5 Comments
User's avatar
Eliot Wilson's avatar

An observation (which in no way means I disagree with you): legislation like the Leeds Improvement Act 1869 were local acts, and therefore subject to private bill procedure in Parliament, which is different from and somewhat more complex than public bill procedure, not least because of the provision for affected parties to petition against the bill and Parliament is acting in a judicial capacity as well as exercising its legislative function.

To circumvent this, Parliament introduced first provisional order confirmation bills (not used since 1980) and then special procedure orders (see Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 and 1965), which are more streamlined but can still be petitioned against. A range of transport schemes "of national importance" can now be dealt with by order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Planning Act 2008, though this can still result in a public hearing or a local inquiry.

Then, of course, one has the dazzling wonder which is the hybrid bill, a public bill "considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same category".

My only point is, it can complicated.

Expand full comment
Chris Hossack's avatar

A good article. Whilst something has clearly gone wrong with local government, it lacks ambition and competence to name but two. The biggest issue is cash, the Victorians had oodles of it because we (they) had the greatest economy in the world at that time and because we had great industries and craftsmen, almost of that is now lost. There are mystical black holes of exorbitant sums around every corner and our growth industry seems to be Deliveroo and Just Eat, powered by a low skilled migrant workforce, which seems only to benefit the Chinese scooter industry. Consequently the regions are subject to the scraps from the table of Westminster if Rayner can wring out Reeves hard enough. God help us!

Unless the new move towards Mayors comes with genuine autonomy and empowerment, for instance to set their own business rates and retain all the revenue, then we'll never again see the heady days enjoyed by the Councillors and Aldermen of the Victorian municipals.

Expand full comment
Tony Ellis's avatar

We should be cautious about valorising everything pre-1939 but local government's decline since the 1980s is tragic. Proud corporations reduced to cash points for social care. Is it any wonder so many appear incompetently run by people who wouldn't be allowed through the door 100 years ago when they have so few actual responsibilities?

Expand full comment
Alexis Edwards's avatar

Local Government could regain its mojo to act as the cornerstone of local economies supporting growth again if Whitehall stop treating them like arm’s length delivery agencies. Cutting social care and SEND provision out of local gov’s remit would allow more cash to deliver the schemes local communities want to see. And if Treasury would allow local revenue to be raised then so much the better. The current arrangement which is pilling on debt with no ability to restrict demand will otherwise worsen, cannibalising everything else the council is supposed to do fuelling much of the low level social unrest already present, until it all comes crashing down in mass layoffs cratering local economies. If Manchester want an underground, or Sheffield a nuclear power plant, Cambridge some housing, or Bournemouth a tram and are able to pay for them themselves somehow then government should get out of the way and let them try. If they fail so be it. But they will have at least tried to improve their lot.

Expand full comment
Brettbaker's avatar

We haven't sacrificed enough for people to accept the God Tradeoff. "Well OF COURSE I want to see (x) changed, but don't inconvenience me"!

Expand full comment