Lord Gascoigne (Con)

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment. To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen. As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time. I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions. I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job. It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help. I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall. Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more. On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”. So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.