Lawyers in Local Government calls for ‘New Burdens’ funding to help councils with costs of Brexit

All local authorities require ‘New Burdens’ funding to cope with additional costs directly flowing from Brexit, Lawyers in Local Government has said.

In a position statement the representative body said: “LLG has concerns about the length of time required to implement new burdens and we strongly assert that all local authorities require funding to cope with additional costs directly flowing from Brexit.

“Our previous position paper on vulnerability highlights the areas in which greater demands will be placed on local authorities and the third sector and calls on the government to underwrite the additional financial burden flowing from the increased numbers of vulnerable people.”

The position statement, which was considered earlier this month by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s EU Exit Advisory Panel, also suggested that specific local authorities – “due to their location, composition, statutory function and/or external influences” – should receive further dedicated financial support for what LLG called "aggravating factors.

LLG identified port authorities and local authority areas experiencing large employer withdrawal as particular factors, and called on the Government to consider provision of a second tier of funding for these local authorities.

The position statement said that the additional funding and resource cost of Brexit would not be capable of being covered by additional efficiency savings identified within local authorities due to the existing burdens and budgetary constraints currently in place. “In any event, the New Burdens Doctrine specifically prevents against this,” it added.

“It is worth considering however, the very careful steps local authorities need to take when wishing to make changes to services or bring about a change of policy. Even where a statutory function prescribed by law is amended, it will remain a function of the council until otherwise amended or revoked with due process and indeed, definitions of what constitutes a mandatory or discretionary service is often complex and far from clear.”

LLG went on to warn that consultation periods and the Public Sector Equality Duty required time to effect lawful changes in service provision and avoid legal challenge. “The overall time scale required for a change in service provision can vary immensely on the facts. Complex, far reaching proposals might require a period of six months as a minimum timescale,” it added.