Agenda item

Members will receive a briefing on the main proposals contained in the Bill.

Cathy Tyson gave a short presentation on the implications and responses to the Localism Bill.  The key provisions of the Bill focused included:-

·         General power of competence

·         Removal of ring-fenced grants

·         Changes to governance arrangements

·         Public referendum

·         Removal of the Comprehensive Area Assessment and inspection regimes

·         Right to challenge to provide services and manage community assets

·         Neighbourhood development orders and changes to planning

·         Housing reform

Cathy Tyson referred to comments from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government concerning what the Localism Bill was set out to achieve.  The Bill raised a number of possible implications, such as its role with regard to strengthening local democracy, the impact on the traditional institutions of local decision-making, the legal basis for the communities envisioned in the Bill, whether these provisions are necessary and the risks of litigation, additional costs and inflexible processes.  In terms of the council’s response to the Bill, consideration needed to be given with regard to using the general power of competence to deliver regeneration objectives, use of locality services and ward working, the virtual council, community based budgets, developing relationships with the voluntary sector, strategic communications and a fundamental review of activities. 

During discussion, Dr Levison commented that local democracy sometimes raised expectations unrealistically and he felt that there was a need for more honesty and to explain that there are limits to what local democracy can achieve.  With regard to the general power of competence, Councillor Hirani enquired in what way this was different to the powers the council currently possessed.  Councillor H B Patel felt that every effort should be made to take advantage of any opportunities the Bill and the delegation of some powers to local authorities may provide.  He added that these opportunities may allow the council to create effective solutions to a number of issues. 

The Chair commented that it was still unclear as to what precisely localism is and that it was not desirable for the Government to dictate what this should be.  Every effort should be made by the council to influence what localism should mean for Brent and the Chair added that there appeared to be elements within the Localism Bill which appeared to undermine local powers, such as the loss of some planning powers for local authorities.

In reply to the issues raised, Cathy Tyson advised that there were a number of ways in which the general power of competence changed the powers available to local authorities and this was also not without contradictions.  An example of a possible change was that the council would in theory be able to join a group with other local authorities to provide mutual insurance, a move that had been outruled by the courts previously on the grounds of creating an unfair monopoly.  Cathy Tyson suggested that the Bill had not been designed with an urban area of Brent’s nature in mind and that there was a need for mediation and reconciliation to address the conflicting needs of the borough.  There were also elements of the Bill that appeared to be moving away from local democracy and powers, such as local authorities combining to share management of services.

Phil Newby (Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement) added that there were a number of contradictions within the Localism Bill which appeared to be driven by the savings determined by the Treasury. An example of this contradiction was encouraging local authorities to integrate more, whilst also expecting smaller organisations to run services.  In addition, the Secretary of State under the current proposal would have an additional 142 opportunities to intervene in local decisions.  Scrutiny needed to be aware of the consequences of the Bill and of the major policy contradictions.