By its very name, the Localism Bill ought to command cross-party support, and yet is likely to be mired in controversy and argument, says Nick Raynsford

The Localism Bill has been a long time coming, which in one respect, is a surprise.

For it has been seen as a flagship piece of legislation from the earliest days of the coalition government. Its anticipated contents featured prominently in the coalition agreement, and the Queen’s Speech highlighted this commitment more than six months ago.

So, what has been happening in the meantime, and why has it taken so long for a Bill to be published?

As so often is the case with government, the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory is the most likely explanation. The Government has been trying to shoe-horn a large number of different commitments, some of which have proved much more complex than their political advocates realised, into a single piece of legislation.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard ministers blithely announce on matters as different as changes to the planning system and the funding of local government on the future of the Royal Parks, ‘It will be dealt with in the Localism Bill.’

So, political expectations have been raised while the unfortunate civil servants and parliamentary draughtsmen have had to try to make legislative sense of a myriad of varied and often ill thought-out policy proposals. Not surprisingly, this has been a difficult and protracted process, and it would be rash to forecast any let-up when the Bill begins its passage through Parliament. For, legislation cobbled together in a hurry without the benefit of prior consultation and rigorous analysis of its aims and likely effects, is usually found to be defective and requiring detailed amendment.

The irony is that the objective of the legislation – to devolve more powers and responsibilities from central government to local and regional or sub-regional levels –ought to command widespread support. It accords with the broad thrust of all three main political parties’ policy positions, and should have secured a large measure of consensus at national, regional and local levels.

Instead of which, it appears likely to provoke a great deal of controversy and to be heavily criticised throughout its passage through both Houses of Parliament.

In part, this reflects the very partisan and high-handed way in which the Government has brought forward its proposals. There has either been no consultation, or the consultation has been absurdly late in the day, and truncated to the point where its purpose appears more cosmetic than substantive.

So, the consultation on the Government’s proposed changes to social housing tenancies was issued only on 22 November, at a time when ministers were claiming, perhaps unwisely, that publication of the Localism Bill was ‘imminent’.

The consultation period, normally 12 weeks, has been cut to eight weeks, although the Christmas and New Year holidays fall in the consultation period.

Even so, the consultation will not end until 17 January 2011, and the anticipated products of the consultation, including the promised new tenancy standard will almost certainly not be completed in time for the second reading of the Localism Bill.

For some years, it has been recognised good practice to publish draft Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny. This is all the more important when the legislation has been prepared in haste, without prior consultation on the basis of a Green Paper or even publication of a White Paper.

Pre-legislative scrutiny allows time for drafting errors, ambiguities or omissions to be rectified, and for the expected impact and effectiveness of the legislation to be evaluated. There can be few Bills more likely to have benefitted from pre-legislative scrutiny than the Localism Bill. Such scrutiny could well have helped improve the Bill’s quality and coherence, and build a degree of consensus around worthwhile devolutionary measures, while identifying problematic clauses that should be reconsidered or abandoned.

Sadly, none of this will happen, and the Bill’s passage through Parliament is more likely to be characterised by partisan conflict and the use of timetable resolutions, or even the guillotine, to force it through, warts and all.

There is a long history of botched legislation, of which the Dangerous Dogs Act is the most frequently quoted example, produced for political effect, without proper consideration of its impact, and rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny.

The Localism Bill, sadly, appears likely to add a new chapter to this history.

Nick Raynsford is a former local government minister