Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I support my noble friend’s amendment because it goes to the heart of the issue that we on these Benches have with the Bill; namely, the relationship between central and local government. I think that the Government have now come to quite a good analysis of some of the problems of the democratic deficit, centralisation and so on that face our country; the problem is the inadequacy or insufficiency of the actions that they are taking to deal with those problems. The White Paper and the Bill are fundamentally prescriptive on the nature of the relationship between local councils and their citizens, a theme that was very much picked up in Tuesday’s Green Paper on governance, which contains a lot about the rights of citizens to challenge their councils in various ways and hold them to account. We absolutely agree with that. However, what is not in the paper or the Bill is any sense of what the relationship between central and local government should be like. Local government feels that it is very much at the whim central diktat. In the Bill, executive arrangements are forced on to local council regardless of whether they want them or how badly they are performing. Councils’ financial freedoms are increasingly curtailed. The amount of ring-fenced or specific grant for local authorities is increasing annually, currently at about 60 per cent. Not only are local councils raising a very small amount of money themselves—about 25 per cent—but about 60 per cent of their total spend can be spent only in ways determined by central government. We hear only today from Hazel Blears at the LGA conference that citizens are now to determine how further parts of the budget are spent. That may or may not be a good idea; I do not know because I have not seen the details. However, the fact that a Minister goes to a meeting and tells the local government sector, ““This is how it’s going to be””, without discussing whether it is practical or desirable or whether anything like it has already been done, demonstrates an attitude that indicates that certain parts of government have not quite got the idea of devolution. They seem to be saying, ““We will devolve only where we think it is a good idea and where you, local government, cannot do any harm””. Actually, devolution means allowing local councils to make choices. Sometimes they will be wrong. Devolution means allowing people to try things and to make mistakes occasionally. The Bill does not do anything to address the growth of that part of the public sector that is not covered by democratic institutions—quangos, in other words. Quangos are now outspending local government and in some respects have a more profound effect on local areas than local councils do. However, there is no real sense of how a devolutionary agenda might be used to influence the way in which quangos work. My noble friend’s amendment provides a framework to carry forward the Lyons review and the general devolutionary sentiment that is now current in all three major political parties. It is a chance to explore not just how the relationship between central and local government and citizens works, but also the fundamental relationship between local authorities and the Government. Paragraph 179 of Tuesday’s Green Paper mentions the development of a concordat between central and local government. My noble friend’s amendment would provide a framework for moving that proposal forward.