Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind words. I am delighted to be back at the Dispatch Box representing my department, which has one of the most important and challenging jobs in government. It is a privilege to be able to represent those policies. I thank him for his kind words about my restoration to health. I should also like to say how nice it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, back on the Front Bench. I send our sympathies for her recent bereavement. This has been an interesting debate. In fact, it has been a sort of Second Reading debate, although I shall forgo the opportunity to make my own Second Reading speech, which I missed at the appropriate time. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, opened up, which noble Lords around the House have responded to, are the right issues and go to the heart of the Bill. While I am grateful for the welcome that he and others gave to certain parts of the Bill, I am still a bit mystified. I hope that we will explore how it is that we are so much in tune with so much of what has been said by noble Lords about the need to let go and why it is that in this Bill we are indeed letting go of power. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. It is about rebalancing the relationship between local and central government. I urge the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who disputes this, to stay with us during our deliberations so that we can explore what that will mean. Member of the Committee also opened up the debate that was begun by the publication of the Prime Minister’s Statement on governance. That underpins much of what we are doing in the Bill. It opens an even wider canvas, creating new possibilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is right that of course some of the ideas that we are exploring are not new. Good councils make innovative progress and decisions. We want to give—I use that word deliberately—an enabling framework for local authorities to use their imagination and innovative ability to pass on power beyond the town hall in a way that has not been done before. I cannot think of a shorthand way of saying that. I cannot pre-empt the nature of the concordat described in the Statement, or the dimensions of the debate, except to say that it is a serious debate about what has been called the new politics and localism. Certainly, Members of this House here today are surely going to see this for the major and innovative opportunity it is. It has been welcomed as such. It is our responsibility to ensure that we have that debate and try to resolve some of those issues. Statements that my honourable friend Hazel Blears has made today about giving assets and community control in various ways are very exciting. This is the first time that any Government have approached the notion of what else local communities want in this way. Let us not underestimate or misrepresent the significance of what this means. Strong and Prosperous Communities, the local government White Paper which we published in October last year, introduced a fundamental rebalancing of the relationship between central and local government. It is a new settlement and a new start. It is what the noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about at Second Reading as a turning point. Yes, noble Lords probably think it is sufficient, but it is a start from which we can make progress in way that we have not done before in this country. It is designed to provide councillors with the scope to work with their local partners and communities to develop better services and better places. On the proposed new clause, I must disappoint the noble Lord. My basic argument is that this proposed standing commission on devolution, while we completely understand the sentiment behind it, does not go far enough for us. Devolving increased powers and responsibilities to regional, sub-regional, local and neighbourhood level not only is the direction of travel that has been articulated, but has been developed in dialogue with, and endorsed by, the Local Government Association. As I have said, it has been set out in the Green Paper The Governance of Britain. The Prime Minister said that he wished to build a new relationship between citizens and government that ensures that the Government are a better servant of the people. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that the commission proposed by the noble Lord will be the way of delivering that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that commissions are slow, cumbersome, sclerotic and become obsessed with their own self-interest. It is an unnecessary element. I look forward to hearing Essex’s unilateral declaration of independence during the passage of the Bill. I did not realise that there were some telling comparisons. I want to convince noble Lords that the process that we are engaged with is and should be action-led, organic and represented in the Bill by way of local area agreement, the bonfire of regulations—which I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accepts—and the abandonment of 1,200 centralised targets. Yes, we can hold our hands up to say that we were overcentralised. We needed to drive improvement by setting some ambitions and measurable targets. We have done that. You only have to look at the number of local authorities that have now achieved the highest standards to see it. The principle of the first part of the Bill is improvement and restructuring by invitation. The Government are imposing nothing on local authorities. It is being done by invitation, and local authorities have responded to that. The sense of effective partnership that we are working to reach is about the best solution for each area, determined by each area—those 35 local designated agreements, for example. We know that we need more flexible and organic processes. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that if she is right about economic devolution then the local area agreements that will focus on local priorities will be able to drive the sort of economic devolution that she is so keen on. The sub-national review, which is looking at how sub-regions are capable of taking on functions, will be driving a better form of economic competence at sub-national and local level. Our challenge is to let go and to do it in a way that enables local authorities to get the best out of what we want for them and they want for themselves. In the Bill, we have a very balanced and nuanced package of reforms. Although I should like to start this debate by agreeing wholeheartedly the need for this commission, I cannot accept the amendment although I understand the intention. Local government and stakeholders are capable of conducting their own dialogue. We do not think that they need this to be centrally imposed. In some ways, this commission is a sort of contradiction of everything that Members of the Committee have said. In conclusion, the Sustainable Communities Bill, which the Government support and which will come before this House next week, already proposes a new way for communities to communicate with local authorities and central government, and will suggest changes on how best to promote sustainable communities. Regretfully, I do not think that the devolution commission will add any value. Our reforms will focus on delivery, responsiveness and not on process. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.