Localism Bill

Members may be familiar with the old adage, ““If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”” The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about wind farms, and if all today's windy rhetoric were capable of carrying the Bill to successful fruition, it would do so. I remind Members that localism is not just a waffly concept. It needs to be seen in practical terms. We talk about bottom-up government, but what does that mean and how does bottom-up activity happen? We talk about co-operation and collaboration, and I point out to the House, and particularly to Ministers, that a whole swathe of activity that is absolutely essential to the prosperity, growth and collaboration of local communities has been completely ignored in the Bill: that is economic growth and the co-operation and participation of business in the process. I come from what I call a second-tier town, Blackpool, in a coastal area. Regional development agencies have not had a good press, certainly not from Ministers, but without them towns such as my own would not have got on to the first step in regeneration. Money was put into transport and the tower headland, and the local council imaginatively took over local assets such as the Winter Gardens. We need proper mechanisms to replace the ability of the RDAs to work for economic growth and progress across parochial council boundaries. Sadly, the Government have so far been singularly inept in that regard. The local enterprise partnerships—the sickly infant that they have brought forward as part of the process of getting rid of the RDAs—have not even merited a mention in the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) emphasised. Members talk about generating growth and are rightly concerned about how small businesses can contribute, but their communities will suffer unless the voice of business is listened to and the matter is taken seriously and covered in the Bill. I want to remind the House of what some organisations have said about the need for a greater emphasis in the Bill on powers to involve businesses in local projects. Part 5 of the Bill deals with planning and the duty to co-operate. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that LEPs could be an appropriate level for such involvement, but has concerns about their capacity to take on the roles currently proposed for them because of a lack of capacity and funding. The FSB states:"““We are disappointed that in the Bill there is no mention of LEPs””" It says that LEPs ““have significant potential”” but that that"““would be enhanced if the partnerships were given basic start up funding alongside statutory recognition of their basic roles in specific areas.””" The British Retail Consortium says exactly the same sort of thing. It states that it is ““vital”” that regional development agencies"““are replaced with LEPs that are fully fit for purpose, with a strong business voice””." On clause 90—the duty to co-operate—the British Chambers of Commerce says:"““The clause needs to be amended to include a stronger form of enforcement. It is within the scope of the Bill to amend this clause to grant Local Enterprise Partnerships a””" proper"““scrutiny role over the duty””." The message to the Government is therefore loud and clear. They need to do something to make localism, and the dynamism that they want to release from it, a business fact on the ground. That should unite Members who represent rural, suburban and other areas. We have given the Government a lot of trouble and had some fun with them by describing the proposed process as Maoist and chaotic, but I remind the Minister and his colleagues of the words of Thomas Hobbes, who said that"““covenants, without the sword, are but words””." If we do not have the sword—in the form of proper consultation with, and involvement of, LEPs—we will all be the poorer.