Midlands Engine

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for bringing this issue to our attention so that we can tease out some important issues. I declare an interest, of sorts. West Bromwich Albion FC beat Everton FC in the FA cup final on 18 May 1968 at Wembley, by scoring three minutes into extra time. It was a traumatic experience for an 11-year-old Evertonian. However, I hold no grudges against the midlands and I deny that I was psychologically scarred by the event, so my comments today should not be taken in that context.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington dealt with a wide range of issues, including academic research, research and development in general, energy storage, matters affecting the creative industries, and the challenge of low productivity. Of course there is also the vexed question of the airport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) talked about the midlands engine being not a brand but the people, and an engine for growth. I fully concur with her view that when the midlands do well the UK does well. She also made crucial points about HS2 helping to transform Britain’s infrastructure, other transport investments in the area, and Brexit concerns. The hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) talked about working together and playing to the region’s strengths, and of course the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) talked about the need to stand up for traditional industries as well as new technologies. In that respect, when I sit on my sofa I will be reminded of her.

As a former leader of a council in the Liverpool city region I have, as the saying goes, been there, to some extent. I am pretty au fait with the difficult gestation period that comes with setting up the structures and mechanisms of a city region and the wider region; but it is about time, and long overdue. The dragging hand of Westminster and Whitehall on regional policy is a danger; that approach is well past its sell-by date. In fact, the centralisation from London has clearly left the other regions in a less favourable position than the south-east and London. That is not to say that I have any criticism of those regions. Quite the opposite—good luck to them. But it is time that other regions also got more attention. I think that that point has been raised today several times. The same thing has been true of successive Governments who over the decades have to an extent had a stranglehold on local government, leaving it passive and dependent. However, that is changing, and that failed approach cannot continue.

The “Midlands Engine for Growth” prospectus of 2015 mentions that the offshore wind market is worth up to £100 billion. In fact, as you know, Mr Howarth, in Liverpool bay, off the coast of my constituency, there is a large wind turbine field, which is growing exponentially with investment from, among others, DONG, a majority state-owned Danish company, and, if I remember rightly, some input from the city of Copenhagen. It is a pity that local government and regions in this country are not in a position to do the same. I am very concerned that the Government are ideologically opposed to such ventures even if they would be in the best interests of city regions such as Liverpool working collaboratively with city regions in the midlands, or combined authorities in the midlands. I am afraid there is a danger of there being many words but little action from the Government, with that ideology hidden in the small print.

Conversely, at the same time as the former Business Secretary, the now Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, talked in the prospectus of freeing up local government and its partners to compete in the global market, he was interfering in their day-to-day affairs with the Trade Union Act 2016—which sought to micromanage local authority labour relations—with no recognition of any irony at all. Meanwhile, one of his predecessors at the Department for Communities and Local Government wanted to tell local authorities how to run off and on-street car parking arrangements. That state of mind has to be broken out of.

The consequences of the incapacity to deal with devolution in a significant way fall on and negatively affect people in the regions, such as the midlands. I am afraid that this rather petty, Lilliputian and prosaic interference reaffirms that the Government and Whitehall simply cannot let go; it is endemic, and it has to stop. Can anybody imagine the equivalent Secretary of State in Germany, France or Italy having the time or inclination to be bothered with such trivial interferences in the affairs of local government? I raise these issues simply for context. If the dead hand of Westminster continues to stifle innovation, imagination and entrepreneurship in the regions, and in the midlands in particular, because of a pathological inability to let things go, things will not change.

The Government set out their aims for the midlands machine in February 2015, which include raising the long-term growth rate of the midlands to at least that forecast for the whole UK, creating 300,000 extra jobs in the midlands, which is enormously welcome, creating a new skills matching service for local people and increasing the number of skilled apprenticeships, which others have referred to. They also include delivering £5.2 billion of investment in new transport infrastructure in the midlands, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) referred, and backing science and innovation, including by developing an Energy Research Accelerator through local universities. The Government also aim to support new technology in the automotive sector, to support the construction of 30,000 new homes and to make improvements to local education. The Opposition’s main concerns are how the Government will meet those targets and whether they are committed to fully funding them, particularly as our economy heads into a difficult period that will be defined by high inflation, a continued weakened pound and potentially flatlining tax receipts.

More specifically, the prospectus indicated that the midlands engine partnership would develop a £180 million fund of funds, utilising the European Union’s joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises programme, which combines European regional development funds with matched funding from the European Investment Bank. Will it still? Does the Chancellor’s slush fund, as I like to think of it, account for the loss of that money, and will it be put back into the midlands engine? My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), who was here earlier, referred to that.

The Government’s aim for the midlands economy is to raise its long-term growth rate to at least that forecast for the UK. That target is based on the ability of the midlands to continue to grow at the same rate as between 1997 and 2013. There are a plethora of reasons why that is unlikely and, perhaps, overly-ambitious unless the Government pull their finger out and deal with many of the issues raised by hon. Members here today. As the prospectus says, the region’s gross value added is currently £222 billion annually, which is about 14.6% of the UK’s total economic output, and has grown by 30% in the past decade. With 24% of the 11.5 million population under the age of 20, the midlands clearly has the potential to offer a long-term, sustainable workforce. That has been referred to today in terms of skills. However, although the midlands accounts for 15.7% of all employed people, the average GVA per worker is lower than the national average.

In fact, the midlands has not been able to keep up with the north and the south-east in employment, investment and job creation. A Resolution Foundation report found that, prior to the financial crisis, employment in the west midlands city region stood at 66.7%, which was 3.2% below the city region average. It also found that, while the recovery from that crisis has seen the proportion of people in work nationally rising to record levels, the west midlands is still not back to where it was, with an employment rate of just 64.5%, compared with 71.6% across other city regions. Barring Solihull, each local authority in the west midlands has an employment rate below the average across the UK’s other city regions. That is important.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Peter Dowd]

I am referring to Government statistics; I am happy to send them to the Minister. In the east midlands the situation is worse. I do not want to push on; I think we have to look at this in a constructive and positive fashion. If we are going to do that, the Government need to pull their finger out and get that midlands machine cranked up and going. Members across the Chamber have highlighted and indicated where that could be pushed and sustained. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington laid it out fairly clearly, but laying it out and practically putting it into effect are completely different things.

The reality is that the call to take back control that we heard during the referendum debate extends not only to the national level. It is not just about bringing back control—whatever that means—to the United Kingdom, it is about a demand from the regions for the Government to move aside to some degree and let them get on with wealth creation for all people, not just a chosen few. Andrew Bounds from the Financial Times made the point that so long as the Government control from the centre and focus so much attention on the south-east and London, the regions will not be able to move on.

The Government need to give the midlands—the home of the industrial revolution—its independence back, with powers to do the job that central Government are not capable of doing. Hon. Members have referred to the entrepreneurs, the businesses, the people who go to work and the families in the midlands and other regions as the people who deliver the wealth. Local people in the midlands are much more capable of doing the business, so to speak, than the Government will ever be. The Government have to free them up to do that. The sooner the Government stop paying lip service to regional devolvement, the better, because the 11.5 million people in the midlands deserve much better than they are getting from the Government. I exhort the Minister to push on with the midlands engine, not just in words but in practice.

Housing and Planning Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

As I said a few minutes ago, we clearly need to consider any changes that we might want to make. As I intimated, we would consider that, but we need to make any changes in the light of the reclassification. That is why we are saying that we want to consider the position extremely carefully. We expect to work closely with the housing association sector and the social housing regulator, and other stakeholders, to finalise any deregulatory package. We will consider—and we are considering—changes. That will happen in the context of the work I have mentioned.

I was explaining that family members other than common-law partners, married couples and civil partners will lose any statutory right they may have had to succeed to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012. Instead, local authorities will have the discretion to grant them succession rights, which must be written into the tenancy agreement. Where local authorities grant additional succession rights, we expect they will apply the same rules to tenancies granted before and after April 2012. However, we will provide guidelines to assist local authorities to exercise their discretion.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Gray, I listen avidly to what the Prime Minister says on these matters. In August 2010, in a speech in Birmingham, he said of this proposal that

“not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument”.

Well, he is right on that one: there will be a big argument. More importantly, however, he also said that the proposal would help with social mobility. It would be helpful if the Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could explain why it will help with social mobility in any way whatever.

[Mr Jones]

The measure will help with social mobility—all the policies in the Bill are aimed at helping with social mobility. We want people who are able to purchase their own property—to exercise the right to buy—to do so and to exercise what we see as a right to social mobility. Within this policy, in many cases, the circumstances of tenants will be reviewed; in certain cases, it may prompt people who may otherwise not have thought about purchasing their own home to do so where they feel they are able to. That is an important thing for everybody to have the opportunity to do if they are able to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Because we want to get such things right. We believe that we have now put a good package together—

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to read from a newspaper article quoting a Minister:

“the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.”

I completely agree with that statement, but it was said in 2008 by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), when she was a Minister in the Department in which I am privileged to serve. She said:

“What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.”

The article states that she

“indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector”.

It quotes her saying:

“If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.”

It is telling that that was the thinking in 2008 of the Labour Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which the shadow Housing and Planning Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), served as a Minister.

The thinking of the Labour Government at the time was similar to our thinking now and seemed to be in the centre ground. If the Labour party had won in 2010—if the electorate had not seen fit to throw out that discredited shambles of a Labour Government—and the country had had the misfortune of having another Labour Government, there is every possibility that they would have taken a similar approach to the one we are taking now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will take an intervention from the Government side first.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector, which provides security and stability. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords. Our model tenancy agreement, which was introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for landlords and tenants who vote to sign up to them.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy length. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who need the property back at some point, perhaps even for their own family to live in. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, I think it would be counter-productive and would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. That would not help tenants or landlords.

[Peter Dowd]

I can accept the assertion that the Minister is making, but actually, all the evidence from continental Europe points in the opposite direction. Investment is not stifled—quite the opposite. Secure tenancies often give the security to people investing in them, so the evidence continentally does not indicate that.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman gives me a very good opportunity to segue into explaining that before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in severe decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since 1988, however, the private rented sector has grown steadily, increasing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in many cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many, I am sure, would be reluctant to let their properties. I believe that the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

I do not know what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has done to upset the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are introducing the provisions is to put all authorities on a level playing field when undertaking or exercising the right to compulsory purchase. At the moment, the rights that we are discussing can be exercised by local authorities, the Homes and Communities Agency and urban development corporations, but there are organisations, such as NHS trusts and Natural England, and certain Ministers within the Government, who do not have the same powers, so we have sought to extend them to ensure that the situation is consistent.

[Peter Dowd]

At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, those authorities tend to be, as the Minister has identified, effectively public authorities, such as Ministers, the NHS and so on. Can we have clarity as to whether the powers will extend that authority status to private authorities?

[Mr Jones]

There are circumstances in which that could be the case, but it would generally be where a local authority or another public body exercises its compulsory purchase powers before using a private organisation, for example, as a delivery vehicle for the proposed scheme. A town centre scheme is probably a good example. On that basis, I believe that I have answered the Opposition’s questions so far, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 246 agreed to.

Amendments made: 247, in clause 111, page 52, line 32, leave out “compulsorily”.

This amendment ensures that the right of entry in clause 111 may be exercised prior to acquiring land by agreement as well as compulsorily.

Amendment 248, in clause 111, page 52, line 35, after “survey” insert “or value”.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 246.

Housing and Planning Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

I wish he would. Of course, we need to take advice from the Prime Minister, in his campaign against austerity, about what he thinks about local government having more money pinched off them by his Government.

The proposal is not fair or reasonable. It will put additional stresses on local government; more important, it will put stress on the services that local government provides by asking it to pay up money without knowing how much it will have to pay, the basis on which the estimate will be made, whether it will get the money back off the Government if it pays too much, whether it will get any interest payments or when the reconciliation of the figures will take place. The proposal is an absolute mess, and the Government should think again.

[Mr Jones]

Budget 2015 clearly spelled out the key features of the policy that the Government are implementing, including that any extra income received by local authorities will need to be returned to the Exchequer. Clause 79 is vital to the successful operation of the policy in that regard, as it allows the Government to set out the process for how the money will be returned.

Amendment 225 would remove subsection (1) and therefore the ability to require a local authority to pay increased rental income to Government. I am aware of the views that external rental income should be retained by local authorities, although that is not the approach that we will take, as the money has been clearly identified as a contribution towards the national deficit reduction programme. We have of course proposed allowing local authorities to retain a proportion of the money received to cover administration of the scheme. We are considering consulting on the responses on this question, but we are still minded to make this allowance a feature of policy.

Amendments 224 and 227 would amend subsection (1) and remove subsection (5) respectively. The effect would be that payments to Government could not be on the basis of an estimated increase in rental income, or of a calculation that may be based on assumptions. I recognise that both amendments seek to ensure that local authorities are only passing on actual increases in income, rather than an estimated or notional amount. I am also well aware of local authorities’ strong preference for an approach based on actual increases in rental income. I hope that I can reassure Opposition Members that the preference of Government is also to base payments on actual increases. However, we are still considering the approach for determining the amount to be payable to Government. On that basis, I would not want at this time to restrict the flexibility provided by the provision. However, we will of course take into account the case made by Opposition Members for an approach based on actual payments.

Amendment 228 would amend subsection (6) so that a payment would be required only once a sum equal to the cost of replacing a similar type of property in the same area and of the same tenure had been deducted. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary as there is no reduction in the number of council properties as a result of the policy. The property remains a council property and the only thing that changes is the rent payable when it is occupied by a tenant whose income is above the threshold.

Given my explanations and reassurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Housing and Planning Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Thursday 26th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

That brings me nicely to the points that were made about the section 21 notice, which landlords can use to retake possession of a property. It is important to point out that to recover possession under section 21, the landlord would need to obtain a possession order from the court, as has been pointed out, which would obviously involve additional time and the additional cost of going to court.

We need to bear it in mind that the Bill is about bringing forward proportionate measures to protect tenants. The golden thread running through all the measures on the private rented sector is that we are trying to improve the tenant’s lot and tenant protection. At the same time, however, there is a balance between tenant protection and the needs of the landlord—the person who invests in property to house people. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party need to consider that the measures are a proportionate way to redress that balance, particularly where tenants are clearly not paying their rent and not living at the property.

[Peter Dowd]

I completely accept the spirit in which the Minister suggested that the burden on local authorities will be too great for them to become involved, but does he not agree that it would be even greater if the person was evicted? It is a case of a stitch in time saves nine in relation to the proposal.

[Mr Jones]

What the hon. Gentleman and several other Labour Members do not consider is that the measure is designed for a situation in which a property has been abandoned. It has not been put forward to allow landlords to try to fast-track the eviction of tenants who are living in a property or tenants who are paying their rent. It is important for the Committee to remember that.

Let me make another point about the section 21 process. To go back to my point about freeing up property that has been abandoned so that people can be housed, the section 21 process involves the landlord giving the tenant two months’ notice. After that, however, the landlord would need to go to court to obtain a possession order. On average, that process takes four months, which seems an excessive amount of time to get a property that has clearly been abandoned back into use.

Housing and Planning Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Thursday 26th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Jones]

Although I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, as I said—I have already given a reasonable example of where we are coming from in proposing the clause—it would be for the court to decide on the particular circumstances at a particular time and on whether they deem those circumstances as such that the tenancy should be reinstated.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

May I push the Minister on that and seek a bit more clarity? Take, for example, a person going into hospital on a section 2, which means detention for up to 28 days, and then that is transferred or transformed to a section 3, which means a much longer period of time. Ought we not to be making it clear that, in situations in which somebody is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and through due process, there should be an exemption specifically for the purposes of the clause?

[Mr Jones]

Again, it is for the court to decide in those circumstances and in any other circumstances whether or not a tenant should have their lease reinstated. I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not, in our deliberations, see an amendment that he has tabled to make the case for what he is saying. In the spirit of the clause, it is for the court to decide, and I am sure that, in the majority of cases, the court will make the right decision for the tenant involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Methods for giving notices under sections 49 and 51

Amendments made: 122, in clause 53, page 23, line 11, at end insert—

“( ) This section sets out the methods for giving—

(a) a notice under section 49;

(b) the first or second warning notices under section 51.”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.

Amendment 123, in clause 53, page 23, line 12, leave out—

“A notice under section 49 or 51”

and insert “The notice”.

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.

Amendment 124, in clause 53, page 23, line 14, leave out—

“A notice under section 49 or 51 that”

and insert “If the notice”.

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.

Amendment 125, in clause 53, page 23, line 15, after “person” insert “it”

See Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 118.

Amendment 126, in clause 53, page 23, line 21, at end insert—

“, and

( ) in the case of a tenant, leaving it at or sending it to every postal address in the United Kingdom of every guarantor, marked for the attention of the tenant.

‘( ) In subsection (2) “guarantor”, in relation to a tenant, means a person who has agreed with the landlord to guarantee the performance by the tenant of any of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment requires certain notices to be sent to a tenant’s guarantors, marked for the attention of the tenant. This requirement applies unless the tenant has been given the notice in person.

Local Government Finance (Tameside and Oldham)

Debate between Peter Dowd and Marcus Jones

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jones]

I should say to Opposition Members that I will not take any further interventions after the right hon. Gentleman’s lengthy contribution. He needs to put this matter in the context of the authorities that he mentioned having far less spending power than those we are discussing in this debate.

The other way that the areas in question will no doubt benefit is through the new homes bonus. Councils benefit directly from the number of new homes built in their area and from bringing empty property back into use. We have provisionally allocated £1.2 billion of new homes bonus funding to local authorities in England for 2015-16. Of that, Oldham will receive £2.1 million and Tameside £3.5 million. Since the scheme began, local authorities have been rewarded with a total of £3.4 billion.

As well as growing their economies, the best authorities are transforming how they do business and demonstrating innovation, including in how they work with local partners. We are supporting them as they do so, helping them to achieve savings and, perhaps most important, improving outcomes for the people who use local services.

In November, the Government announced the 73 projects that were successful in bidding for the transformation challenge award. The projects will receive £90 million to improve services and ultimately will save the public sector more than £900 million. I would like to give several examples, particularly one in Manchester, but I do not have time to do so during this debate.

One critical area where the Government must work with councils to transform services is adult social care. I hear what the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne says about her experience and I am sure that the House will welcome that experience. The Government are clear that the NHS and social care services must work together and move away from operating in financial silos. They must secure the best possible value from the local funding available for health and care in order to improve people’s lives. The Government are committed to making that happen, but just putting more money into the system is not the answer, despite Opposition Members’ comments. We need radical reform of how health and social care are delivered. The better care fund provides a new approach to protect social care services, breaking new ground in driving integration between health and social care.

Despite the challenges that I have mentioned, most local authorities have coped well. Most authorities froze council tax in 2015-16, helping people with the cost of living. The Government once again provided additional funding equivalent to a 1% council tax increase to help them to do so. This was the fifth successive year of freeze funding provided by Government, bringing the total package to £5 billion. That has helped to reduce council tax by 11% in real terms since 2010, with the average band D household saving up to £1,059. That is in stark contrast to the 13 years of Labour government, when council tax bills doubled.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I cannot, due to the length of the interventions that I took previously.

The financial constraints facing councils make it even more important that we deliver on our critical agenda of devolving power to local places and local people. That is one of the most exciting agendas in local government at the moment. Local government should no longer think of itself as a manager of central programmes, but should embrace its new power and responsibility.

The Government’s commitment has been demonstrated by the inclusion—the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will have seen this—of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which has started its progress in the House of Lords. Alongside the Bill, we will be talking to councils about their ideas for devolution, so that we can agree deals that make devolution a reality. The Government want the process to be bottom up and recognise that the right approach will be different in every area. We want to devolve power to cities, rural areas and neighbourhoods. The Bill will bring about the most far-reaching decentralisation of power in living memory and in particular will create a northern powerhouse with Manchester and other northern cities. It will create a directly elected mayor responsible for co-ordinating significant powers and budgets across transport, back-to-work support and health and adult social care.

Last November, Greater Manchester and the Government agreed a devolution plan that saw powers over transport, planning and housing transferred from central Government control to the Greater Manchester combined authority. In February, building on that, 10 local authorities, including a number that Opposition Members represent, came together with 12 clinical commissioning groups and NHS providers in Greater Manchester, along with NHS England, and agreed that from April 2016 they would take joint control of the estimated £6 billion health and care budget in the region. That will enable Greater Manchester to be freer to respond to what local people want, using experience and expertise from across government and the NHS to help improve outcomes and change the way in which public money is spent.

There is little doubt that the next five years will bring further financial challenges but, with the spending review approaching, hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say much more about our financial plans today. The Government wish to work constructively with local government on these issues, and we are ready to listen to the views of councils.

Question put and agreed to.