorities. I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate. Before making orders establishing a combined authority and orders devolving new functions to such an authority, the Secretary of State must consider that to do so is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions in the area or areas to which they relate. Additionally, Parliament must approve such orders.

The new clause seeks to provide a further requirement about how, once established, a combined authority should go about the exercise of functions devolved to it. As with local authorities, combined authorities must have regard to all relevant considerations in taking their decisions. Just as local authorities cannot be blind to the impact of their decisions beyond their boundaries, nor can combined authorities. Neither local authorities nor combined authorities can be ignorant of what happens beyond their borders. We do not have these provisions for local authorities and it is the position of the Government that we should not impose them on combined authorities. Therefore, the new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate. I hope that the House will agree.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 were tabled in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West. The first of those amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State’s annual report on devolution to Parliament includes information on the extent to which powers that have been devolved to a mayor remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. Amendment 5 is a consequential amendment to amendment 4, while amendment 6 defines the phrases “combined authority” and “Minister of the Crown”. Although it is the Government’s intention that functions should be devolved as widely as possible, there may be circumstances in which they should be exercised either jointly or concurrently. With those explanations, I hope that hon. Members will accept amendments 4, 5 and 6.

If amendment 58 were accepted, it would mean that any transfer of functions to a combined authority must not be dependent on the combined authority having a mayor. In its intent, it is similar to the provisions of the old clause 3, which the Committee voted to remove from the Bill by a majority of 81. That provision imposed a specific requirement that a mayor could not be a precondition for transferring functions to a combined authority. As I told the Committee, that provision was at odds with our manifesto commitment, and amendment 58 is too.

In our manifesto, we committed to

“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”

We are not forcing this on anyone or on any place. Whether an area has a mayor is a matter of local choice.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 786

However, if an area wants to have a devolution deal of the scale and ambition of Greater Manchester’s, we do expect a mayor to be part of the deal. The effect of amendment 58 would be to stop our pursuing that manifesto policy. It would potentially put the whole future of devolution at risk of challenge. It is an amendment to which we are wholly opposed and that we hope will not be successful should the House choose to divide on it.

Amendment 2 provides that a combined authority mayor can be established only after a referendum. I listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was, as ever, persuasive and eloquent, but on this occasion, I am afraid to say, he was not quite persuasive enough. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the conduct of such referendums and to consult the Electoral Commission before doing so. We had an interesting debate on the first day of Committee about this very matter. I recognise that I was repeatedly challenged by Members from both sides of the House about the degree of choice for local areas.

While I do not seek to reopen that debate, I must make it clear again that the Bill does not give the Government the power to impose devolution or a model of devolution in any area. The decision to approach the Government with a proposal for the devolution of powers and the decision on the degree of devolution required are entirely local ones. By the same token, we have always been clear that where areas make that approach to negotiate the significant transfer of powers, like the powers agreed with Greater Manchester, we would expect a mayor to form part of the mix, as that provides the levels of leadership and accountability that are necessary to ensure the effective delivery of such a deal.

Mr Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister clarify what he has said about nobody being forced to go down this route? Does that mean that, under amendment 7, an objecting constituent council would not be part of the mayoralty?

James Wharton: To clarify for my hon. Friend, areas will not be forced to be part of a devolution deal. If a mayor is part of a devolution deal and a local council does not want to be part of it, the council will not be forced by anything that the Government intend to do or can do to be part of that combined authority or devolution area. It is a matter of building local consensus and giving local people the choice.

Mr Rees-Mogg: So if a council is part of a combined authority and it objects to there being a mayor, but the majority of members of the combined authority vote for a mayor, the council will leave the combined authority and will not be any part of any combined authority or of the mayoralty.

James Wharton: My hon. Friend is correct. Where an existing combined authority and a number of the local authorities within it want to make a deal but one or more do not, we want flexibility so they are not forced in any way to enter into a deal with which they do not agree, but are instead able to leave and not be part of that devolution deal.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 787

Holding a referendum on the narrow question of whether there should be a mayor risks not fully recognising the choice that is to be made. It also fails to recognise the role of those who have been elected by people of their area to represent them, and to make the necessary decisions to safeguard their wellbeing and the prosperity of the area. Of course, those democratically elected locally will want to have regard to the views of communities and businesses in their area, and of the voluntary sector and those who live and work there, but we should have the confidence in those who are elected in those areas to grasp the opportunities that the Bill makes possible, to consider the degree of devolved power that is appropriate and deliverable in each of their areas, to enter into negotiations with Government and, in what is a fast-moving environment, to take the decisions that will best deliver the economic growth and development they have already been mandated to deliver.

8 pm

Our democratic traditions do not demand the approach provided for by the amendment, although I recognise the ingenious way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset argued that we were perhaps transitioning to a place where they would. I do not think we are in that place yet. Indeed, the approach we have in the Bill, on the choice for a combined authority mayor to be made by councils, is exactly the same approach that is open to councils for choosing a local authority mayor. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I am very concerned that the Isle of Wight and Hampshire may or may not be subject to the rule about a mayor. What are the Minister’s proposals on that?

James Wharton: It is entirely a matter for the Isle of Wight whether it would like to be part of any devolution deal. That would not be imposed on any area. Regarding in which areas we would want to see a mayor as part of a deal, that would depend on the deal and what was being asked for in the discussions that took place. There is no single fixed model that we would look to apply, cookie cutter-like, to different communities, but I assure my hon. Friend that if the Isle of Wight did not want to be part of something and felt it would not serve its interests, there is nothing in the Bill that would allow us to compel it to do so.

Amendment 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, would enable a local authority to leave a mayoral combined authority, and, should that happen, provide for a fair division of resources. The existing combined authorities legislation, section 106 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, and the Bill already enable an order to be made to remove a local authority from a combined authority with consent from the area, agreement from the Secretary of State and approval from Parliament.

There would, of course, be a number of practical issues to deal with before making such an order: for example, setting up alternative operational arrangements, working out how to divide budgets and any contractual arrangements. However, the 2009 Act and the Bill provide for that. If an order is made to remove a local authority from a combined authority, it must specify an authority

7 Dec 2015 : Column 788

to become the local transport authority. The Bill provides further powers to enable such an order to transfer combined authority functions to another public authority or to be ceased.

We consider that the provisions provide all the powers and flexibility necessary to enable a local authority to leave a combined authority, where that is wanted locally; where the Secretary of State considers that to do so is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions, and has regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government; and where Parliament approves the making of such an order. With those assurances, I look to my hon. Friend not to press the amendment.

I now turn to amendments 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 54. The Bill already enables one local authority to be removed from a combined authority if it does not wish to agree to the combined authority’s proposal to adopt a position of mayor. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, who I know from his earlier comments has a particular interest in this matter. The amendments extend the provisions and would mean that, if one or more councils within a combined authority do not wish to adopt particular aspects of a devolution deal, but the combined authority and other councils within it do, then the area of the combined authority is changed to remove the council or councils that do not wish to participate.

Norman Lamb: I would like the Minister to reassure the House that the emphasis will be—I think the shadow Minister made the point in his contribution—on consensus and that we should only get to the point of imposing this if all else fails. Will the Government issue guidance to ensure that the emphasis is on local agreement?

James Wharton: The emphasis is absolutely be on local agreement and consensus. There is no power to impose devolution structures on areas that do not want to be part of devolution. Indeed, the amendments will ensure that areas that do not want to be part of a deal are able to leave that combined authority should they wish to do so. The amendments give greater flexibility to existing combined authorities to implement devolution deals, and to build further on the flexibility of the enabling approach in the Bill.

On amendment 9 and amendments 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 50, they are designed to simplify and harmonise the Bill’s provisions relating to the consents needed locally before powers can be conferred or exercised. We have tabled them in response to issues raised during earlier stages of consideration of the Bill in the House. They will standardise the provisions, so that the default position would require the constituent authorities and the combined authority to consent before secondary legislation is made. An exception is that for the dissolution of a combined authority, the consent of a majority of the constituent local authorities is required before such an order can be made. This simply retains the status quo.

I will now speak to amendments 27, 32, 33, 52 and 53, which further increase flexibility within the Bill’s provisions to enable combined authorities to be established and functions conferred. We are bringing them forward in response to our discussions in Committee,

7 Dec 2015 : Column 789

where some hon. Members outlined particular challenges in their areas. As is clear, the amendments do not in themselves change any combined authority in any place, but provide the flexibility to allow agreements to be made and delivered.

Mr Skinner: The Minister will know I have already referred to the fact that there are two different contending authorities or joint authorities in our area. One is Derbyshire and Nottingham, D2N2, and the other is Sheffield and Barnsley. There are several unitary district councils associated with that bid. Sheffield may want to take highways and transport from Derbyshire County Council. The unitary authorities of Bolsover, North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales and Chesterfield are all involved with that county council in relation to social services and various other matters. We therefore need an assurance from the Minister—I know he has just been talking to the Secretary of State—that makes it clear that for Derbyshire County Council the circumstances, in electoral processes or in any other way, will not change. Is it yes or no?

James Wharton: I think the assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that what is done will proceed by consensus. We will look to talk to local areas about the different deals they want. The temptation in debates on Bills such as this is to look at the individual deals in individual areas. The Bill will enable us to have maximum flexibility to respond to local demand and local desire for devolution to deliver deals that will stand the test of time. I am unable to talk in detail in this particular forum, given the amendments and new clauses we are discussing, on what is proposed specifically in individual areas or the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I would be very happy to meet him to discuss any particular issues he wants to raise. I can assure him that the intention is to find consensus and build on it to deliver the devolution agenda.

Julian Sturdy: We need to ensure we get the safeguards and assurances on amendment 27, so that however well-meaning it is—I do not doubt what the Minister is trying to achieve—it will not have knock-on consequences for county councils in areas where we are trying to deliver devolution deals based on economic, rather than political, grounds.

James Wharton: My hon. Friend has discussed with me outside this Chamber some of the issues of interest to him in his area, for which he is an effective advocate. I can absolutely assure him that the intention is to find consensus and the right solutions for each area. We need flexibility in the Bill to deliver that. Where there are real concerns, far from being ignored they will very much be heard and acted on. I know some of the issues he raises in relation to his area. I am happy, as always, to meet him and his colleagues to discuss them as things progress, but there is no desire to do anything to areas—indeed, quite the opposite. This is about areas asking for things that we can then deliver. The Bill will give us the flexibility to deliver them.

Mr Skinner: Will the Minister give way?

James Wharton: I need to make progress as I am very conscious of the time.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 790

I thank hon. Members for tabling amendment 59 relating to the Localism Act 2011. The amendment would not only impose a requirement to publish a report on the performance of the Act but require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the general power of competence in relation to its use by combined authorities. The amendment is not necessary.

Jon Trickett: I am grateful to the Minister, who is making an articulate exposition of his position, for giving way. Were some districts in a county area to attach themselves to a great city, would he envisage the possibility of the county taking a different shape—in other words, Derbyshire or any other county in the same category ceasing to represent all the areas they currently do?

James Wharton: The intention is to deliver what local areas want, and therefore the Bill gives us the flexibility to ensure that the county would not need to be reshaped, but equally, where that was wanted, it would give us the flexibility to deliver it. That is the point of the Bill, as an enabling Bill. We want to proceed by consensus, because that is how devolution will last.

Amendment 1 would enable the Secretary of State to make provision in secondary legislation to require all local authorities in the area of a mayoral combined authority to undertake a community governance review within two years of the Act coming into force. Whatever the merits of “parishing” an area, I do not believe the amendment is necessary or appropriate. I recognise the desire for further devolution and for the devolution debate to continue, including on the role of more local decision making and parishes, but this is not the time or place to go down the route set out in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree not to press it.

Mr Allen: I will be delighted not to press amendment 1, if the Minister can tell the House what shape or structure will be in place to pull together the best practice from all 34 devolution deals for drawdown by those who wish to do further deals.

James Wharton: We will be talking about that with the LGA and other interested parties, but we are still in the process of delivering those deals and it would be against the spirit of devolution were we to announce the format for such a forum. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s comments, however, and the value that such a forum could bring. I am happy to put that on the record. It is our intention to have those discussions and to develop something that has broad agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who cannot be with us today because of the terrible flooding that has afflicted his constituency, has tabled amendment 56, which would enable the Secretary of State to use a fast-track process for unitarisation or boundary changes in a particular area. I suspect I am going to take a few interventions on this amendment, but I wish to highlight this point: it enables a fast-track process and streamlines the use of existing powers; it does not bring in powers that do not already exist. He tabled a similar amendment on the first day of the Committee of the whole House, with a view to ensuring that no one council could effectively veto such a change, however sensible and supported such a proposal might be.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 791

My hon. Friend wished to see a way of preventing one council from denying change that might be in the best interests of the wider area. We have heard further arguments today about the proposition, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). When we debated this last time, I made clear our approach: if such a governance change were to be made, there needed to be a level of consensus across the area and that we are not in the business of imposing change on any one. That remains our starting point and our intention.

Sir Edward Leigh: I know the Minister does not want to comment in detail, but, moving from the general to the particular, what would happen if Lincolnshire County Council, for example, wanted to use amendment 56 to fast-track the procedure, but one or more districts objected to a unitary authority? Do I take it that nothing in amendment 56 would make it easier for the district councils to be overridden by the county council?

James Wharton: The powers already exist for the Secretary of State to review and change local authority boundaries and create unitary authorities—to do many of those things that hon. Members have talked about with concern. This is a streamlining amendment that makes it more straightforward to deliver things where there is the desire; where it is important, as part of a deal; where there is consensus; and where the Secretary of State, having applied the statutory tests, is satisfied it is the right thing to do in the interests of that area. It is a welcome amendment, therefore, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

8.15 pm

Graham Stuart: I am struggling to square the amendment with what the Minister has just said. There is no talk about streamlining or tests. The amendment simply states that if one council is in favour, all the others can be pushed aside. That is what the amendment says. Our job is not just to listen to reassurances from Ministers, however brilliant, but to look at the words of the Bill, and the Bill appears to give great power to the Secretary of State. If he has that power already, I do not see why we need it in an amendment; if he does not have it already, I am a little reluctant to give it to him.

James Wharton: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it remains the case that a council or group of councils can now, regardless of the Bill, ask the Secretary of State to implement a proposal for structural change through the traditional processes of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, even where not all councils agree or where there are competing proposals for different councils. He has those powers, but only as part of a convoluted and lengthy process. This is not about forcing unwanted change on areas just because we have the power to do so; it is about enabling the flexibility to deliver the right devolution deals for areas and in a timely and flexible way. I know that hon. Members have raised concerns, but there are none the less statutory tests that have to be satisfied in doing that. This place would need to approve any change, but the fast-track process, with its significant safeguards, is a welcome one.

The new process would still require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report about the fast-track process, including on matters he has taken into account

7 Dec 2015 : Column 792

when deciding to use it, and I reiterate that it could not be used without Parliament’s approval. Having carefully considered and weighed the arguments; having listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and others; and having considered the need to ensure flexibility if we are to make devolution last, we have decided to support the amendment. We have tabled a manuscript amendment so that it is for a trial period and not something that would necessarily last in perpetuity, but none the less we welcome the flexibility in the amendment.

Mr Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State would not, under any circumstances, force change on a local authority against its will, and is really only interested in encouraging local authorities to talk to each other? He said, at the beginning of his remarks, that the starting point remains that change will not be forced on any one but suggested that ultimately the Government wished to have the power to force it.

James Wharton: I remind my hon. Friend of my earlier comments: those powers already exist. The Government’s intention is to find consensus, to build on the local desire for devolution and to deliver lasting devolution to areas that will benefit from it. Those powers are already there. This is about ensuring we can deliver, in a timely way, the devolution that local areas want, but I can absolutely reconfirm the Government’s commitment to seeking and building on consensus. That is how devolution will stand the test of time.

Amendments 16, 30 and 55 ensure that criminal liabilities of a public authority can be transferred to either a local government or combined authority on the same basis as other liabilities when public authority functions are conferred. Amendments 17 and 31 amend clauses 7 and 16 respectively and allow references in a transfer order or regulations to be made to a formal document, such as guidance, which can be amended from time to time.

Amendment 36 is a technical amendment substituting the original word “jointly” with the new word “concurrently”. The change is necessary to ensure that certain transport functions being carried out by strategic transport bodies and local authorities can be undertaken concurrently rather than jointly. Amendment 3 would change how mayors for combined authorities should be elected. We have debated this matter at length. We believe that, where we are electing an individual to exercise significant executive power, the voting system for which we have made provision is the right one, and that therefore the amendment should be rejected. Finally, amendments 10, 37 to 43, 45 and 44 are necessary to bring the Bill into line with the arrangement in London. They provide clarity and consistency in respect of mayoral deputies with police and crime commissioner functions.

I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government amendments and reject Opposition amendments and that the House will continue broadly to support the delivery of devolution, on which there is so much consensus and support.

Mr Allen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 793

New Clause 9

Consultation on changes to healthcare provision

‘(1) Part 4 of the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 is amended as follows—

“(1) In section 20 (Interpretation) insert after “for which there is a country council (a);”—

“(c) combined authorities and each constituent part of a combined authority””—(Mr Graham Brady.)

This amendment requires that constituent part of combined authority are consulted on any major healthcare reorganisation in their area in addition to the combined authority being consulted. It also allows constituent parts of a combined authority to refer any such reorganisation to the Secretary of State for Health without such a referral having to be made by the combined authority to which they are part.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Graham Brady: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 12—Review of devolution of health services—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 15 months of this Act being passed, publish a review of health services devolved under the provisions of this Act.

(2) The review must make an assessment of the extent to which the health services devolved under any of the provisions of this Act have maintained standards and, in particular, of the quality of services and outcomes achieved by those devolved health services over the first 12 months from this Act being passed.”

This Clause would require a review, after 12 months of the Bill being passed, of the impact of devolving health services in order to make sure that standards and the quality of services and outcomes have not declined.

Government amendment 34

Amendment 60, page 19, line 30, Clause 17, at end insert—

‘(2C) The Secretary of State may revoke health functions from the relevant local authority under subsection (2A) only following advice from an independent panel, whose membership must include representation from local government and the NHS and which is to be convened as and when necessary.”

This amendment would safeguard the devolution of health functions by ensuring that any revocation of these functions is done under the advice of an independent panel, whose membership includes representatives from local government and the NHS.

Government amendments 35 and 46 to 49.

Mr Brady: It might help if I indicate now that at the appropriate time I shall seek the leave of the House not to press new clause 8 and amendment 57. Ministers should not take that as indicating that I am entirely satisfied with the responses I have received, but I may be able to find other ways of expressing that dissatisfaction.

The immediate reason for tabling new clause 9 and why I am so concerned about this aspect of the Bill is that we already have a live example in Greater Manchester. I shall not go into huge detail, but because of the difficulties relating to the Healthier Together proposals for the reorganisation of hospital services, the matter will be decided by judicial review this week.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 794

The new clause was tabled in the hope that we can frame the legislation in such a way that proper protection can be given to local authorities and local communities to ensure that this sort of development is not necessary in future. Should, furthermore, the judicial review overturn the existing proposals, it is important to ensure that they cannot simply be imposed in a different way.

The crucial problem is that the existing combined authority arrangements have combined the overview and scrutiny functions of individual local authorities. With the potential downgrading of the University hospital of South Manchester, for example, the usual route of going through Trafford’s or Manchester’s overview and scrutiny committee and referring the matter to the Secretary of State, asking for it to be put to an independent reconfiguration panel, was not available because the overview and scrutiny function was exercised not at the individual local authority level but at the combined authority level.

The Minister for Community and Social Care looks confused, but I assure him that when I had discussions with the Secretary of State he advised me that this was the route to be taken. I then took it to Trafford council, which said that it did not have the overview and scrutiny function and that it was exercised at the combined level. That is the nub of the problem. Significant parts of a conurbation such as Greater Manchester, which may in due course become a mayoral authority, might have no recourse, should a significant reorganisation of health services be proposed that was evidently not in the interest of the local community.

It is a simple proposition that I make in new clause 9. The Minister and I have had some extremely constructive conversations prior to this point, and I hope that he will reassure me that some measure will be introduced—if not today, via a Government amendment in the House of Lords—given that changes to these aspects of the Bill might be made through Government amendment 34. There is, I understand, a peg on which to hang that provision. All I am looking for is the simple reassurance that the Government will ensure that there will always be a route for an individual local authority to make the kind of reference that would have saved enormous cost, uncertainty and trouble in Greater Manchester had it been in place as of today. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and any reassurance that he might give.

Mr Graham Allen: I would like to comment on this group, which includes my own amendment 60. It is relevant to what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has talked about in moving his new clause 9. My anxiety is that the welcome devolution that is taking place—the precedent of devolving health powers to localities is particularly welcome—suggests something of “the Empire striking back”, with the Whitehall Leviathan seeking to place a caveat to the devolution of health powers. What is being set up is the ability of the Secretary of State to revoke health functions from the relevant local authority.

I fear that somebody in the Department of Health might not approve of a devolution proposal within a given area. Let us say that the cities of Nottingham or Manchester—or indeed anywhere represented by hon. Members in their places for this evening’s debate—wished to do something innovative and interesting on public

7 Dec 2015 : Column 795

health because it matched the demography in the area. What it might not match, however, is the view of people in the Department of Health. Such people might have a one-size-fits-all masterplan that they would like to impose on everybody.

My difficulty is that if we allow the Secretary of State to pull back to the centre any of these powers, there will be no safeguard in law to prevent that from happening. The Secretary of State could attempt to launch an effort at devolution, but we see again and again what can happen when the dead hand of Whitehall lays upon local government and the charitable and voluntary sectors. A year could be granted to get on with it, with a local authority either allowed to raise its own money or given some money. If, however, the Department does not like it, it could be pulled up by the roots.

The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt): I should not be, but I am tempted to respond. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s concern, why should the Secretary of State sign the order agreeing the devolution in the first place if it does not fit in with his masterplan? If he is going to take back the powers in due course, why would he give them away in the first place?

Mr Allen: The Secretary of State does have the power to pull back those experiments and those efforts at devolution. That is why I am bringing forward my proposal. If the Secretary of State is not concerned, he would have no worry about the ability of an independent panel to say, “Hang on—give these guys the amount of time they need to experiment” rather than have to deliver to a Whitehall timetable. That amounts to a contradiction in terms: devolution on the one hand, with the Secretary of State pulling things back into the centre on the other hand. My proposal—which I am sure the Minister can understand—is for the establishment of an independent panel, which would not consist of the Secretary of State and his advisers, but would include representatives of local government where the devolution was taking place and representatives of the national health service. That would enable the medical side to be looked at effectively, and separately from the Secretary of State. It would end the constant process that has driven devolution: the interference of Whitehall, often in the very short term, because someone somewhere in the Department of Health—some unknown person—does not like what is being done in the locality.

Mr Graham Brady: Is not the fundamental point that the Bill that we are about to pass may remain on the statute book for many years? The current Secretary of State may be fully committed to devolving these powers, but a future Secretary of State might wish to suck all of them back to Whitehall.

Mr Allen: That is always a problem, but in that eventuality, if the amendment were passed, an independent panel would keep an eye on it to ensure that, if the Minister were not the one who is in the Chamber now but someone more malign than he, it would be possible for the independent panel to blow the whistle and say, “You have not given people in this particular area”—whether it was Enfield, Stoke or anywhere else in the country—“a chance to prove that this part of the devolution of the health service is working effectively. You have a particular view”—perhaps in connection with the need

7 Dec 2015 : Column 796

to react to a scandal or a financial problem—“and you are not acting on the basis of the good of the people in the area, but retrieving from them their ability to devolve effectively and use health powers effectively.”

8.30 pm

The Minister looks puzzled. I am at a loss to understand why he would not want that safeguard if he were not the Minister involved. If he were a humble Back Bencher like the rest of us—which he was, not so long ago—he might be a little concerned about the fact that someone in the Government might not have people’s best interests at heart because he or she had a bigger, broader plan in mind. That is the opposite of devolution.

I am seeking to create an obstacle—it may be a flimsy barrier, but perhaps the mouse can squeak at the steamroller—to prevent this aspect of devolution from disappearing once again into the black hole of Whitehall, given the power of Whitehall and the massive centre of gravity that it constitutes in our tremendously over-centralised political system.

Alistair Burt: I am happy to respond to this short debate dealing with new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), amendment 60—to which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has just spoken—new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), and the Government’s three technical amendments.

New clause 9 would amend secondary legislation to require that each constituent part of a combined authority should be consulted on any major healthcare reorganisation in its area, as well as the combined authority’s being consulted. Each constituent local authority would be able to refer any such reorganisation to the Secretary of State, without such a referral having to be made by the combined authority.

As my hon. Friend knows, proposals for reconfiguration must currently meet the Government's four tests for service change: support from local GP commissioners, clarity on the clinical evidence base, robust patient and public engagement, and support for patient choice. At present, any local authority has the right and, indeed, the responsibility to raise issues about a reconfiguration. My understanding is that that right remains. I take my hon. Friend’s point about its having been given to the combined authority, but, because I do not know about the relationships between the local authorities in question, I do not know whether the combined authority would at any stage reserve the right back to itself if it wished to do so. In the meantime, however, I have one safeguard, and perhaps another, to mention to him. This also applies to the hon. Member for Nottingham North, because it is part of the same thing.

The Secretary of State is only going to accept a recommendation for devolution if it is in the best interests of health in the area and if it will improve health outcomes. He must do so by order. There is nothing in the Bill that requires an authority to take on a national health service function. Authorities can do so if they so wish, but the Secretary of State must be able to see a clear outcome, and he retains his duties and responsibilities for ensuring that the NHS mandate is maintained and that all his statutory duties and responsibilities are observed. The Secretary of State is not going to sign an

7 Dec 2015 : Column 797

order, therefore, if he does not think that the health outcomes for the area will be improved. The Secretary of State is entitled to put in the order what he wishes. That order is then debated in the House and has to be passed as an order.

It would be possible for the Secretary of State to include in the order the fact that the individual authorities that make up a combined authority have the right to make representations to him about any reconfiguration. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West that assurance, and if we find that the legislation is not as I believe it to be, which is that it has retained that right for the local authority, an order in relation to his local authority will contain that safeguard.

I also offer this to my hon. Friend: if he will consider withdrawing the new clause, we will check, before the matter goes before the House of Lords again, to see whether the legislation is as I believe it is, because if it is, the new clause will not be necessary; but if it is not as I believe it to be, the safeguard—the double assurance—will be included in the order and the present Secretary of State would intend to deliver on it.

Mr Brady: My right hon. Friend is seeking to be very helpful. The difficulty that exists is that the safeguards he proposes apply at the moment of devolution. My concern is that a reconfiguration might happen when a power has been devolved, which might not be in the interests of one of the constituent parts of a conurbation. What can be done at that point is what is crucial.

Alistair Burt: At that point, the order that the Secretary of State has signed to allow the devolution in the first place will allow the authority to make a representation to that effect. The order does not just apply to the moment of devolution; it applies to the substance of the devolution, which is the exercise of the health powers the combined authority will have taken on. In respect of a reconfiguration that takes place under the combined authority, the order will safeguard the right of the local authority individually to make representations to the Secretary of State. It is guaranteed not just at the point of devolution, but in the exercise of powers under devolution.

Mr Brady: Might I press my right hon. Friend a little further? I am avoiding being too specific about the Healthier Together proposals for obvious reasons, but in the event that those proposals were to be set aside this week and new reorganisation proposals were to be brought forward, can he give me an absolute assurance that, either under the existing legislation or measures he would introduce in the House of Lords, the individual local authority would retain the freedom to refer any reorganisation to the Secretary of State? If he can do that, I would be satisfied.

Alistair Burt: I believe that that assurance is present in existing legislation. If it is not, we will make sure in the House of Lords that it is. I would also query why my hon. Friend’s local authority has given up this right in the first place to the combined authority, because it if wants to retain that right, perhaps it might want to take it back from the combined authority.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 798

Mr Brady: The Minister has to understand that this is endemic in the nature of the process. It will become more and more commonplace as we see more powers being transferred from the local authorities to combined authority level, and the new arrangements will become entrenched. That is why it is so important that we ensure that the safeguards are in place at this point—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order.

Mr Brady: I am trying to assist the Minister, who I think needs just a moment longer.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately it is me that makes the decisions—we could do this over two days—but I would have thought the Minister had at least some indication.

Alistair Burt: I rest my case with my hon. Friend: I believe that legislation currently provides the reassurance that he seeks. However, I undertake to him that, before the matter is concluded in the House of Lords, we will ensure that that assurance is there so that he is covered. He is absolutely right to make sure that his local authority has the opportunity to make representations when it needs to. I am sure that the legislation does that, but we will make doubly certain that it does.

Mr Graham Allen: It may well be that the current legislation covers this eventuality, but the Government’s amendment 34 makes it very clear that local government will not be consulted. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) would like quickly to peruse that amendment, he will see that local authorities will have no say whatever if devolved powers are taken back to the Department.

Alistair Burt: I will happily cover amendment 34 in a moment. Indeed, perhaps I should speak to that amendment before I turn to amendment 60, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), just to make it clear what amendment 34 is about.

Amendment 34 mirrors part of amendment 19 and amends clause 17 to provide that the requirements for combined authority and local authority consent do not apply to regulations revoking previous transfers of health service functions under clause 16. Proposed new subsections 1E and 1F, which amendment 19 would add to section 105A to be inserted by clause 7 into the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, also have the same effect in relation to health functions transfers under section 105A which are revoked.

This means that in the event that it becomes appropriate to restore NHS functions in a local area to NHS bodies, this can be achieved without the need for consent of the combined authority and local authorities concerned. This reflects the fundamental principles for health devolution, as reflected in clause 18, which builds on an amendment moved by Lord Warner in the other place, that the key responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health and the NHS remain unchanged in any devolution arrangements. We envisage using the powers to revoke only in those circumstances where it was clear that duties and standards such as those referenced in clause 18 were not being met and that revoking the transfer was the best option to achieve the necessary improvement in performance.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 799

The Secretary of State’s ability to use this power supports the key principle, which this House has already agreed and which the House of Lords was also insistent on, that nothing about devolution settlements will impinge on his duties in respect of the national health service, including the duty to promote a comprehensive health service, to exercise his functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services and to have regard to the NHS constitution. The other procedural requirements and preliminary conditions will continue to apply, such as the requirement that the Minister making the regulations must consider that the instrument is likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the functions concerned, and that Parliament must approve the secondary legislation.

Let me explain in straightforward terms what this is about. The House has already agreed that it wants to retain the national health service, even if NHS functions are devolved to local authorities. That means that the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS remain absolute. As I said earlier, if the Secretary of State is to sign off these powers to commission services to a local authority, he has to be sure that doing so is in the best interests of healthcare and that the quality of healthcare will be improved. Otherwise, he just will not do it. There will not be any consent involved, or anything else; he just will not do it. However, if he signs it off, it means that he is satisfied that there will be an improvement in the quality of healthcare. Should that fail—should the NHS functions transferred to a new authority fail—it is the Secretary of State’s duty to take those powers back, because he is responsible for the delivery of NHS standards. If he cannot be satisfied, he is going to have to take these powers back. In the circumstances, it is possible that local authorities might disagree and want to challenge that, but his duties are absolute. That is why the requirement for consent is coming out. We are talking about a circumstance that nobody expects to happen. The Secretary of State is not going to devolve unless he is certain, but if he needs to take powers back to maintain his duties, he must have the power to do so. Even if he has to do so, the matter goes before the House, which makes up its mind on it. That is the basis of Government amendment 34 and the answer to amendment 60.

8.45 pm

Mr Allen: That is exactly the difference between decentralisation and devolution. This proposal is the Secretary of State pushing some power to the locality, purely on the basis that he can suck it back; it is not giving power and, as of right, allowing the local authority to exercise that. There is no way in which the local authority can intervene in this process. It is a bystander, as an agent of central Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): The interventions must be shorter, as I still have to get the Front Bencher in.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is coming at this from the wrong point of view. He is coming at it from the point of view that the Secretary of State is deliberately pushing something towards an authority, but he is not—the authorities are asking him for something. He would not be doing that unless authorities came to him

7 Dec 2015 : Column 800

and said, “We want to do this.” The Secretary of State would not agree unless he thought it was in the best interests of healthcare, because it is not his personal judgment but his duty. If those functions are not performed properly, his ultimate duty, which the House has already agreed, must be to take the powers back. The hon. Gentleman is approaching it from the point of view that there is something malevolent about the Secretary of State which means he wants to challenge the authority. The duties he has, which are contained in statute and which the House says he must retain when NHS powers are devolved, are what impels the amendment, nothing else.

Mr Allen rose—

Alistair Burt: I will give way one last time, but then I must finish dealing with the rest of the clauses.

Mr Allen: The Secretary of State may be doing the right thing—I am sure he would be, just as I am sure the local authority would think it was doing the right thing—but my amendment 60 and our new clause would allow there to be a local government representative and a medical NHS representative judging who is right in the decision about central power and local power. They, too, would make the right decision.

Alistair Burt: Let me turn to the independent panel idea in amendment 60, which the hon. Gentleman has tabled. The Bill provides an effective framework to support a more devolved, place-based approach to health and social care, while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in respect of the NHS and a clear line of accountability back to the Health Secretary. Our objectives for health devolution must be to improve the health and care outcomes for people residing in a particular local area. Clause 18 requires that where health functions are conferred by an order or regulations on a combined authority, provision must be made about standards and duties to be placed on that authority, including standards in the NHS constitution.

The Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that revoking the transfer would lead to an improvement of statutory functions in that local area. He is under the same duties if he revokes as he is when he grants the powers in the first place. The revocation would need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and the Secretary of State would be required to make available to Parliament a report concerning his decision, including what representations had been made to him in the process. That demonstrates that the decision to revoke transfer regulations would be taken only as a consequence of in-depth consideration, as well as engagement with local organisations, and with the support of Parliament. For that reason, I resist the requirement to convene a panel to review the decision, which would not only be unnecessary, but could be burdensome and costly, and could lead to delays just at the time when swift action was required to address fundamental performance issues.

The amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State, in the exercise of his powers, already has to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but the need to move sometimes at speed means he needs to retain the powers; this is therefore covered, there is accountability to Parliament and the Secretary of State has to say exactly why he is doing it. It is straightforward: either he

7 Dec 2015 : Column 801

has the power to deliver his duties, or he does not, and he can do it without convening an independent panel to second-guess him. It is his responsibility, and if he exercises those powers unreasonably, there is judicial review, which means that a local authority is doubly protected.

Mr Allen: If a local authority, which understands its own demography—it knows its people and its inner-city and rural areas—makes a decision on a public health matter, such as fluoridation or free dental checks for three-year-olds, and the centre does not like it, the Minister can pull back that power, which has been given in what is meant to be a devolution Bill.

Alistair Burt: It is not about the centre not liking the decision. The Secretary of State has statutory duties that Parliament has given him. He has to exercise his power both to grant and revoke power based on those duties, not because he likes or does not like a decision. It is that statutory duty for which he is responsible that is so important. The House of Lords pressed that matter, but the House of Commons has accepted it. It is the maintenance of those duties that is so important. Liking or disliking a decision does not come into it.

Let me make further progress on the other amendments that the Government wish to push through. Amendment 35 is a further amendment to clause 18, which applies valuable safeguards to local devolution of health functions, including where certain functions and duties should continue to be held nationally. The clause was inserted in the Bill by an amendment tabled by Lord Warner in the other place and was amended in Committee in the Commons to give further definition and clarity to support its valuable principles. Clause 18 provides that regulatory functions of national bodies held in respect of health services will not be available for transfer to a combined or local authority.

Amendment 35 makes it clear that, in addition to NHS England’s responsibilities for assurance and review of clinical commissioning groups, all its supervisory and oversight functions set out in chapter A2 of part 2 of the National Health Service Act 2006 are out of scope of a transfer order. These include functions relating to CCGs’ institutional and constitutional arrangements, including their establishment.

Briefly, amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49 amend schedule 4, which makes amendments to the 2006 Act to provide a wider menu of flexible, voluntary options for local bodies, including combined authorities, to work with each other and with NHS England in respect of health functions.

One of the amendments introduced by schedule 4 includes provision under proposed new section 13ZA of the 2006 Act for new “devolved arrangements”, whereby NHS England is able to delegate its functions to a group of local commissioners exercising them together, or to make arrangements to exercise its functions jointly with that group. The group of local partners must consist of at least one clinical commissioning group and at least one combined authority or local authority, and the delegates or partners must exercise the function jointly.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 802

Amendments 46, 47 and 48 are minor and technical amendments, which make it clear that “devolved arrangements” may relate to one or more of NHS England’s functions.

New clause 12, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, says:

“The Secretary of State must, within 15 months of this Act being passed, publish a review of health services devolved under the provisions of this Act.”

The review must include an assessment of how standards have been maintained, particularly of the quality and outcomes delivered by the devolved health service.

Maintaining the integrity of the NHS standards and ensuring that there is clear accountability for quality of outcomes is a key objective, as reflected by a number of vital safeguards provided for by the Bill. An order to confer health functions on a combined authority can only be made if a proposal to do so satisfies the Secretary of State that such a transfer will lead to the improvement of statutory functions.

As the House has debated a number of times, the requirements to monitor and regulate the functions that have been devolved remain exactly the same as if they had been with the NHS. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that the quality of services devolved is of NHS quality. For that reason, a full formal review is not necessary. There will be constant review of the quality of work done locally, and putting a formal review in the legislation is therefore not necessary. It is inconceivable that the authority delivering the functions on behalf of the NHS would not keep up a full review and the quality of regulatory work and monitoring work ensures that a full review is carried out in any case.

I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed to a vote and that I have been able to satisfy the House about the functions that need to be retained by the Secretary of State. I hope that the technical amendments will also be agreed to.

Liz McInnes: I want to support new clause 12, although the Minister has made his case for turning it down. I think it is important that we build a review stage into the devolution of health simply because the implications of the Bill for the English NHS and social care system are not clear. The Bill regulates for important new powers to remove functions from NHS hospitals, commissioners and other bodies and to transfer them to the local regional authority. Depending on the implementation, interpretation and limits of the powers, such transfers might fundamentally reshape the health service in the years to come. We must ensure that the national health service stays national. We do not want a postcode lottery for healthcare.

Accountability and scrutiny remain crucial for a well-run national health service, delivering the best care it can for everyone no matter where they live. The Bill’s light-touch nature and the pace with which the agenda is moving leave a number of crucial and unresolved questions, some of which I would now like to ask. Will central and regional government argue over the responsibility for meeting population needs and making difficult decisions, such as those on whether to close hospitals or prop up overspending healthcare providers? What will happen to neighbouring areas?

7 Dec 2015 : Column 803

Deals permissible under the Bill create the possibility of NHS funding melting into wider regional authority budgets, making ring-fencing or protecting impossible. Given the importance of healthcare spending as an issue, it needs clarity and scrutiny. Devolution to combined authorities under the Bill might actually have a centralising effect for many health and social care functions, taking power away from councils that represent smaller communities and the clinical commissioning groups that represent clinicians. Although that might be desirable in some cases, it is also important to consider how the positive developments brought to health and social care by these bodies can be preserved.

Clauses 7, 16 and 17 allowed the piecemeal transfer of health care commissioning responsibilities from clinical commissioning groups and NHS England to local government. I am concerned about the impact that will have on the NHS, especially as regards local variation in service levels, further allocation of resources and the cross-border impact of decisions. The Opposition believe that there should be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Health to secure and provide universal health care and that core national NHS standards should remain in place.

Mr Brady: I want to make it very clear, and this might be helpful to the hon. Lady, that after the Minister’s assurances to me I will seek the leave of the House to withdraw new clause 9. She might, of course, wish to do other things with her new clause.

Liz McInnes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

Although I see a range of possible potential benefits arising from the devolution agenda, particularly the opportunity for greater integration of services between health and social care and bringing public health and other areas under local government control, a number of outstanding questions will need to be resolved, largely focused on resolving the tension between local and national arrangements and the extent to which the “national” in the national health service will be preserved. What we are witnessing is not devolution. The models adopted in the deal so far appear to be closer to delegation in the formal devolution outlined in the Bill.

As the Opposition understand it, there are no plans to use the order-making power created through the Bill to transfer additional health functions to local authorities. Any health-related orders will be used only to enable combined authorities to share the health duty that already sits with local authorities. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the devolution of health service will be reviewed in a year to ensure that standards and quality of services and outcomes have not declined. That is what new clause 12 outlines—it seems an eminently reasonable request given an issue as important as our nation’s health.

Mr Brady: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

9 pm

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 14 October).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

7 Dec 2015 : Column 804

New Clause 10

Governance arrangements for local government: entitlement to vote

In section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (local government electors), in subsection (1)(d) for “18” substitute “16””—(Liz McInnes.)

This Clause would re-instate the provision in the Bill, as brought from the Lords, allowing votes for 16- and 17-year olds in local government elections.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided:

Ayes 197, Noes 289.

Division No. 142]

[

9 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brake, rh Tom

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Julie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Cox, Jo

Coyle, Neil

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Elliott, Tom

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Field, rh Frank

Flello, Robert

Fletcher, Colleen

Flint, rh Caroline

Fovargue, Yvonne

Foxcroft, Vicky

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Goodman, Helen

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Gwynne, Andrew

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harris, Carolyn

Hayes, Helen

Healey, rh John

Hendrick, Mr Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hodge, rh Dame Margaret

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Hussain, Imran

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Gerald

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McCarthy, Kerry

McCartney, Jason

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

Meale, Sir Alan

Mearns, Ian

Miliband, rh Edward

Morden, Jessica

Murray, Ian

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Pound, Stephen

Pugh, John

Qureshi, Yasmin

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees, Christina

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Rotheram, Steve

Ryan, rh Joan

Saville Roberts, Liz

Shah, Naz

Sherriff, Paula

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Andy

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Jeff

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thewliss, Alison

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, Valerie

Watson, Mr Tom

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Mr Mark

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Grahame M. Morris

and

Angela Rayner

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Mr Steve

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Baron, Mr John

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brazier, Mr Julian

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Bruce, Fiona

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chishti, Rehman

Chope, Mr Christopher

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Byron

Davies, Chris

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Davies, Philip

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donelan, Michelle

Dorries, Nadine

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Frazer, Lucy

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Gray, Mr James

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Halfon, rh Robert

Hall, Luke

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hancock, rh Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, rh Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Heald, Sir Oliver

Heappey, James

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Heaton-Jones, Peter

Henderson, Gordon

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Javid, rh Sajid

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Boris

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Latham, Pauline

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, rh Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lopresti, Jack

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

Mak, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mann, Scott

Mathias, Dr Tania

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Karl

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Nuttall, Mr David

Opperman, Guy

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Gavin

Robinson, Mary

Rutley, David

Sandbach, Antoinette

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shannon, Jim

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Simpson, David

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Timpson, Edward

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Robin

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Craig

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wilson, Sammy

Wood, Mike

Wragg, William

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

George Hollingbery

and

Margot James

Question accordingly negatived.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 805

7 Dec 2015 : Column 806

7 Dec 2015 : Column 807

Clause 1

Devolution: annual report

Amendments made: 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(ba) functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown that have been devolved as a result of agreements so as to become exercisable by a mayor for the area of a combined authority (including information as to any such functions that remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown as a result of an agreement providing for functions to be exercisable jointly or concurrently);”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to provide information on whether a Minister of the Crown has retained the ability to exercise a function of a Minister of the Crown which has been conferred on a mayoral combined authority which is exercisable by a mayor for the area of the authority.

7 Dec 2015 : Column 808

Amendment 5, page 1, line 11, after “functions” insert

“(so far as not falling within paragraph (ba))”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4 and removes any overlap between the requirements imposed by new subsection (2)(ba) and subsection (2)(c).

Amendment 6, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

‘( ) In this section—

“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.’—(Alistair Burt.)

This amendment defines the phrases “combined authority” and “Minister of the Crown” in clause 1.

A1Clause 2

Power to provide for an elected mayor

Amendment proposed: 58, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

‘( ) The transfer of local or public authority functions to combined authorities shall not be dependent on an order being made under subsection (1).”—(Mr Steve Reed.)

This amendment makes clear that devolution deals must not be dependent on a combined authority having a mayor.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 195, Noes 290.

Division No. 143]

[

9.14 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brady, Mr Graham

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Chope, Mr Christopher

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Julie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Coyle, Neil

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Field, rh Frank

Flello, Robert

Fletcher, Colleen

Flint, rh Caroline

Fovargue, Yvonne

Foxcroft, Vicky

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Goodman, Helen

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Gwynne, Andrew

Haigh, Louise

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harris, Carolyn

Hayes, Helen

Healey, rh John

Hendrick, Mr Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hollern, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Hussain, Imran

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Gerald

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Lewis, rh Dr Julian

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McCarthy, Kerry

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

Meale, Sir Alan

Mearns, Ian

Miliband, rh Edward

Morden, Jessica

Murray, Ian

Nuttall, Mr David

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Jess

Pound, Stephen

Pugh, John

Qureshi, Yasmin

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees, Christina

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Rotheram, Steve

Ryan, rh Joan

Saville Roberts, Liz

Shah, Naz

Sherriff, Paula

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Andy

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Jeff

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smyth, Karin

Spellar, rh Mr John

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stuart, rh Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, Valerie

Watson, Mr Tom

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Mr Mark

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Grahame M. Morris

and

Angela Rayner

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Mr Steve

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Berry, James

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brazier, Mr Julian

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Bruce, Fiona

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chishti, Rehman

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Crabb, rh Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davies, Byron

Davies, Chris

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Davies, Philip

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Donelan, Michelle

Dorries, Nadine

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Elliott, Tom

Ellis, Michael

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Frazer, Lucy

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Gray, Mr James

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Halfon, rh Robert

Hall, Luke

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hancock, rh Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, rh Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Heald, Sir Oliver

Heappey, James

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Heaton-Jones, Peter

Henderson, Gordon

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Jackson, Mr Stewart

Javid, rh Sajid

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Boris

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Latham, Pauline

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lopresti, Jack

Lord, Jonathan

Loughton, Tim

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

Mak, Mr Alan

Malthouse, Kit

Mann, Scott

Mathias, Dr Tania

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Mrs Maria

Milling, Amanda

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Norman, Jesse

Opperman, Guy

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Philp, Chris

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quin, Jeremy

Quince, Will

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Gavin

Robinson, Mary

Rutley, David

Sandbach, Antoinette

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shannon, Jim

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Simpson, David

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Timpson, Edward

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Robin

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Craig

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wilson, Sammy

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wood, Mike

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Margot James

and

George Hollingbery

Question accordingly negatived.