As the Government’s flagship Localism Bill begins the committee stage in the Commons, Nick Raynsford highlights what he regards as its shortcomings, which could make it a millstone for ministers

There are few more dispiriting experiences for politicians than discovering that their prized new policy initiatives are not going to work out as planned.

Instead of being praised for bold and imaginative new policies, they find themselves under attack for introducing half-baked ideas that are unlikely to deliver the promised benefits, and may well prompt a series of undesirable and unpredicted consequences.

Ministers in the DCLG are now learning this lesson the hard way, as the Localism Bill begins its committee stage in the House of Commons.

This stage of public Bills now routinely starts with a series of evidence sessions in which experts on subjects covered by the Bill are questioned by committee members about the implications of the Bill, and its likely effects.

There were four evidence sessions on the Localism Bill, in the course of which, 42 different people drawn from the fields of local government, housing, planning, business and the voluntary sector, as well as the three DCLG ministers on the committee gave us the benefit of their views. It was an enlightening experience.

Far from the warm and uncritical endorsement of the Bill’s contents which ministers had clearly expected, we heard a mounting litany of complaint about the Bill’s shortcomings.

Only representatives of the voluntary sector, who clearly hoped the Big Society would extend their role and opportunities were supportive as a whole for the Bill.

Otherwise, we heard views which ranged from disappointment at the mildest, to outright condemnation of the Bill’s contents.

From the local government community there was disappointment at the extent to which ministerial powers remained enshrined in the Bill – 142 such powers were cited.

Given this number of reserved powers and the tendency of ministers to intervene repeatedly in matters which should be left for local decision-making – a tendency I highlighted in my last MJ article on 13 January – there was widely-voiced scepticism as to whether the Bill would in fact deliver its localist objectives.

From the housing experts, there was almost uniform condemnation of bungled changes to the planning regime, harsh cuts in public spending, and unwarranted weakening of tenants’ rights in social housing tenancies.

Worse still was the pessimistic conclusion from the chief executive of developer, Taylor Wimpey, that on the basis of the Bill’s proposals, it would take seven to eight years for the output of new homes to recover back to the levels of 2007.

The strategic land director of another developer, Barratt Homes, offered us an even more alarming nightmare in which the supply of development sites might dry up in three years’ time. So much for the Government’s claims to be promoting house-building.

The planners were, unsurprisingly, bemused by the upheaval created by the abolition of regional spatial strategies and the introduction of various forms of neighbourhood planning. Their evidence left no doubt that the proposals have not been properly thought through, and leave all sorts of loose ends and unanswered questions.

All in all, it appears a recipe for increasing litigation. The fact that the Law Society, which might be expected to welcome more work for its members, fears this outcome, speaks volumes. After having suffered a humiliating reverse in the High Court over its unlawful revocation of regional spatial strategies – the CALA Homes case, just overturned – one might have thought the Government would be wary of the risk of more judicial reviews. Apparently not.

But what must have given DCLG ministers some of their worst moments in the course of the evidence sessions was the concern voiced by the business representatives about the potentially-damaging uncertainty unleashed by the Bill.

Whether referring to the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the introduction of neighbourhood plans, or the arrangements for designating ‘assets of community value’, the CBI, British Chambers of Commerce and Federation of Small

Businesses were unequivocal that the effect of the changes in the Bill, even if well intentioned, could prove damaging.

With the economy teetering on the edge of a double-dip recession, this is not a message that will be welcomed in Downing Street. Nor will the dawning realisation that what was supposed to have been a popular flagship Bill is turning out to be more like a millstone round ministers’ necks.

Nick Raynsford is former local government minister