Europe must focus on where it can add most value. Where this is not the case, it should not meddle.’ Most of us would agree with those sentiments expressed by the then EU Commission president José Manuel Barroso in 2013, including those of us who have recently set up Conservatives for Reform in Europe.
Between now and the referendum date – I’m not going to predict when, but I have my birthday in June – the competing campaigns will make their case, MPs and councillors will no doubt set out their views and business will have its voice.
Is local government going to explain its view? It may not be unanimous, any more than is the business community’s, but given its significance in our ‘body politic’ the sector has said surprisingly little. As over 50% of legislation implemented locally is estimated to have originated in the EU, the stakes are too high for us not to be involved.
The gradual competence creep of Brussels has meant that an ever-increasing list of statutory responsibilities are falling within the political oversight of the EU, from energy efficiency and consumption rules to landfill directives and internal market laws on public procurement.
Amazingly, even the definition of a local public service is set by EU treaties, EU legislation and EU case law on Services of General Interest not by national government or local authorities themselves.
Inevitably, all of this puts a huge burden on local government, not only in financial terms but also through significant administrative and regulatory implications.
This is something I know the Local Government Association investigated during the EU competences review in 2013. But given the implementation of the 2014 EU Procurement Directives, not to mention the other Brussels born diktat that has been issued since – like the EU Circular Economy Strategy – now is the right moment to take stock and reassess.
With a raft of funds available to councils, the benefits can be substantial, but do they really outweigh the costs, particularly at a time of unprecedented budgetary constraints?
At the same time, we have the tricky task of weighing up the hypotheticals: what exactly would the impact be on local government if Britain were to go it alone? Just look, as one potential drawback, on the affect it could have on social services. Rob Whiteman – the former chief executive of the UK Border Agency and a man with extensive experience of local government – has recently confirmed the real risk of revocation of the 2003 UK/France Le Touquet Treaty if a Brexit materialised, with the added pressures this could put on local authorities particularly in the South East.
Ballpark figures of 50,000 additional asylum applications a year have been mentioned and as the experiences of Kent CC proved in the summer – which racked up a £5.5m social services funding shortfall in just a few weeks – the strain on local authorities housing asylum seekers could be enormous.
Having had a hand in writing the 2011 Localism Act, I would hope that its EU Financial Sanctions provision has helped to improve dialogue between central and local government on the EU matters that affect us both.
There have been success stories, like removing local government from the Energy Efficiency Directive in 2012, but early engagement between Whitehall and local authorities needs to be the rule not the exception.
In this regard, dare I say it, we could all learn something from our European neighbours, many of whom involve local government far more in the scrutiny of EU proposals before they are transposed into refined law.
Our focus can at times be too wrapped up in Parliament’s own assessment of EU directives, rather than opening up the question and having a pragmatic, multi-level discussion across central and local government. This is something the Dutch Tweede Kamer and German Bundestag do particularly well.
In doing so, we would ensure that we go into the referendum with a strong evidence-base, knowing precisely what the pros and cons are from an international, national and municipal perspective.
On the latter, it is clear that councils want better guidance and a more flexible, less bureaucratic and time-consuming procurement process. This is something the Cabinet Office’s Efficiency and Reform Group should actively be taking on. But local authorities need to be making their case loud and clear.
In the draft deal are a number of firm commitments around deregulation, including an annual EU Commission review of excessive red tape and regulation.
Between now and the referendum it could be very easy for local government’s voice to be lost in the broader national debate. But it is exactly these specific, nitty-gritty aspects of the deal that local authorities should be doing everything they can to engage with Whitehall on.
An invaluable opportunity has arisen through which local government can seek to influence the hand it is dealt from the EU, and we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did not grab it with both hands.
Bob Neill is MP for Bromley & Chislehurst and former local government minister
