Not for the first time my noble friend has put his finger on the spot. He has exposed very eloquently the paradox of the amendment. I was going to start by saying that under the amendment the Secretary of State would pick up a new power to add to the bureaucratic process, and then demonstrate in inordinate detail the whole process we have been through, which the noble Lord knows far better than most, to reduce the burden of bureaucracy with which local government have had to deal.
The other expectation is that the amendment somehow will pave the way to a situation where all duties relating to local area agreements and community strategies will somehow whither away; that is, the state in its local form will finally whither away. The noble Lord will also know that that is unlikely and not appropriate because there are very important duties on local authorities which have to be maintained.
The direction of travel since the local government White Paper in 2001 has been to implement a range of measures which incrementally have freed local authorities from plan requirements and consent regimes, and given them greater financial freedoms to charge, trade and borrow. We have reduced the separate number of plan requirements by 75 per cent against the 2001 figures—for example, the annual library plan and the contaminated land strategy. Today, we have laid a legislative reform order, subject to debate after the Recess, which will remove a further four measures—for example, prosecutions under taxi licensing provisions.
We have legislated to enhance charging, trading and borrowing freedoms through the Local Government Act 2003. The comprehensive performance assessment is proportionate and risk-based now instead of the 1,200 targets. We have rationalised area-based initiatives through the local area agreement. I know that all this has been very welcome indeed. It was reinforced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he set out on 18 July a reformed approach to national target setting. It was not new, but shed more light and picked up on the non-LAA service providers as well.
We are looking at setting targets at a national level where they genuinely drive up improvement on the ground. I know that Councillor Merrick Cockell, the chair of London Councils who has been praised by my noble friend, has welcomed this.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Andrews
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c859-60 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:24:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414211
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414211
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414211