The mother of parliaments has irreverently been described as a ‘palace of varieties’. For, despite the seriousness of the business before MPs, the House of Commons can often look like pantomime knockabout.

The ‘oh no it isn’t, oh yes it is’ of prime minister’s questions often seems a good case in point.

And there was certainly some good knockabout on 17 January when the Localism Bill turned up for its second reading, starring Eric Pickles as secretary of state for communities and local government. ‘The bill will reverse the centralist creep of decades and replace it with local control,’ he said.

For it is ‘a triumph for democracy over bureaucracy’ which will ‘fundamentally shake up the balance of power in this country, revitalising local democracy and putting power back where it belongs, in the hands of the people’.

‘Oh no it won’t,’ was the sentiment from Caroline Flint, shadow secretary of state for communities and local government. For the bill empowers only ‘one person: the secretary of state’. And it ‘does nothing to convince us that it is anything more than a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local communities up and down the country’.

Pickles did not display particularly high regard for lawyers, referring to the ‘innate conservatism of those providing legal advice’.

On the general power of competence in clause 1 – ‘probably the single most important item in the bill’ – he said this will turn convention on its head: ‘Instead of local authorities having to find a statute that allows them to act, the fun-loving legal advisers will have to find a statute that prevents them from taking action.’

And following the ­enactment of the competence power: ‘All those fun-loving guys who are involved in offering legal advice to local authorities, who are basically conservative, will now have to err on the side of permissiveness.’

For while Pickles had welcomed the well-being power (which in truth, he said, did not differ much from the proposed competence measure), only 17% of authorities had used it because, he said, of the innate adviser conservatism in question.

The secretary of state does of course have a famously rumbustious style, and his comments are entirely consistent with this.

And while there may just be an atom of truth in what he says about the confidence failure of a small number of legal advisers – nevertheless the outcome of the LAML case did seem to be largely a product of its own particular facts and circumstances, particularly in the handling of the external procurement and the way in which the material decision had been taken.

But the impression Pickles seems to have come away with (if it is not actually ingrained) is of a timorous, cautious and conservative legal sector, resolute in going the extra mile to prevent useful things happening.

However, of course, for the majority of local government lawyers the precise opposite is the case. They regularly go the extra mile – and far beyond – to achieve their authority’s objectives and apply their wisdom and expertise accordingly.

But knocking copy is notoriously easy to write and hard to rebut. So the perception battle for local government lawyers is perennial – a bit like painting the Forth bridge, but often with limited equipment and over decidedly troubled water.

Why, though, asked former Labour secretary of state for defence Bob Ainsworth, is Pickles ‘providing for the imposition of shadow mayors ahead of a referendum in the 12 cities involved’?

Readers will recall that these cities are Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.

‘The idea is basically to get ready for the mayors,’ said Pickles. For (as politicians invariably do) he wanted to make it ‘absolutely clear’ that ‘if the people in those authorities decide that they do not want a mayor, the powers will disappear’.

But ‘it was felt that if we were to move towards referendums, the people of the cities involved should have an indication of the powers and freedoms that they would get if they had a mayor’.

Clearly, the shadow mayor mechanism does put the impetus very much on the mayoral side, which is in line with the government’s policy objective to promote and facilitate the installation of elected mayors.

But, referring to former Labour secretary of state for transport, Lord Adonis, Pickles said that he thought it was Adonis who, when dealing with high-speed rail, had ‘made it clear that it was easier to deal with mayors in London and other parts of the country than to deal with council leaders’.

Flint will no doubt have struck a harmonious chord with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as well as many local government lawyers, when she warned: ‘The bill could undermine standards in public life by making codes of conduct for councillors voluntary.’ For, as she pointed out, ‘good standards are surely not optional’.

There will clearly be a lot more noise from the opposition (as well as others in the audience) before the bill finally wends its bulky way onto the statute book.

Mayoral chief executives

A controversial issue with the government’s proposals for mayoral chief executives is the effective end of separation of powers at the top of the authority.

For political enthusiasm can occasionally cross the boundary into imprudence – and even into unlawfulness.

And while the monitoring officer reporting regime seems set to be maintained, at present that post is one of three senior officers in the authority responsible for corporate governance, the others being the chief finance officer (with reporting powers similar to those of the monitoring officer) and the head of paid service.

While an additional corporate governance check is proposed (in section 9HE of a new schedule A1 to the Local Government Act 2000 – where an authority operating mayoral management arrangements ‘must designate one of its officers to provide guidance and support to members of the authority’), the difficulty is that this post will be organisationally junior to the mayoral chief executive.

So one of the pillars of the corporate governance triumvirate will effectively be weakened. And if that section 9HE role goes to either the monitoring officer or the chief financial officer, one pillar will actually be removed.

The present system, admittedly not perfect, does at least give some equality of seniority between the political and management leaders, albeit that the head of paid service will never be too anxious to fall out with the councillor who leads his effective employer.

But at least if top relationships are functioning healthily an officer chief executive can facilitate sound corporate governance at the highest levels of the authority and support the monitoring and chief finance officers.

It is true that local government is well used to change, and those within it are experienced in making creative arrangements work. So no doubt most mayoral chief executives will function effectively, properly and lawfully.

But there are clearly examples of authorities that have gone off the rails in terms of corporate governance where a mayoral chief executive may well have worsened the position. Authorities with political chief executives will therefore need to give their corporate arrangements for corporate checks and balances a thorough MOT to make sure they are sufficiently robust and fit for purpose.

Health and Social Care Bill

Finally, local authority lawyers and others dealing with local government will need to look at the Health and Social Care Bill which was introduced into parliament on 19 January.

This contains various important measures affecting local government including new functions.

So while local authorities will have to take such steps as they consider appropriate for improving the health of the people in their area (clause 8), they will also (acting jointly with the secretary of state) need to appoint an officer designated as director of public health (clause 26).

Local authorities will also be required to establish health and wellbeing boards with membership including: at least one councillor; the directors of adult social services, children’s services and public health; and representatives of the local HealthWatch organisation (see clause 167) and relevant commissioning consortia (see clause 6).

While local authorities will no longer need to have health overview and scrutiny committees, they will continue to have oversight and scrutiny powers which they may discharge as they see fit (see clause 175).

And local authorities will also need to make appropriate arrangements for the provision of ‘independent advocacy services’, that is to say support to prospective or actual complainants on health-related matters (clause 170).

Although this is a long measure, having 281 clauses and 22 schedules, and local authority lawyers already have their hands full, failure to take on board relevant provisions could seriously damage career health.

Dr Nicholas Dobson is a senior consultant with Pannone specialising in local and public law. He is also communications officer for the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors