Neill hits back at criticisms of Localism Bill

27 Jan 11
Local government minister Bob Neill has robustly defended the Localism Bill to Public Finance, denying that it is a smokescreen for cuts and will place unwanted burdens on councils

By Lucy Phillips

27 January 2011

Local government minister Bob Neill has robustly defended the Localism Bill to Public Finance, denying that it is a smokescreen for cuts and will place unwanted burdens on councils.

Speaking exclusively to PF following the second reading of the Bill in the Commons on January 17, Neill said the government’s commitment to localism ‘pre-dates the economic crisis’ and the changes were ‘part of the solution to making local government more sustainable in any financial climate’.

The coalition claims that the wide-ranging Bill, which was first published on December 13 and contains 208 clauses over 405 pages, will shift power away from Whitehall to councils and communities. For councils, it includes a General Power of Competence and new powers over social housing. For communities, there are new rights to bid to run public services and to trigger a referendum on any local issue.

Neill said councils could use their new powers in light of the tough finance settlement to ‘look at how they organise themselves and how they save money by much more joint working, procurement and so on’. He added: ‘It is easier for them to be even more imaginative than some of the best ones already are.’

But the Bill has prompted fierce criticism. Also speaking to PF in the aftermath of the second reading debate, shadow local government secretary Caroline Flint said the changes were masking the government’s unprecedented spending cuts.

She said: ‘It’s a smokescreen for these cuts and particularly the frontloaded element, which is not giving councils enough time to think and plan and look for different ways to provide services. My big concern about this Bill is that what is shaping local government at the moment isn’t localism, it’s the cuts.’

The Bill was ‘operating in a vacuum from what is reality’, she said.

‘I’m not a great believer in chaos theory although some in the government seem to believe that is the way ahead,’ she continued, saying the government had failed to do its ‘groundwork’.   

She said Labour would be seeking to amend ‘undemocratic’ proposals that would force 12 cities to have mayoral referendums as well as some of the clauses relating to planning and housing, which could lead to ‘more confusion’.

The Bill also came under fire from the Local Government Association, which said the notion of localism was ‘undermined’ by the fact that it handed more than 100 new powers to ministers, such as the right to decide what would constitute an excessive rise in council tax.

But Neill hit back at this too. ‘It’s completely misinformed criticism and all politically motivated. A lot of these powers are either reserve powers or

fall-back powers that are highly unlikely to be used in practice, but are necessary as an absolute safeguard.’

He added that replacing the current council tax capping system with a trigger mechanism for a local referendum was ‘localist by any view of it’.

Other criticism was levied at the lack of financial controls shifted to local authorities. Ed Cox, director of the IPPR North think-tank, branded the Bill ‘lipstick localism’, since any local powers would be ‘incredibly limited’ without devolving the purse strings.  

Cox added that the timing of the Bill meant that councils couldn’t give enough attention to what it might deliver. ‘They are completely preoccupied with how to make huge cuts in a very short period of time.

‘I’m disappointed because there is scope for local authorities to be able to take the government at its word and push for further freedoms – but right now it is firefighting for the budgets it has been given.’

Neill said questions about local government finance would be addressed in another ‘resources review’ being conducted by the government, which would then feed into the Localism Bill.

He added that it was ‘nonsense’ to suggest that councils had not had time to plan properly for the cuts. ‘Shrewd’ authorities knew that there would be cuts, whoever was in government, and were now able to cope, he said.


Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top