Localism Bill

My Lords, as the Minister said, I have Amendment 106 in this group. I listened very carefully to what he said and I have had the opportunity of talking about this matter with my noble friend Lady Hanham. None the less, I must press him a little because, as he acknowledged in his remarks, we discussed the matter contained in this amendment earlier today: it is the localist deficit that remains in London as a result of this legislation. I of course acknowledge the good relations between the mayor, the boroughs and the other London institutions, but these good relations are not fixed for all time. My amendment addresses future arrangements and future occasions on which the Government may decide that they wish to delegate functions. I believe that, where possible, a truly localist Government would wish to delegate those functions to the most local level practical and in London, in many case, that will be London boroughs, although we have heard many times in these debates that Ministers would like powers to be delegated even below the level of boroughs and principal authorities. Looking to the future, I am disappointed that there is not a slightly warmer recognition of the possibility that functions could be delegated to London boroughs. I have a further reason for saying this, which is that when functions are delegated to the mayor they have an unfortunate habit of getting stuck. I have referred to a number of examples in previous debates in Committee. I need only mention the battles that various London boroughs have been waging for years with Transport for London to be given the right to manage their own high streets. Does any delegation come? It does not. My amendment refers to future arrangements. It would have been better had the Government gone a little further in undertaking to act on the presumption that, where possible, delegation should be localist—that is, to the boroughs—and that, when that is not the case, they themselves will take the responsibility of making clear why there should not be that ultimate, localist solution. Everybody else in this Bill has to explain their behaviour. If local authorities do not wish to have a neighbourhood forum or neighbourhood planning, they have to explain why they do not want to delegate. Why should the Government not explain why they are not prepared to delegate functions to a lower level? It is potentially a missed opportunity. I will reflect on what my noble friend has said very carefully, but perhaps I could press him a little further in clarifying the reasons. I welcome Amendment 105 and it is all very well that the Minister must consult borough councils, but I believe there should be more public accountability. Perhaps a Statement laid before Parliament is not the right approach but the Government should publicly hold themselves to account to explain why, if they decide to delegate functions in future, they have not delegated them to the boroughs. Perhaps in his response the Minister will be able to explain, or say whether he would be prepared to go a little further—not necessarily on the face of the Bill—in giving undertakings in that area.