Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I agree with the noble Baroness that these are important issues. I shall respond fairly quickly, which does not reflect the importance attached to the issues raised. This was not a firm proposal from Sir Michael. He raised it as a possibility. The idea has powerful advocates and I understand the rationale for it. However, I should point out two things. First, the existing process is complex. I would not say that it is confined to anoraks but people do not generally engage with it easily. However, central and local government have done their best over recent years to debate openly the issues involved in the way local government prioritises, dedicates and spends money. I shall give a few examples of that. Secondly, as I said last time we debated this, however finely the line is drawn around the functionality of doing something, there will be a trespass into areas of political decisions. Paragraphs 6(1)(e) and (f) of Amendment No. 252B propose that the report of the independent commission could look at, "““the effectiveness of the mechanisms by which funding is made available to, or raised by, English local authorities””—" and— "““the basis of distribution of grants””" made to local authorities. These are political judgments. With the best will in the world one does not want to remove accountability. That was the burden of the argument that I made last time we debated this. The noble Lord speaks with authority and integrity. The formula grant distribution system for local government is already the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders and engagement with Parliament. The Department for Communities and Local Government leads discussion and consultation with local authority finance experts and all interested government departments through the officer level settlement working group. Consultation documents are published where changes are proposed. On 17 July the department published a consultation document: Local Government Finance: Formula Grant Distribution. Full details are available on the department’s website and printed copies are available in the Library. We invite responses. It is an open process which will be looking at the formula grant for 2008 to 2011. Similarly, the process of looking at future spending plans in CSR07 has been open and rigorous. We have held seminars with those involved, with local authority representation, co-ordinated by the LGA. We have talked to interest groups, such as the Association of Directors of Social Services, and worked closely, as the noble Lord knows, to identify key spending areas, such as children’s services and adult social services to build up, improve and open out our evidence base. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Wanless report also drive us in that sense. The noble Lord will know that we have tough measures in place in the form of the new burdens doctrine, to make sure that departments make realistic assessments of the costs of any net new burdens. Therefore, while the process may not be entirely satisfactory from many people’s points of view, it is tough and open, as far as we can make it open within the framework of negotiations, which by definition are sometimes rather sensitive. Returning to the point, there is a difficult line to be drawn between those decisions and the question of where responsibility for spending stops. Is it not right that Ministers should be able to come to both Houses of Parliament and account for what has been decided and what is done?