My Lords, in moving en bloc that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 18, I will also speak to Commons Amendments 21 to 39, 42 to 44, 62 to 73, 75, 76, 78, 79 and 80 to 82, and speak about the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has tabled to Commons Amendment 31 and Commons Amendment 36.
I am very pleased to put forward this group of amendments, which demonstrate the progress that has been made since the Bill was first introduced last May and that the Government have listened to the views made known in this House and in the other place. I do not wish to detain the House too long on this group, as we have a lot to discuss, but I put on record that I am grateful for the continued constructive approach of noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie, Lord Beecham and—I have just spotted him—Lord Smith of Leigh and Lord Shipley. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for the ongoing discussions to refine his clause on health matters, but we shall return to those matters later today.
It is in that spirit that I first speak to Amendments 1, 2 and 4, where the Government are pleased to accept the amendments inserted by this House for an annual report by the Secretary of State on devolution. These further amendments came as a result of listening to the debate in the other place. They will ensure that the Secretary of State’s annual report will include information on the extent to which powers that have been devolved to a mayor also remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. It is only right that the Government are transparent when it comes to the devolution of powers to both local and combined authorities and these amendments, which the Government introduced in the other place, do just that.
I shall, of course, listen to noble Lords very carefully when they speak later today, but I cannot help noticing that they have not tabled anything for debate in response to Amendments 3 and 5, which remove Clause 2, inserted in this place against the wishes of the Government. We have removed the requirement that each Bill placed before Parliament be accompanied by a ministerial Statement explaining the extent to which the provisions are compatible with devolution. We are concerned with the reality of devolution. The Bill provides the necessary provisions to achieve genuine devolution of powers to those areas that want it. For many Bills, such a devolution statement would represent superfluous bureaucracy, having no implication for functions that can be devolved, such as national security, defence and international relations. The removal of the clause was not opposed in the other place and we remain of the view that these provisions should not be included in the Bill.
Amendment 6 removes the requirement that a mayor cannot be a precondition of transferring local authority or public authority functions to a combined authority. In our manifesto we specifically committed to,
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors”.
Government policy, therefore, is expressly to make the transfer of local authority or public authority functions to a combined authority dependent on that local authority having a mayor. This is because, if areas are to have these new, far-reaching powers, they must adopt strong governance and accountability arrangements. People need to know who is responsible for decisions affecting their daily lives and who to hold to account.
However, we are not forcing mayors on anyone. Whether an area has a mayor and the far-reaching powers that come with having one is entirely a matter
for local areas. We want to hear from those areas what their proposals are, what powers and budgets they want devolved to them, and what governance arrangements they need to support those powers and budgets. But, if an area wants to have a devolution deal of the scale and ambition of Greater Manchester’s, for those kinds of functions to be devolved, having a directly elected mayor is an essential prerequisite.
This requirement, which Amendment 6 removes, poses major risks to the delivery of the Greater Manchester and Sheffield city region deals. This is because, if the Government tried to make orders using the powers in new Section 107A to deliver these deals, there is a possibility that the courts would find that these deals contravened this statutory prohibition, the effect of which would be likely to result in no further orders being made to transfer additional functions to that area. This is an outcome that I doubt anyone would want. The other place divided twice and decided by majorities of 81 and 95 respectively to remove the requirement. The message from the elected House is clear. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will agree to this amendment.
Amendments 7, 8, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 30 and 82 give more flexibility over how devolution can work for different places. The amendments build on the provisions we approved to further enhance the flexibility for existing combined authorities where one or more of the constituent local authorities do not wish to sign up to certain aspects of devolution.
As it left us, the Bill enabled a local authority to be removed from a combined authority if it does not agree to the combined authority’s wish to adopt the position of mayor. These amendments enable one or more councils that do not want to adopt a mayor or to agree to the first devolution of powers to be removed from the combined authority. This means that councils that do not wish to agree to such aspects of the deal cannot be forced to, but neither can they prevent the combined authority and councils that do agree to the adoption of mayor or the devolved powers proceeding with these.
3.15 pm
Amendments 9, 12, 14, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 42, 43, 44 and 76 simplify and harmonise the Bill’s provisions relating to the local consents needed before powers can be conferred or exercised. As a general rule, the constituent authorities and the combined authority—where there is one—would need to consent before any secondary legislation is made. And where there is one, the mayor would need to consent before any secondary legislation can be made to change the area of a combined authority or specify any functions to be exercisable individually by a mayor.
Amendments 31, 32, 33, 80 and 81 enable combined authorities to be established, and functions conferred, on a more flexible basis. I will also speak to the amendment to Commons Amendment 31 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The Government made these amendments in the other place in response to powerful interventions by the Member for Sheffield South East and the chair of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee.
He and others on the opposition Benches were concerned that some areas were finding it challenging to secure agreement from all councils concerned about the geography over which a combined authority should be established.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is seeking through his amendment to remove this additional flexibility—in effect to require that both district and county councils must consent before any changes to the combined authority or movement of functions can be made. I want to put it beyond any doubt that these amendments do not in themselves change any combined authority in any place. In line with the Bill’s enabling approach, they purely provide additional flexibility in two-tier local government areas so that a district or county council would be able to join an existing combined authority with the agreement of the local authority itself and the combined authority, provided that the remaining statutory requirements are satisfied.
The amendments also make corresponding provision around membership of the combined authorities and enable powers to be conferred with the agreement of the same authorities. So a district council could join a combined authority if the combined authority and the district council consent: the county council’s consent would not be needed. Or a county council could join a combined authority if the combined authority and the county council consent: the consent of the district councils in the two-tier local government area would not be needed. This means that, before laying a draft order to implement such provisions, the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that making such a change would lead to an improvement of the exercise of the statutory functions and would also have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government and reflect effective and convenient local government. There would need to be a consultation on the proposed change to the area and each House of Parliament would, of course, need to approve such an order before it could be made.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s aim, as it has been throughout the devolution discussions, is to build consensus, because that is how devolution will last. We will work with local areas to deliver economically sensible areas of devolution with effective governance. When exercising these powers, the Secretary of State has committed to maintain the preference for consensus which he has shown to date. The amendments are intended to provide that no council could unreasonably veto a proposal for an area to join an existing combined authority which the other councils involved and the combined authority agreed. At the very least, no authority can reasonably refuse to discuss with a neighbour the potential for reform. I hope that noble Lords will see the merits in these amendments and agree that they are in line with the enabling approach of the Bill.
I will now move to Amendments 34 to 39, which amend Clause 16 which streamlines the establishment of governance arrangements. In doing so, I hope to speak early to the amendment to Commons Amendment 36 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The Government accepted Amendment 36, which was a Back-Bench amendment tabled in the other place. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to
fast-track the process for structural or boundary change in relation to a two-tier council area without the need for the unanimous consent of the affected councils.
In considering this proposition, the Government further modified it to ensure that this provision would be piloted for a period of no longer than three years, expiring on 31 March 2019. Noble Lords will recall that we discussed the tensions that can result from the complexity of two-tier arrangements and how these might be simplified where there is a lack of consensus about how it might best be achieved. Similar concerns were also expressed in the other place about the potential for a council to effectively veto any proposals that might lead to the fast-tracking of any kind of structural or boundary change, however sensible and supported they might be.
We heard the arguments for and against the proposal and had much sympathy with the underlying proposition that, where there is a sensible structural change to be made which would benefit the wider area, it should not be possible for any one council in an area to effectively veto the consideration of such a proposal. That is why we accepted the amendment, but on the basis that it be piloted for three years. We have deliberately tied the end of the pilot to coincide with the Secretary of State’s fourth devolution report to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is seeking to require a consenting local authority to demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to achieve local consensus for proposed changes to structural or boundary provision. I hope that the House will agree that the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that the way to proceed is through consensus. Any subsequent draft regulations would have to be approved by both Houses, and, at the same time as laying these, the Secretary of State is also required to lay before Parliament a report explaining the effect of the regulations, including a description of any consultation or information about representations considered by the Secretary of State. This would already enable Parliament to take a view on the extent to which efforts had been made to reach local consensus.
Above all, the crux of the matter is this: areas can already submit unitary proposals to the Secretary of State, with or without the consent of all local authorities, under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. The amendment merely allows the Secretary of State to fast-track implementation where there is a strong case to proceed.
Amendments 34 and 35 and Amendments 37 to 39 are largely technical. They clarify the nature and range of matters that the Secretary of State can make regulations about, should he be asked to do so by areas putting any such proposals to him. They do not extend the scope of the provisions first presented to this House.
Amendments 10 and 11 provide additional options for a mayor to be supported in undertaking their mayoral functions. As it left this House, the Bill enabled a mayor to delegate general mayoral functions to the deputy mayor, or to a member or officer of the combined authority. These amendments enable a mayor to delegate functions specified by order to a committee appointed by the mayor, or to the deputy mayor for policing and crime.
Before it could be made, the order would, of course, need local consent, agreement from the Secretary of State and approval from Parliament. Amendments 13, 16 and 75 provide further flexibilities for mayoral combined authorities. They enable, if specified by order, mayors of combined authorities, if they so choose, to exercise any of their general functions jointly with other authorities or combined authorities with the same functions. The orders would specify the arrangements for any such joint committees, such as the establishment, membership, chairmanship, the number and appointment of members, and the voting powers of members.
These amendments also provide that mayoral functions to be exercised jointly must be exercised by a joint committee established by the mayor, and that such committees would be subject to the same requirements for access to meetings and papers as any other local authority committee. They would, for example, enable a joint committee comprising the mayors of two combined authorities, or a combined authority mayor and local authorities, to exercise their functions jointly across the area, providing greater flexibility about how mayors, combined authorities and local authorities can work together. We believe that these amendments provide genuine additional flexibility in the way in which mayors of combined authorities can discharge jointly—that is, where all the councils involved have that function and they see benefit in exercising it jointly over a wider area.
Amendments 62, 63, and 73 are drafting changes that clarify the timing of an order transferring PCC functions to an elected mayor and ensure that, in line with provisions for police and crime commissioners generally, a person acting temporarily in place of a mayor with PCC functions cannot carry out particular strategic functions such as issuing a police and crime plan.
Amendments 64 to 70 and 72 make minor drafting changes so that a deputy mayor appointed in respect of a police and crime commissioner’s function is to be known as the deputy,
“mayor for policing and crime”,
rather than the deputy PCC mayor. This brings the Bill into line with arrangements in London, therefore providing clarity and consistency in the post title of mayoral deputies with police and crime commissioner functions.
Amendment 71 would enable the Secretary of State by order to give a police and crime panel scrutiny functions over the general functions of the mayor where those functions are ones that the mayor has arranged for the deputy mayor for policing and crime to exercise. This is necessary to ensure that scrutiny of these functions and any related functions are exercised by the most appropriate body: namely, the police and crime panel.
Finally, Amendments 78 and 79 enable functions to be discharged jointly, as well as concurrently, with economic prosperity boards.