Sustainable Communities Bill

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and those in another place, who have brought the Bill forward. Having said that, in many ways I am dismayed that the Bill is necessary. That is a reflection of the imbalance of power in England between an increasingly centralised state on the one hand and, on the other, local people, local organisations and their local authorities. Of course, the Government must be able to set their own national priorities. In the local government White Paper, we have seen the emphasis on just 30 national outcomes; and that is right. But local authorities should be able to pick those up and drive them forward in the way they think fit. I accept also that local authorities must themselves devolve—to community organisations, social enterprise and individuals. I support the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Devolving to parish councils is extremely important. However, the Bill would not be necessary in most of the other major democracies in the world. Devolution took place in France some 15 years ago. In the United States local authorities have responsibility for health, police and economic development. Tony Travers, professor at the London School of Economics, pointed out this week that England is now at the bottom of the list of OECD countries for the percentage of taxation raised and spent locally by local authorities. We have been over these arguments a hundred times. In my last three years as chairman of the Local Government Association, I have discussed these issues probably once a week with the department responsible for local government. We all agree on the need for a devolutionary agenda, but I am dismayed that the action has not matched the rhetoric. We have agreed at all the meetings that the UK Government are now unique in the high degree of central control they exert over public services and local government in England. The Secretary of State talked about a new era, a tipping point of devolution. We all agree that this high degree of central control is holding back improvements in public services and in economic prosperity. We have agreed that it is wasting public money; I refer to the report to the Treasury by Sir Peter Gershon. It is holding back local choice. It is simply denying the ability of local democratic representatives to assess local need, to make local choices and to respond to those choices. It is also denying and eroding democracy itself. The Local Government Association argued that there is a crisis of trust. Out on the street, both central and local government are simply not relevant to so many people’s lives. It is not a question of apathy as is sometimes said across Westminster and Whitehall. People are not apathetic. They care deeply about the issues that affect their everyday lives, but they are frustrated by a remote and unreachable Government. Therefore, we have to take government closer to people’s lives. In the absence of other devolution, the Bill will enable that to happen. In meetings with the Treasury and the DCLG we have also agreed that there is a real need to boost economic prosperity. I have argued previously in your Lordships’ House that statements from the Treasury in the devolved decision-making report show that our great cities of England have just half the GDP per head of their European counterparts. The report states that one of the reasons for that is that those European cities enjoy far stronger devolved political autonomy. Therefore, the Bill will enable local authorities to put forward proposals for the devolution of those key powers—those key economic levers in planning and transport, in skills and economic development and in housing. However, I was dismayed that in the Prime Minister’s Statement on the governance of Britain the only point made about housing—an issue made so much of, with lots of talk of devolution—is that there will be a new central homes agency. In France, Germany and Switzerland housing supply matches demand, yet in this country housing is being built at half the rate that it was in the 1970s. Therefore, we need to allow local authorities, local people and local businesses to take charge of housing targets and development, as they do in France, Germany and Switzerland where the system works so much better. I hope that the Bill will allow local authorities to take responsibility and powers away from the centralising agencies which are now proposed. We have heard statements about devolution and yet there seems to be a strengthening of the regional layer, which has simply sucked up powers from local authorities and local people. Those powers have not been devolved from the centre. I hope that the Bill will enable that devolution to happen. I am mystified that the Prime Minister should have made the following statement last September when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I think that it is absolutely right. I quoted this statement in the Official Report in June. He said: "““It is right that local councils, not Whitehall, should have more power over the things that matter to their community, and from economic regeneration to public transport, the empowerment and strengthening of local councils and local communities is what we must now do””." Yet nowhere do I see this process, except in the Bill before us. Therefore, I support it very strongly. The Local Government Association, of which I am no longer chairman, has agreed to act as a selector—in a sense as a filter. I am dismayed that that is needed but it has offered to do that. As regards local authorities proposing initiatives on social, economic, environmental and sustainability issues, and on what local people want, I should be grateful for clarification that when functions are devolved, the powers, resources and money that were held by the original agencies and the freedom and flexibility to respond to local issues will also be devolved. In conclusion, I strongly support the Bill, but, after so much talk about devolution and the many meetings that I have attended, it is disappointing that such a Bill is necessary.