Draft West Midlands Combined Authority Order 2016

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2016 General Committees

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving a couple of minutes late.

I am concerned about this devolution arrangement, which appears to have been imposed on the west midlands local authorities in a top-down deal. It is deeply unhelpful that the Chancellor appears to insist on making these deals behind closed doors, adding to the general public’s perception that they are being excluded from having their say in what will be a major change to how they are governed locally.

Labour believes in a process of devolution that gives local people the power to make their communities and economies stronger and fairer. We stand for a bottom-up approach to the devolution of power, which does not appear to be the case here; what is on offer demonstrates that the Government do not trust local people to decide how they want to be governed. Some may want elected mayors, others may not, but the imposition of mayors is in direct opposition to the very definition of devolution. Under this deal, the people of the west midlands have a mayor imposed upon them, whether they want one or not.

The Government’s decision to impose metro mayors on local areas and combined authorities as a precondition of devolution is wrong and anti-democratic. Combined with the iron grip that the Chancellor has exercised on local councils’ spending by imposing cuts on some of the most deprived communities in Britain, that does not bode well for this and other devolution deals. Instead of empowering councils, the Government are cutting funding and holding communities back.

The National Audit Office published a report on English devolution deals in April this year in which it cast doubt on the west midlands deal, suggesting that plans for the devolved so-called super-authority are “untested” and “more complex” than those for the apparently similar deal in Greater Manchester. The NAO stated:

“The first devolution deals, in Greater Manchester and Cornwall, were based on areas with established institutional arrangements and coterminous local enterprise partnership areas. More recent deals such as in the West Midlands set up more complex and untested arrangements.”

It continued:

“The arrangements are experimental and unlikely to work as intended in all areas and for all functions and services devolved.”

The NAO added that the Government should resolve issues it has identified with accountability, administrative geography and impact measurement if they want to provide confidence that devolution deals will support economic growth and value for money.

The report went on to say:

“It is not yet clear how devolution deal areas will align with the local administrative configurations of other policy areas. For example, local NHS bodies are undertaking planning to support the NHS Five-Year Forward View. The six national NHS bodies responsible for planning guidance have asked areas to define their own local health economies and to consider devolution deals while doing so. In a context where geographical configurations for devolution proposals have yet to be resolved in many areas, it is not yet clear how these two processes will align”.

The Public Accounts Committee has examined the NAO report and concurred with its views, commenting:

“The growing use of complex delivery methods, such as devolution to local areas…has often not been accompanied by clarity over accountability arrangements…Parliament needs to be assured that Accounting Officers can follow the pound through these more complex delivery systems.”

Additionally, I am alarmed by the explanatory note accompanying the draft order, which states:

“A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as this instrument will have no impact on the costs of business or the voluntary sector.”

Without an impact assessment, how can it possibly be known that there will be no impact?

What we have here is a top-down devolution deal that appears to have been shaped in No. 11 Downing Street rather than by the people and communities of the west midlands. There is no new money. The combined authority will make use of existing staff and finances, and decisions will be made by the existing council leaders working together. I am disappointed by the assumption that that approach will deliver better value for money. With no accompanying impact assessment, how can that possibly be known?

I am disappointed by this Government’s lack of ambition. A much more serious, properly resourced and funded deal could have been on the table had the Government been serious about devolving powers from Whitehall. I take the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office very seriously indeed and would appreciate a response from the Minister on those points. Does he agree with the NAO that these arrangements are complex, untested, experimental and unlikely to work?