Some tasks in life are so off-puttingly huge that they are constantly postponed. Clearing out the attic with its neglected but undiscardable boxes of old papers and possessions from grown-up children and long-deceased parents and grandparents. In the office, such jobs can often find themselves marooned in what might be called the ‘too-hard tray’. Jobs that really should be done but which no one ever wishes to do. In local government, one such is taxonomising statutory duties.
Local authority statutory obligations have accrued over many years like an unweeded garden. And they vastly exceed the day-to-day bread-and-butter statutes familiar, ‘top of head’, to most local government practitioners – the Local Government Act 1972, Local Government Act 2000, Localism Act 2011, Local Government Finance Act 1988, Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Local Government Act 1999, not to mention the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010, and planning and child care law. Per Lord Templeman in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 2 AC 1: ‘Local authorities are statutory creatures and can do nothing except that which is expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.’
In March 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced that it would be leading a cross-government review of statutory duties placed on local authorities by central government. For, as DCLG then indicated, ‘no government has ever assessed the legal duties placed on local government’. And: ‘We have been clear throughout that a key purpose of the review is to build a comprehensive list, and remove unnecessary, old and outdated duties.’ When, at the end of April 2011, comment to this review closed, DCLG had received more than 6,000 responses from local authorities, individuals, groups and the private sector, ‘covering the breadth of interests’. In these, DCLG noted ‘a significant interest in removing process-based and bureaucratic duties’.
As DCLG indicated: ‘A clear outcome of the review was that respondents, particularly interest groups and the public, used the opportunity to remind central government of the importance of some duties that they want to see maintained as protections rather than identify duties that could be regarded as unhelpful and unnecessary.’ As to which duties should be repealed: ‘90% were supportive of keeping specific duties, the other 10% made suggestions of duties that could be considered for removal.’ This information was to be considered by the relevant departments. However, ‘any future consideration of whether to remove specific duties or associated guidance that only serve to create overly bureaucratic burdens on councils will be a separate process, and we will consult further as appropriate’.
As to whether a specific duty was considered to create a burden, 85% of the responses indicated that a burden was not created. However, where burdens were identified, ‘responses focused on the need to remove many of the process-based duties placed upon local authorities which prevent the sensible and effective operation of many services’. DCLG indicated that this information would also be considered by relevant government departments. Lists of statutory duties (revised on 30 June 2011), both those ‘owned’ by DCLG and those relating to other government departments, can be viewed at tinyurl.com/5a4fwvs2.
That appeared to be that, until on 3 July this year, Angela Rayner MP, deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, addressed the Local Government Association annual conference. In her opening remarks, Rayner indicated that she was ‘for local government because I’m from local government’, not as a councillor, ‘but as a home help and a carer, I was on the frontline delivering local services’. Concerning local government statutory duties, she said she would use artificial intelligence (that is, applying computer technology to support and enhance human cognitive functions): ‘We will harness the government’s AI team to unlock efficiencies.’ And although, as she indicated, the micromanagement of the previous government has failed, ‘wasted taxpayers’ money, and got us into the mess we’re in now’, nevertheless: ‘Ending Whitehall micromanagement also means sorting out the spaghetti soup of obligations facing local government.’ So, ‘we’ll be launching a comprehensive review to ensure unnecessary regulations and needless asks from government aren’t getting in the way of you serving your communities.’ Rayner also announced ‘a fundamental shift, to radically simplify the funding and reporting regime that underpins your work. Through a new Local Government Outcomes Framework, we will move together to a completely new way of measuring performance. And this will be focused on delivering what we know matters most. Outcomes like kids learning to read and write, people living healthier lives for longer and communities feeling safe’.
Commenting on Rayner’s speech, councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, said that: ‘Alongside a review of some legal duties governing statutory responsibilities, today’s announcements on piloting new approaches for prevention, such as pooling services, will provide some valuable learning. They will be important ahead of forthcoming children’s services and SEND reforms, which we hope will focus on preventing crises in the first place.’ And: ‘While it is vital that the new Local Government Outcomes Framework is to be co-designed by councils, it will also be important to ensure that the framework itself is a collaborative effort, considering funding challenges persist in many of the areas to be assessed, such as homelessness and children’s social care.’
If AI can help reduce needless bureaucracy, it will be widely welcomed. However, many local government statutory duties are integral to its proper functioning and will require considerable skill in streamlining.
Nicholas Dobson writes on local government, public law and governance
1 Reader's comment