---

Local Government

rose to call attention to the Government’s proposals for the structure and role of local government; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to make it clear that, while I believe there is much to lament about the state of local government, I acknowledge that local government has many, many members dedicated to serving their communities and highly professional officers motivated by public service. Local government is still, despite the efforts of central governments of all persuasions, closely involved in the provision of our day-to-day services. Why, then, is public interest in local government elections so low and the turnout so abysmal? Neither government nor the public seem to know what kind of local government they want. Opposition parties always support freedom for local government and see it as a springboard for national power; parties in government tend to see it differently and want to use local government as an agency for the delivery of national initiatives, for which they try to take the credit and fail to provide the money. The system of financial support is so complicated that central government and local government can always make a case that the financial settlement in any year is generous or mean according to their position, but the evidence on the ground suggests to me that local government is generally underfunded, and has been for a long time. The public, for their part, want local control, but do not like differences in levels of services or local taxation. The party to which I belong recognises that the onslaught of previous governments on the power of local authorities went too far, even if it was in response to the very determined efforts of a minority of authorities that did not wish to recognise the traditional balance between central and local government, especially in areas of overall public expenditure. It is, however, nine years now—even if it seems longer—since there was a Conservative government, and we are now entitled to look at this Government’s record and proposals. In 1997, the Labour Party came to power promising a renaissance for local government. What has been the reality? Even the ““great Satan””—capping—remains in place. Local initiative is sapped by a plethora of guidance and codes from central government. The introduction of Cabinet government, while recognising certain political realities, has nevertheless led to the sidelining of a large number of council members and a reduction in the powers of the council itself. Elected mayors—and I do not criticise the individuals who hold that office, nor do I refer to the rather different arrangements in Greater London—were, I submit, a gimmick thought up by central government but have found no great resonance with the public. The Home Secretary wants to remove policing to a regional level, significantly reducing local authority involvement, all in the interests of efficiency—although what, in the light of recent revelations, is known about that in his area of responsibility, we can only wonder. He allegedly wants more local community involvement but his proposals will reduce the involvement of elected local members. Why does he not consider allowing local authorities to run truly local forces to engage in the matters that affect communities daily and let his larger, all-regional forces deal solely with serious crime or terror issues? Local authorities would then be responsible and accountable to their electorate for a force dealing with community policing and the aspects of criminal behaviour that impinge on our daily lives. Planning is, or should be, one of the key functions of local government. Here the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has eroded local accountability. The involvement of regional bodies in the development plans is just one example. The planning system seems no longer to control development and protect local communities, rural or urban. The pronouncements of government suggest that the processes for the delivery of speedy planning consents—consents, not decisions—are the concern of house builders and developers, who have apparently achieved supremacy undreamt of a few years ago. What extraordinary thought processes have led to a situation where the guidance or code of conduct of local authority members can prevent ward councillors speaking or voting on an issue which concerns their ward, even if they have no personal or financial interest, while developers fund planning departments to help the OPDM achieve its central government targets? My attention was drawn to the property section of the Daily Telegraph of 11 February, two of whose items I will refer to. It said:"““In Ashford, which has approved the construction of 3,500 homes in the past four months alone, Wimpey Homes has actually paid the authority to hire private planning consultants to push their massive planning applications through””." The head of planning and development told the Daily Telegraph,"““the council invited developers to make ‘an additional contribution over and above the planning fee’ so that extra staff could be hired to deal with the applications in the time required””." In Milton Keynes, which, according to the head of development, last year fell 1,000 short of its government-set target of 2,400 new homes,"““the council has handed responsibility for writing the crucial design briefs relating to street layout to developers. ‘At the time, the step-change in pace was dictated to us, we simply did not have enough urban designers at the council to do the job’””." What are we doing? The Government asked Sir Michael Lyons to examine funding and then to make recommendations on the future functions and form of local government. To this recipe for uncertainty we have been promised by Mr Miliband the prospect of a White Paper, at a date unknown. Will that again raise the prospect of restructuring? Are the Government determined to see the counties abolished? If they are abolished, will that lead to the amalgamation of districts? If that is the case, how do the Government reconcile that with their desire for truly local government? Will it lead to the replacement of the counties by some larger, regional-type authorities—assemblies by the back door? I do not believe that regional assemblies or authorities are a Brussels ploy. You do not have to go that far, only to Whitehall and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Of course there is a case for local authorities working together on a regional basis. That can be achieved without destroying authorities and setting up remote, unwanted assemblies. The functions then remain in the ownership of local authorities. I am delighted that my party has espoused the idea—even if I am not delighted by the name—of super area agreements to make this possible. I am especially delighted that the idea probably comes from France and is one that I have put forward in your Lordships’ House previously. We ought to remember that every amalgamation and reorganisation destroys an element of community. A new sense of identity has to be built. It is always built at enormous cost, and the quality of services hardly ever changes for the better. What does Mr Miliband mean by neighbourhood empowerment? Are we to see a programme of abolition and creation of larger councils, followed by some gimmick to try to convince people that control of their own services has come closer to them? If so, what are the financing, resourcing and management implications? How will neighbourhoods relate to local authorities? Are we to create parish councils by another name—in urban areas, perhaps, as well—giving services and functions to authorities previously thought too small to manage anything of significance? In some European Union countries, councils raise a far higher proportion of their finances locally and there is a commensurately higher voter turnout at elections. Local government finance is fraught with difficulty, but without providing a greater proportion of its own funds, local government will not attain greater status, greater accountability and greater interest from the public. That certainly will not be achieved by another round of restructuring, renaming and loss of further functions. The restoration of the business rate, subject if really necessary to some control of maximum, would be a significant step forward in redressing the balance between local income and central funding. A week away from important local government elections, all the parties have had their campaign launches. They and their manifestos illustrate the plight of local government. The national media interest is on the party leaders and what the results will mean for their fortunes. The national media publicity for local elections is all about Westminster, with little interest in their effect on the towns and cities concerned. I hope that the Minister will take the chance to share with the House the Government’s thoughts on some of these questions, and to let noble Lords and the public know how they propose to achieve a local, accountable, responsible and financially viable system of local government, with a recognition of its status and place in the scheme of governance in this country as equal to that found elsewhere in Europe. I beg to move for Papers.