No-one would disagree with greater local autonomy for decisions that ought to be made at local level, but the government’s localism bill, which had its second reading last Monday, is nothing more than a hotchpotch of unpleasant Tory prejudices and crude political populism. It ranges widely: abolishing the Standards Board, limiting tenure for those in social housing, giving local people a ‘say’ in planning decisions, introducing a right to compete to deliver local services. If I were to identify a single unifying theme in that lot, it would be that the weakest, the most vulnerable, those without a voice, are set to lose out.

Some of the bill’s provisions, particularly in relation to housing, are vicious, some merely ill-judged. And in some cases, it’s difficult to be sure how sincere ministers really are in their intentions – when push comes to shove, will they really allow local people, for example, to derail infrastructure projects that are promoted by powerful commercial interests? But there’s no doubt that, overall, the bill amounts to one more instance of that old Tory goal – shrinking the state.

One of the most disingenuous aspects of the bill is the suggestion that it will enable local voluntary and community organisations to take on a greater role in the delivery of services. Of course, voluntary and community organisations do some great work in our communities – but they don’t do it on thin air. Adequate and stable funding’s essential if standards are to be maintained, and service provision is to remain secure. So you have to ask: how can a government that’s put millions of pounds of voluntary sector funding at risk as a result of cuts to local authorities’ funding settlements have the gall to put this proposal into their bill?

In my own constituency, it’s not just the cuts to funding that are of concern, it’s also the uncertainty – some local community groups still don’t know if their funding will remain in place after this March. It’s impossible to plan and maintain quality services in such circumstances – so we’re forced to the conclusion that the government’s simply seeking to get more on the cheap.

But there are wider issues of principle about the role of the voluntary sector which equally appear to cause ministers little concern. For the strength of the sector comes from its independence, its ability to advocate for the weak, the unpopular, the dispossessed, and where necessary to challenge the might of the state. And the bill will undermine that role.

Of course, many voluntary organisations have many years of experience of taking on public contracts, though trustees must take care to ensure in doing so that there is no compromising of their charity’s goals. But last week a warning was sounded by the information commissioner that the scale and ambition of the government’s plans threaten transparency in public provision and put the public interest at risk.

The tension between providing for the state and speaking truth to power is not new to the voluntary sector, but in its determination to roll back the state and reduce public provision, the government goes further than ever before. A more quiescent voluntary sector, doing government’s bidding, filling yawning gaps in service, yet with patchy delivery, watered down standards, unclear rights, and on the cheap – where’s the fairness in all of that?

Photo: Victoria Peckham