Draft West Midlands Combined Authority Order 2016
Debate between John Spellar and Lord Wharton of Yarm
James Wharton
The shadow Minister, whom I welcome to her place, is a wily foe at the worst of times and desperately effective at the best of times. She has deprived me of the opportunity to hear the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Easington, whose contribution I had been very much looking forward to. She has tempted the Committee to stray into talking about another piece of legislation—namely, the process by which a mayor could be elected to be accountable for some of the powers that are hopefully being transferred down, should Parliament so wish it, in co-operation with the local authorities. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Davies, we are not here today to talk about that particular aspect of devolution agreements. This statutory instrument creates a combined authority that has been agreed with local authorities in a bottom-up way, rather than as a top-down deal. I remind the Committee that a deal is a two-way process. A deal must be agreed by both parties or sets of parties, and that is what we have before us today.
The temptation from the shadow Minister was such that the right hon. Member for Warley indulged a little in discussion of the mayor, while raising a number of points of concern to him. He commented on the membership of this Committee. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members who are so well informed about the specific geography of the area we are here to discuss, devolution more generally, and the ambitions of this Government and of local areas that want to engage in this programme and benefit from economic growth. He talked about hypothetical future transfers and what the funding arrangements for those might be. I do not wish to get into that debate in too much detail, it being hypothetical, but in our approach to devolution, it is the intention of this Government that powers will be transferred where they are asked for by local areas. That is done by agreement. Indeed, the proposed combined authority is very much in that vein.
The hon. Member for Coventry South, who is spending much of his day in discussion with me—we earlier discussed the exceptional growth in jobs in Coventry and how welcome that is—spoke about the mayor, and about the responsibility we and local areas have to deliver for local people and to build on the economic success that Coventry in particular has enjoyed over the past six years.
I have here a letter from October 2015 from the shadow authority, which represented the leaders of some of the local councils and authorities. It states:
“The headline conclusion of the review is that establishing a West Midlands Combined Authority would improve the exercise of statutory functions in relation to economic development, regeneration and transport in the West Midlands.”
It continues:
“A Combined Authority would help maximise growth in output and jobs. A region-wide focus on productivity, competiveness and raising skill levels would put the region in the best position to achieve its economic vision and economic goals.”
This is a deal—it is a two-way process. In these areas, we have worked with local authority leaders representing the communities they are elected to represent. We have come to an agreement about a geography and a set of powers.
Mr Spellar
Does the Minister accept that, faced with the option of going along with the deal and making the best of a bad job, and having suffered horrendous cuts—in the hundreds and thousands of millions across the conurbation—it is not surprising that, with the offer of a rebate, albeit a small part of that, those councils would accept that option? They were defending as best they could their interests against a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was using that rebate quite blatantly as a bribe to get his political project through.
James Wharton
I remind the Committee:
“A Combined Authority would help maximise growth in output and jobs. A region-wide focus on productivity, competiveness and raising skill levels would put the region in the best position to achieve its economic vision and economic goals.”
Glancing at the letter, I do not see reference to a hypothetical argument about local government funding, which is entirely separate from the process by which either devolution or combined authorities are agreed.