Legal intelligence for professionals in local government.
This update contains brief details of recent Government
publications, legislation, cases and other developments relevant to
those involved in local government work, which have been published
in the previous two weeks. Items are set out by subject, with
a link to where the full document can be found on the internet.
If you have been forwarded this update by a colleague and would
like to receive it direct please email
Claire Booth.
All links are correct at the date of publication. The following
topics are covered in this update:
Audit Commission: Improving local domestic abuse
services: web-based self-assessment tool and
resources to help those working in domestic abuse services
assess their partnership's performance and identify areas for
improvement. (1 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Caraline
Johnson.
^back
to top
Audit
Audit Commission: Contract areas announced for
audit practice outsourcing: announces that the Commission
has formally launched the process for outsourcing the work of
its Audit Practice. It has issued the Contract Notices for the
procurement of audit services for principal bodies and limited
assurance audits. For the principal bodies' procurement, bids will
be invited for ten contract lots in four geographical regions.
Under the timetable for the procurement process, potential
providers must submit their completed PQQs by 7 October
2011.
The Commission has also published its
Procurement strategy setting out the
objectives of the two procurement exercises and how they will be
carried out, and the formal
Protocol, to which all Commission staff have
been required to sign up, to ensure propriety in the preparation of
any employee-led bids. (6 September 2011)
Audit Commission: Proposed work programme and
scales of fees 2012/13 - Local government and community safety:
sets out the work the Audit Commission plans to undertake in the
local government and community safety sectors during 2012/13, with
the associated scales of audit fees. It will also set out its
proposals for audit fees beyond 2012/13 when it publishes the final
2012/13 work programme and scales of fees in April 2012. (5
September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
Best Value
DCLG: Best Value statutory guidance: guidance
to councils considering changing funding to local voluntary and
community groups and small businesses, on how best to achieve Best
Value in their areas. In deciding how best to fulfil their Best
Value Duty, councils are required to consult those using, or likely
to use, a local service. This should include community and
voluntary organisations. This new one page of statutory guidance on
the Best Value Duty sets out some reasonable expectations of the
way authorities should work with voluntary and community groups and
small businesses when facing difficult funding decisions. It states
that councils should not pass on larger reductions to their local
voluntary and community sectors and small businesses than they take
on themselves. (2 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
DfE: Government announces £6 million for children
in care and families who need extra support: announces that 37
local authorities are to share an additional £6m funding in
order to expand their own intensive intervention programmes that
address the need for stability in a child’s life. (30 August
2011)
DWP: Work-focused services in children’s centres
pilot - Final report: sets out the findings from the final
stage of the evaluation of a pilot scheme that operated in ten
local authority areas (30 Sure Start Children’s Centres in total)
in England, providing work-focused services through a dedicated
Jobcentre Plus Personal Adviser, as well as activities designed to
meet local needs. It ran from January 2009 to March 2011. The aim
of the pilot was to test how children’s centres can offer a more
effective means of engaging parents in labour market activity,
moving them closer to work, and ultimately into employment. (1
September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Caraline
Johnson.
^back
to top
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Riot
communities and victims panel announced: gives details of the
members of the Communities and Victims Panel that will listen to
the experiences of those in communities affected by the
August riots and disorder, in order to understand why it
all happened and how to move on. The Panel, chaired by
Darra Singh, will deliver its early findings by November,
and present its final report to by March 2012. (31 August
2011)
Home Office: £5.5 million community crime fighting
fund open for bids: announces that the £5m Innovation
Fund, which is designed to bring together active citizens and
encourage new and creative ways of working to tackle crime, is now
open for bids from voluntary and community groups. National
voluntary sector bodies can also bid for £550,000 through the
Support and Modernisation Fund, which will provide practical help
and advice to local frontline voluntary groups that support Home
Office objectives. The closing date for applications is 1 December
2011. (6 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Olwen
Dutton.
^back
to top
Contracting Out
Draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out
of Community Infrastructure Levy Functions) Order 2011: this
Order is made under s.70(2) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out
Act 1994 which enables a Minister to provide by order for a
function of a local authority to be exercised by such person(s) as
may be authorised by the local authority. The Order, once in
force, will permit local authorities to outsource all or part
of their functions under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 that
relate to the setting, charging, collection, enforcement and
spending of the Community Infrastructure Levy. (9 September
2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
Delivery of Services
Rural Services Network: Costs of providing services
in rural areas: this research report examines whether, and the
extent to which, there is a ‘rural cost penalty’ associated with
the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas, not
arising from differences in policy. It finds that rural local
councils receive 50% less government grant per head of population,
and that people living in the countryside pay £100 a year more in
council tax than urban inhabitants yet receive fewer public
services. Rural authorities face significant challenges which they
are addressing with innovative work, such as greater partnership
working, reorganisation of schools/services/routes, efficient
service planning and the use of new technology. However, this work
is taking place against the backdrop of significant funding
pressures, with rural authorities receiving significantly less
funding than urban authorities. Rural authorities’ ability to
address these challenges will therefore be dependent upon the
level of funding that they have available to them going forward. It
calls for the 'rural gap' to be addressed now as part of the Local
Government Resource Review to shake up council grants and business
rates, otherwise the options under consultation threaten to lock in
that unfairness for a further 10 years. (4 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Olwen
Dutton.
^back
to top
Education
DfE: 24 Free Schools to open across England this
year: gives details of the 24 schools with whom Funding
Agreements have now been agreed and signed, enabling them to open
in September 2011. (30 August 2011)
DfE: Record number of under-performing schools to
become academies: reports that 45 sponsored academies will
open in September, with a further 49 due to open during this
academic year. In addition, 185 good schools will become academies
this month, bringing the total number of open academies
to 1,300. (5 September 2011)
DfE: Residential special schools - National Minimum
Standards: sets out the minimum standards to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children for whom residential accommodation
is provided by a Residential Special School. The stnadards do not
override the need for schools to comply with other legislation such
as the Education (Independent School Standards) (England)
Regulations 2010, the Education (Non-Maintained Special Schools)
(England) Regulations 2011, and legislation covering health and
safety, fire or planning regulations. (30 August 2011)
DfE: Boarding schools - National Minimum
Standards: contain arrangements to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children for whom accommodation is provided by boarding
schools. They provide the minimum standards below which no school
is expected to fall in securing outcomes for boarders. The
stnadards do not override the need for schools to comply with other
legislation such as the Education (Independent School Standards)
(England) Regulations 2010, and legislation covering health and
safety, fire or planning regulations. (30 August 2011)
Ofsted: Common Inspection Framework
2012: seeks views on proposals to revise the
framework for inspection of further education (FE) colleges,
work-based learning providers, adult and community learning
provision and ‘Next Step’ provision. The proposed changes will
streamline and simplify this framework and focus it more sharply on
the areas that have most impact. The consultation closes
on 24 November 2011. (1 September 2011)
Ofsted: Safeguarding in schools - best
practice: this report distils the features of exceptionally
good practice in safeguarding in schools where safeguarding was
judged to be outstanding between September 2009 and July 2010.
It finds that the measures put in place by the best
schools to keep children safe can be replicated by every school. As
well as promoting best practice, the report sets out clearly how
Ofsted inspects a school’s safeguarding procedures. The key word
for both inspectors and schools is ‘reasonable’. The report aims to
reassure schools that Ofsted makes judgements about safeguarding
that are both fair and reasonable. (2 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Caraline
Johnson.
^back
to top
Equality and Discrimination
JG v Lancashire CC [2011] EWHC 2295 (Admin) (Admin
Ct): the claimants were two disabled women. They applied
for judicial review of the council's decisions relating to the
provision of adult social care services. The contested decisions
reduced the budget for the provision of these services and also
amended two of the council's policies by raising the eligibility
threshold for adults accessing social care services under the Fair
Access to Care Services Scheme, and changing how the council
charged for home social care services received. The claimants
contended that in approving the budget and the amended
policies, the council had failed in its duty under s.49A of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to have "due
regard" to the need to take steps to promote equality of
opportunity for disabled people and the need to take account of
disabled persons' disabilities.
The court held, dismissing the claim, that there was nothing
wrong in principle with the council's approach of taking a
preliminary decision in relation to its budget, fully aware that
the implementation of proposed policies would be likely to have an
impact on the affected users, but not committing itself to the
implementation of specific policies until it had carried out a full
and detailed assessment of the likely impact. Nor was this approach
inconsistent with the duties under the DDA. The procedure was
not a cosmetic exercise in which the council was doing no more
than going through the motions of setting out the consequences of a
pre-determined course, but it had kept an open mind as to the
precise policies that would be implemented. It was sensible, and
lawful, for the council first to formulate its budget proposals and
then, at the time of developing the policies that were under
challenge, to consider the specific impact of proposed policies
that might be implemented within the budgetary framework. The judge
also rejected the arguments that the council's mitigating actions
were inadequate: the challenge was not a Wednesbury challenge to
the reasonableness of the council's budget or the policies that it
has adoptedbut was that it had failed to have due regard to the
relevant factors under the DDA. Whether or not the mitigating steps
were adequate was a matter for the council to determine. The fact
that the council did direct its mind towards the question of what
mitigating steps could be taken so as to lessen the impact of the
relevant policies on affected users demonstrated that the council
did in fact have due regard to the matters specified in the
DDA. (2 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Olwen
Dutton.
^back
to top
Parish Councils
R (Offerton Park Parish Council) v Stockport MBC
(Unreported, Admin Ct): the parish council applied for
judicial review of the local authority's decision to make a
Reorganisation of Community Governance (RCG) Order under the Local
Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 abolishing the
parish council. The local authority received two petitions from 348
of the parish's 3,700 residents stating that they believed that the
parish council served no useful purpose and should be dissolved. It
then carried out a community governance review which found that
8.5% of the electorate were in favour of abolition of the parish
with 2% of the electorate against. The local authority also carried
out a parish poll as to whether the parish council should be
dissolved: 11% of the electorate were in favour of abolition and
5.6% were against. There was then a further consultation which
explicitly asked whether the parish council should be
abolished; of the 25% of the electorate who responded,
over twice as many individuals were in favour of abolition of the
parish council as its retention. The local authority held that, in
light of the consultation feedback and having regard to the fact
that the majority of parish residents were opposed to the existence
of the parish council, it was appropriate to make an RCG Order
so as to abolish the parish council. The parish council contended
that the local authority's decision was irrational as the only safe
inference to be drawn from the consultation exercise was that a
large majority of residents, namely 75%, had no preference either
way as to whether the parish council should be abolished or
retained and that the local authority wrongfully failed to have
regard to that material matter.
The court held, granting the application, that the decision should
be quashed. The authority's conclusion that the consultation showed
a majority of residents in favour of abolition was irrational and
its assertion that the public generally, as opposed to a section of
it, favoured abolition was unjustified. The authority
had unlawfully failed to have regard to a material
consideration, namely that the large majority of the electorate had
not expressed themselves in favour either of abolition or retention
of what was an established tier of local government which, in
accordance with the statutory guidance, should only be abolished
where shown to be clearly justified.
Obiter: it was not necessary to obtain the vote of an absolute
majority in favour of abolition before a parish could lawfully
be abolished. If for good reason there was clear and sustained
local support for abolition from what was considered to be a
sufficient body of the electorate then, if the majority was
indifferent, abolition might be justifiable, provided that due
regard was had to the statutory guidance. (24 August 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Peter
Keith-Lucas.
^back
to top
Performance
Electoral Commission: Draft performance standards
for Returning Officers in Great Britain: seeks views on a
revised set of draft performance standards for Returning Officers
(ROs). The consultation covers both the overall set of
performance standards and on the approach to monitoring and
reporting on the performance of ROs.
The consultation
closes on 14 October 2011. (5 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
Police Authorities
Castle v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2011] EWHC 2317
(Admin) (Admin Ct): C were three children aged between 14 - 16
who took part in a demonstration in Central London against a
proposed rise in university tuition fees and removal of the
Educational Maintenance Allowance. The police decided to cordon off
a crowd of some 3,000 demonstrators, including C, in Whitehall, and
C were unable to leave that area for over six hours. C sought
declarations that their containment by the police was
unlawful, along with damages. They contended that the
police's decision to detain children constituted a breach
of their duty under s.11 of the Children Act 2004 and so
rendered the containment unlawful, and also that the
police exceeded their common law powers and acted in breach
of C's rights under Art.5 ECHR (deprivation of liberty).
The court held, refusing the application, that the chief officer's
statutory obligation under s.11 was not confined to training and
dissemination of information but was to ensure that decisions
affecting children had regard to the need to safeguard them and to
promote their welfare. The impact which the duty had upon the
performance of a function would depend to a significant degree upon
the function being performed and the circumstances in which it was
being performed; a police officer would not be deterred from
performing his public duty to detect or prevent crime just because
a child was affected but when he did perform that duty he had to
have regard to the statutory need. The s.11 duty required that the
police's planning for alternatives to containment and to minimise
its impact on innocent third parties should, where appropriate,
have embraced the need to safeguard children and promote their
welfare. If the decision maker was unable to show that he could
not, by taking reasonable steps, have avoided the need to use
containment, or have mitigated the consequences to innocent third
parties, in particular children, then he would have acted
unlawfully towards them in breach of his public duty. On the
facts in this case, the police were not in breach of this duty or
of any of their public law duties. Regarding the art.5 claim,
any interference which did take place was for a legitimate reason,
in accordance with the law, and proportionate to the legitimate aim
of preventing an imminent breach of the peace. (7 September
2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
Procurement
First4Skills Ltd v Department of Employment and Learning
[2011] NIQB 59 (QBD (NI)): F4S and another private sector
contractor, X, tendered unsuccessfully for the DEL's award of
a contract for the provision of training services. Both F4S and X
wrote separately to DEL stating that they intended to
bring a legal challenge to the contract award, so DEL announced to
all bidders that they had decided to defer the award for an
unspecified period. F4S and X then each initiated proceedings
challenging the award, triggering the automatic
suspension under Reg.47G of the Public Contract Regulations
2006. DEL applied to have X's automatic suspension set
aside but the court refused this application. The next
day DEL applied to have F4S's automatic suspension lifted.
The court held, refusing the application, that this application was
a misuse of the court process. The court gave guidance on the case
management approach where more than one aggrieved
bidder sought to challenge the same procurement process.
"Proceedings" in Regs.47G and 47H should be construed as "any
proceedings", so where more than one disappointed bidder had
initiated separate legal challenges, the court's dismissal of an
application for an interim order under Reg.47H in any of the
actions prohibited the execution of the contract with any party and
so removed the need for any further such application in
different proceedings. Here, it would be inappropriate and
illogical for the court to make an order in the second
application that conflicted with its order in the first
application. It would also be incongruous to make an order in the
second application that purported to authorise
the contracting authority to take a course which
would be in breach of the court's first order.
The court also looked at the merits of DEL's application, but ruled
that it would follow the decision in X's proceedings. The
balance of convenience was in favour of F4S, taking into
account F4S's cross-undertaking in damages and the reasonable
prediction that these proceedings would be
completed before the contract extension expired in March 2012.
(30 June 2011)
Amendments to the Public Contracts Regulations 2006: we
have published an article that considers the amendments
to the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 made by the Public
Procurement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2011, which come
into force on 1 October 2011. (2 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Rosemary
Jago.
^back
to top
Public Health
DH: Death certification reforms - new duty on local
authorities: the Health and Social Care Bill that is currently
going through Parliament includes an amendment to the Coroners and
Justice Act 2009 transferring responsibility for the appointment of
medical examiners and related activities from PCTs to local
authorities. This will be funded by a statutory fee chargeable for
all deaths that are not investigated by a coroner. Local
authorities will be able to use service models that are appropriate
for their area, including: direct provision; commissioning the
service from a healthcare provider; integration with existing
related services; and collaboration with neighbouring authorities
to provide a combined service. This briefing provides an overview
of the death certification reforms and an update on work to prepare
for implementation of these reforms from April 2013. (6 September
2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Olwen
Dutton.
^back
to top
Traffic and Transport
DfT: Delivery of local road safety: this report
by AECOM, in association with the Tavistock Institute, evaluates
the different strategies and plans for delivering road user
safety, assesses what is being delivered, the key processes
and how efficient local authority practices
are, and identifies lessons and areas of good practice in
road user safety investment. (6 September 2011)
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Bethan
Evans.
^back
to top
Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 (Commencement No. 1)
Order 2011 (SI 2011/2011 (W.221) (C.74)): this Order brings
certain provisions of the 2011 Measure into force on 31 August
2011. The sections are:
- ss.1-3 (survey of councillors)
- Part 8 (ss.141-158) (Members' payments and pensions -
Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales)
- Part 9 Chapter 1 (s.161) (guidance about collaboration)
- Part 9 Chapter 2 (ss.162-171) (amalgamation).
If you wish to discuss any of the items noted in this section
please contact Peter
Keith-Lucas.
^back
to top
Bevan Brittan has developed a well-recognised programme of
training designed to assist local authorities in successfully
implementing legal change. Led by key members of our local
authority team, each session will clearly explain the key aspects
of the law and the implications for local government. Using case
studies and carefully selected complementary speakers, they will
assist attendees in realising the full benefits of implementation
and the dangerous pitfalls in failure to act.
Forthcoming seminars in 2011 include:
- 21 September (London): Governance, service
restructuring and social enterprise
- 23 September (Birmingham): Trusts and charities
2011 (organised by LSB Law)
-
27 September (London) &
5 October (Birmingham): Outsourcing for the public sector
- 11 October (Bristol), 12 October (Birmingham) & 18 October
(London): Employment update
- 12 October (London): Re-negotiating contracts
(organised by LGG Training)
- 10 November (London): How to be a Monitoring Officer
- 23 November (London): Waste and energy review
- 13 December (London): The Localism Act
For a list of all seminars see our new Events
Programme for 2011/12. Full details, along with information on
how to book a place, will be posted on our website about
6-8 weeks ahead of the scheduled date.
^back
to top