Blog: 17 March 2023 - Helen McGrath, Head of Public Affairs

The Budget has landed. There is plenty abroad on the subject and entirely no point in one as fiscally challenged as me in attempting to extrapolate what this might mean for local government. I paid far more attention (rightly or wrongly) to my council tax bill which also landed this week. It seems three quarters of all local councils who can, have opted for a 5% increase (or for those who appreciate the importance of detail, 4.99%). Croydon was seeking an increase of 15%, whilst Thurrock and Slough were looking for 10% the last time I checked. The local authority funding gap is of course the driver behind this, but council tax rises will not provide a ‘magic wand’. As government grants and business retention rates deserve their own thesis, you should probably take a look at the Institute for Government who have far more reliable commentary on this than I do.   

What I do know, is that pressure on local government services will continue to grow. The energy reprieve will be welcome by almost all and should take us into the warmer months. But the rising cost of living is playing out across the board. What do councils look to next when they have ceased all discretionary services? Importantly, what part did those discretionary services play in preventing decline toward mandatory provision? Lawyers will seriously need to consider how best to assist decision makers grappling with politically sensitive issues whilst complying with the law.  

In other news, it was noteworthy that LLG got a mention in the House of Lords on Wednesday evening in respect of the government’s refusal to provide us with information (alongside ADSO), submitted in an FOI in respect of the Call for Evidence on remote meeting provision. Indeed, many Lords and Ladies spoke eloquently on the motions to insert a clause into the Levelling-Up Bill to enable remote provision. Many struggled to understand why, when the House of Lords itself could hold remote meetings, local authorities were not afforded the same parity. When it was read out that the government did not consider our request to be in the public interest, there were audible tuts and a very clear off camera “cheeky”. The response on behalf of the government, however, was that its position remained that governance was best served through meetings in person and that they would respond to the Call for Evidence in due course. I am literally as confused as the Honourable Lords and Ladies, who could not understand what the difficulty was here. After all, back around the time when we brought the Judicial Review, the government’s position was that there was no 'statutory hook' with which to enable provision. Well now we have one in the form of the Levelling-Up Bill. If anyone can enlighten me as to why we are still languishing in a tightly controlled and heavily prescriptive regime devoid of local choice - answers on a postcard, please! 

Helen McGrath  

Head of Public Affairs 

Helen@llg.org.uk