The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair: †
Mr
Andrew Turner
†
Berry,
Jake (Rossendale and Darwen)
(Con)
†
Buckland,
Mr Robert (South Swindon)
(Con)
†
Dowd,
Jim (Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
†
Hughes,
Simon (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(LD)
†
McCartney,
Jason (Colne Valley)
(Con)
†
Mann,
John (Bassetlaw)
(Lab)
†
Mercer,
Patrick (Newark)
(Con)
†
Moon,
Mrs Madeleine (Bridgend)
(Lab)
†
Neill,
Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government)
†
Qureshi,
Yasmin (Bolton South East)
(Lab)
†
Russell,
Bob (Colchester)
(LD)
Simpson,
David (Upper Bann)
(DUP)
†
Smith,
Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Lab)
†
Stride,
Mel (Central Devon)
(Con)
†
Walker,
Mr Robin (Worcester)
(Con)
†
Wicks,
Malcolm (Croydon North)
(Lab)
†
Wiggin,
Bill (North Herefordshire)
(Con)
†
Williamson,
Chris (Derby North)
(Lab)
Mark Etherton, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Betts,
Mr Clive (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
Seventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 23
March
2011
[Mr
Andrew Turner
in the
Chair]
Draft
Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority
Publicity
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Robert Neill):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Code of Recommended Practice on
Local Authority
Publicity.
May
I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Turner, in a room that is more than a little familiar to a
number of us who have served on the Localism Bill Committee? I
suppose it is nice to be back. I hope that our deliberations will not
take as long as those on the
Bill—[
Interruption.
] I hear the Government
Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire, saying that he
hopes so profoundly too, and as such, I will do my
best.
The genesis
of what we are considering this afternoon is the commitment in the
coalition agreement to
“impose tougher
rules to stop unfair competition by local authority
newspapers.”
The
draft code will do that, provided that it is approved in this House and
in the other place, by replacing the existing publicity codes, the
first of which was introduced in 1988 and subsequently revised in 2001.
That deals with some unfair practices—I shall stress the
unfairness as I go along—and touches on the rules on the use of
lobbyists by local authorities.
Before going
into the content, it is perhaps worth while to say something about the
nature of the code and the process that we have followed in drawing up
the draft, which involved the Select Committee on Communities and Local
Government. It held a short inquiry on the draft code, and I note that
the Chair of that Committee is in his place today. The Local Government
Act 1986 dealt with the question of local authority publicity, provided
a code of recommended practice on publicity and required local
authorities to have regard to such codes. Importantly, that means that
the code is a statutory document, and councils are obliged to consider
it when making decisions about publicity.
It is a code,
not an order or a set of regulations, so it does not contain binding
requirements. However, because of the obligation to have regard to it,
if a council is to not be challenged successfully in the courts or by
its auditor on a departure from the code, that departure may be made
only if there are reasoned and rational grounds. That is the importance
of the status of the document and the reason for drafting the code in
that way. That has been the nature of the rules on local authority
publicity since 1986, and Governments of all parties have been content
to operate in that regime.
The principle
underpinning the 1986 Act and the 2001 revision was a belief
that good and effective communication between a local authority and its
communities is key to developing local understanding and local
democracy. Members who have served in local authorities will recognise
the value of that and that the majority of local authorities
communicate effectively with their citizens in a proportionate and fair
manner. It is important that local authorities use local publicity, not
just to keep their communities informed of the services they provide,
but to encourage greater civic participation. All those things have to
be done with a sense of balance and proportionality.
Publicity can
be a sensitive matter because of the associated costs that come from
the public purse, in an environment where there is competition for the
use of local authority resources, and because of the impact that
publicity can have. That is why it is essential that decisions on local
authority publicity are properly made. The purpose of the code is to
seek to achieve that. The Select Committee accepted the principle
behind the existence of a code, which has been pretty much accepted
across the piece since
1986.
With
the revised code we are seeking to set out clear principles of good
practice and to ensure that public funds are properly used in that
regard. We set out a consultation on our proposals at the end of last
September. That ended on 10 November. We received some 350 responses,
and we considered all of those before finalising the text. The Select
Committee held a short inquiry into the proposals. My right hon. Friend
the Minister for Housing and Local Government gave evidence to the
Select Committee before it published its report. I am obliged to the
Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East
(Mr Betts), and his colleagues for that report, which we considered
carefully before finalising our
proposals.
The
draft code is a significant re-presentation of the existing codes. It
will, in effect, replace in a single a code the two documents that
currently apply to different tiers of local government. The code as
revised in 2001 applies to principal councils—the full range
from unitary authorities through to district councils, county councils
and London boroughs—and the original 1988 Act applies to parish
councils. That is the distinction—principal as opposed to local
councils—for these
purposes.
The
material, as Members will see, is grouped into seven
principles:
“Publicity
by local authorities should:—be lawful; be cost-effective; be
objective; be even-handed; be appropriate; have regard to equality and
diversity; be issued with care during periods of heightened
sensitivity”.
Obviously,
that final principle relates in particular to the periods running up to
elections or referendums. They are not new principles, but we have
improved and clarified their
presentation.
There
are two substantive changes. First, there is now a specific reference
to the frequency, content and appearance of local authority
newsletters, newssheets and other similar publications. That addresses
the problem of unfair competition by taxpayer-funded local authority
newspapers, which can have a detrimental effect on commercial local
newspapers. Although local publicity is important—as I conceded
earlier in my remarks—so is a free and healthy local press. It
is worth remembering that localism does not stop with the council and
its
institutions; localism is about the
community’s other institutions, too. A healthy press that can
challenge the council is part of
that.
I
appreciate that the Select Committee—I know the Chair is going
to speak later—queried whether it is necessary to take the steps
that we have taken and suggested that it was not localist. For the
reasons I have set out and with every respect to the Select
Committee, I do not believe that criticism is
justified.
First,
there have been consistent representations from the newspaper industry
and from individuals about certain local authorities creating unfair
competition. That matters for democracy. A free press is important, and
if there is a threat to that, I do not think it is adequate to say,
“Well, look, let’s get some more evidence. Let’s
put it off and have a long-term review.” We should revise the
code now because it is part of the broad definition of
localism.
I
set out this example in the code. There is nothing wrong with a local
authority producing material that gives information on its services and
its activities. Most local authorities do that, and it is fair,
reasonable and proportionate. It is keeping the public informed about
what the council does for them. There is a question about frequency,
and in the code we are saying that the frequency should not exceed
quarterly. That is what the vast majority of local authorities that
responded to the LGA’s survey found to be the optimum
period. So it is a period that
works.
Secondly,
there is a difference—we have seen it in some very striking
examples—between setting out what is information about local
services and activities, and creating something that, to all intents
and purposes, could be mistaken for a local paper. We need to consider
whether a publication’s presentation, journalistic style and
content go well beyond that. We could look at some of the supplements
that come with the national papers and see something telling us about
the wonders of investing in a far-flung, ex-Soviet republic. The words
“advertising supplement” are usually in small print on
the top but, unfortunately, that is not to be found in some of the
publications. I will place in the Library three examples in that
regard.
It
is not necessary to have something that is couched in such highly
political terms as the recent edition of Lambeth Life to inform
Lambeth voters of the council’s activities, and it is not
necessary to produce a 44-page fortnightly newspaper to inform the
voters and residents of Tower Hamlets of the work done by that local
authority. A recent issue of that paper consisted of a television
guide, a report on “Comic strip capers down at the Wick,”
a series of commercial advertisements and some of the sporting news.
That is all admirable and interesting, but it is clearly in direct
competition with precisely the sort of product that the local newspaper
is seeking to produce. That is where it strays over the boundary. It is
legitimate that there should be constraints on that, because public
money is being used to produce, in effect, a TV guide and other
entertainment features that are directly taking potential business away
from the local
papers.
John
Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab):
Will the Minister give
way?
Robert
Neill:
I thought I had done well to have got thus far
before the hon. Gentleman intervened.
John
Mann:
I did not quite catch whether the Minister had
included this week’s publication from Nottinghamshire county
council, which is a rather blue edition that entirely promotes the case
for the cuts that it is
making.
Robert
Neill:
The code applies to all local authorities
regardless of political complexion. I am sure that by referring to blue
the hon. Gentleman meant of a political variety—knowing the
leader of Nottinghamshire county council I cannot think it would be
otherwise. Of course, in fairness, the code has to be even-handed. That
is what it is designed to be. However, it is also not justified to use
public money to produce a fortnightly lifestyle magazine such as The
Newham Mag, which I will place a copy of in the Library. Although
that publication has some information, it also includes a considerable
amount of commercial advertising, entertainment listings, a
kids’ corner and a “Colour-me-in Word Fit” puzzle.
I am sure Mayor Wales would be the first to wish to promote that, but I
am not sure it is necessarily a good use of public
money.
Malcolm
Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab):
The Minister used the term
“in fairness” a paragraph or two back. In fairness, were
his civil servants able to provide him with examples from
Conservative-run authorities of what he is alleging is an
abuse?
Robert
Neill:
The honest truth is that I did my own research into
the matter, rather than using public resources. As I said to the hon.
Member for Bassetlaw, I readily concede that the code applies to local
authorities of all persuasions and all must adhere to it in their
dealings.
Bob
Russell (Colchester) (LD):
The Minister has made a very
strong case in respect of the councils that he has mentioned. Clearly,
those publications go way beyond what anybody would think is
appropriate for a local council. However, does he agree that
the vast majority of local councils do not go down that
route? I want to put on the record that I have reservations.
For the vast majority of local councils, this code of conduct will not
have any significant effects on their work. It is primarily aimed at
those abuses he has
outlined.
Robert
Neill:
My hon. Friend’s point is a fair one. I hope
that I had hinted at it, but I am happy to restate again that the Local
Government Association’s research found that the vast majority
of local authorities publish quarterly or less often, and all the
evidence suggests that the majority of local councils certainly do not
produce directly and blatantly competitive material. I am
happy to agree with him on
that.
I
can confirm to my hon. Friend that, first, this will not have any
practical effect on good and genuine communications in the vast
majority of local authorities —my respect for local government
is too high for me to want to do that. Secondly, I can also
confirm that, because the particular cases where breaches occur are
often serious and deleterious in their impact on an independent press,
it is appropriate to take the steps that we have. The proposal is
proportionate, and we do not make it lightly, but in cases of egregious
abuse, it is appropriate to act. It is in that spirit that we bring
forward the proposals.
John
Mann:
I thank the Minister for generously giving way
again. Will the code also cover the underhand tactics of health
authorities trying to promote cuts in their services? The proposed
downgrading of Bassetlaw hospital has full-page adverts paid for by the
public sector in local authority publications in full co-operation with
the cutting health authority. Will that kind of misinformation also be
covered?
Robert
Neill:
Publications by health authorities are not covered
by the code, because the Local Government Act 1986 does not apply to
health authorities. That is not to say that abuse and imbalance from
other public bodies at a cost to the public purse should not be
examined, but I am simply saying that the legislative framework of the
local government code does not extend beyond local councils, as defined
in the 1986 Act. I would criticise misleading and unfair publicity by
other public bodies. Indeed, I have had something to say in the past
about some publications by health authorities in my part of the world,
but we are dealing with a particular legislative
framework.
John
Mann
rose—
Robert
Neill:
I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. I
am being generous, but he will understand that I must make
progress.
John
Mann:
The Minister has been generous, but this drives a
coach and horses through his principles. If other bodies can pay for
inserts that have a particular typeface and paper style, as if part of
a local authority magazine, but which they paid for—as, for
example, the Doncaster and Bassetlaw primary care trusts chose to
do—a local authority can use other means and describe it as
advertising. The general public see it as a council propaganda sheet,
which is promoting changes erroneously and inaccurately against the
public
interest.
Robert
Neill:
First, in terms of frequency, the proposal would
apply to a repeated use of such advertisements. If the publication that
the advert is placed in should not appear more often than quarterly, it
limits the repeat impact of such material. Secondly, there is nothing
to stop the public raising any issues of appropriateness with those
responsible for the independent audit of the health authority, as they
could with the local authority. Those are important
considerations.
If
the material is within the council’s publication, as opposed to
something that it does separately, the code covers it. Therefore, it
covers things done by third parties for the local authority’s
publication. If they do it separately, it is not covered, but if the
local authority has published it and used the public purse, it would
be. It would depend slightly on the factored degree, but that is how it
is caught. I hope that deals adequately with the hon.
Gentleman’s
point.
I
hope that has also dealt with the thinking behind the council newspaper
element of the proposals. We contend that the proposals are not
anti-localist. They are consistent with localism, because of that broad
definition of localism and the other elements of a free and vibrant
community, including the press and other organs. There is considerable
detail, for example on websites, to ensure that modern forms of
communication
are also caught and that people cannot get around the rules by having a
web edition that goes beyond the code for a printed
edition.
The
second substantive change relates to the use of lobbyists by local
authorities. Under the draft code, local authorities should not retain
lobbyists with the intention of publishing any material designed to
influence public officials, Members of Parliament, political parties or
the Government to take a particular view on an issue. The simple point
is that it is a waste of public money—it is not a proper use of
it—for local authorities, which are public bodies, to hire
political lobbyists from commercial organisations to contact Ministers
and Members of this House to seek to persuade them of a particular
view, when in reality they already have rights of access. As hon.
Members know, the door of the Department is open to people who wish to
make representations, and local authorities have the right to approach
their constituency Member of Parliament, who will, I know, diligently
raise any matters with Ministers. There are channels of communication
that are properly open and available. It is not appropriate that a
third party makes a profit, in effect, from the public purse by making
an approach that could be made directly. That is why we think that that
goes beyond what is
acceptable.
It
is certainly not intended to limit the local council from approaching
and seeking to make a case to Ministers or Members of the House. The
local government spending review is a good example. My fellow
departmental Ministers and I received a considerable number of
delegations of councillors and chief officers from local authorities
seeking to make a point about the spending settlement’s impact
on their authorities. We were happy to meet them and listen to them
with our officials. That is the exact way in which it should be done.
That is legitimate lobbying—lobbying with a small L. It is not
the commercial lobbying that the code seeks to deal with. That is an
important safeguard and
distinction.
Mr
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab):
This is one of
the recommendations of the Select Committee on Communities and Local
Government that received a positive response from the Government. It is
important that the Minister put it on the record that this is not
intended to prevent local authorities from employing a specialist firm
to help them prepare a case on a specialist matter to be made to the
Government. Indeed, they may go with them to meet Ministers in an
advisory capacity. Nor is it intended to prevent them from employing a
lobbying firm to give them advice, as long as the firm does not do the
stupid thing of ringing ministerial offices or MPs to make an
appointment, which, I agree, would be a complete waste of
money.
Robert
Neill:
I am glad to say that we are pretty much at one on
that. I can imagine a scenario in which some necessary technical
expertise would be properly hired by a local authority to make its case
about an element of funding or some other aspect of policy. It is
certainly not intended that that should be caught. The distinction
relates to the sort of scenario described by the hon. Member for
Bassetlaw, who referred to Nottinghamshire county council. I accept
that point.
An issue
arises when a general public affairs company is in receipt of funding.
I think that Nottingham city council spent about £110,000 on a
public affairs company
in 2007-08, and it is that general kind of lobbying
that the provision is intended to cover. I note that that council has
not been persuaded to publish its spending over £500 online yet,
unlike everybody else, but that is a different point. The hon. Member
for Sheffield South East and the Select Committee report made an
important distinction, and I am happy to confirm that it is reflected
in the wording of the code and the Government’s intention. I
will happily respond to any
comments.
2.54
pm
Chris
Williamson (Derby North) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship for, I think, the second time, Mr Turner. Our
view is that this is an unnecessary sledgehammer to deal with an issue
that is not of great public concern. Local authority publications do
not pose any realistic competition to local newspapers. There is no
genuine evidence to substantiate that they do. If we look at the
decline in circulation of local newspapers, it is not fair or
reasonable to point the finger at municipal publications. The reason
for the decline is much more deep-seated. It is the rise of
new media—the internet, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and so on
through which people communicate their message—that is the
bigger reason for the decline. Indeed, in my experience, most local
newspapers put their content, completely free of charge, on the net, so
that people can access the news produced by their local paper without
paying a cover price for it. The decline in circulation is more to do
with those factors than the municipal publications provided by local
authorities around the
country.
I
am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged and supports the need for
local authorities to communicate with their communities. I think he
said that it was “key” for a local authority to
communicate with its communities. From my period of serving on the
Local Government Association and being loosely involved with its
reputations campaign, it seems to me that municipal publications are
vital to ensure that the local electorate are aware of the services
provided by the authority, and to highlight local concerns and how
local people might respond to
them.
Bob
Russell:
Would the hon. Gentleman concede that the
publication of television programme listings is not the role of the
local council
newspaper?
Chris
Williamson:
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s
point; I would not necessarily have done it when I was the leader of
Derby city council, but that is a matter for local determination. The
point to bear in mind is that it is important that the communications
produced by local authorities are engaging and encourage people to pick
them up and read them. In a local authority that includes the TV
listings, a judgment may have been made that that is a way of ensuring
that people use the publication. If they look at the TV listings, they
might also flick through and find out about services provided by the
authority. It is down to local judgment whether that is the right
approach, but I see the sense in doing it. It would be a waste of money
if a local authority produced a publication that was very dull and
unengaging, and that people were very unlikely to read. What would be
the point of that? The key is to produce an attractive publication that
is engaging and does what it is supposed to do, which is to communicate
information about the area and about local authority
services.
The Minister
did not mention it directly, but he alluded to a point that my hon.
Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made about publications being used to
engender party political support. However, legislation is already on
the statute book that prevents local authority publications garnering
support for any political party. As that legislation exists, the code
is unnecessary—if the Minister’s intention is to address
that point—because the issue does not
arise.
In
responding to the hon. Member for Colchester, I made a point about
local determination. We have heard a lot from the Government about
localism and the right of local communities and authorities to
determine what is right for the area that they represent. I can
do no better than to quote the words of the leader of the
Liberal Democrat group on the Local Government Association in his
evidence to the Communities and Local Government
Committee.
Bob
Russell:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was going to
use that
quote?
Chris
Williamson:
I was not, but I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. The quote is
this:
“It
is surely hypocritical for a Government to say that its priorities are
localism, localism, localism, and then try to define in a whole number
of ways, including this one, precisely how we should carry out our
business.”
I
could not agree more. It is rare for me to agree with a Liberal
Democrat, but I think that on this particular occasion he got it
absolutely spot
on.
Another
point worth considering is that local authorities are under extreme
financial pressure. They have been singled out for the single biggest
cut of all public service sectors. Over a 4-year period the Department
for Communities and Local Government will see a reduction approaching
68% in real terms. When local authorities are having to make very
difficult decisions about their budgets, and if this proposal goes
through it will cost them more, how can that possibly be justified? For
example, one colleague in local government, the mayor of Hackney, told
the Select Committee that the cost of placing this year’s
statutory notices in local newspapers would be in the order of
£543,000, compared with £448,000 for putting them in his
fortnightly council newsletter.
A perhaps
unintended consequence of the Minister’s proposal will be that
hard-pressed local authorities such as Hackney will find themselves in
even more financially straitened circumstances. That will be a direct
consequence of this proposal. If we are serious about localism and
genuinely believe in the ballot box, surely this is a matter that
should be decided by the local electorate in the areas where municipal
newsletters are distributed? If the local electorate believe that it is
a waste of money, and that local authorities are producing more
newsletters than required, they have the perfect solution through the
ballot box. Why do a Government who claim to support “localism,
localism, localism” feel that it is appropriate to intervene in
this way? It does not make
sense.
I
was interested in the Minister’s response to the question that
my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East asked about
lobbyists, and I am grateful for
that clarification. I was interested in his
comment—I am paraphrasing here—that it would be wrong for
a private organisation or company to make a profit through the use of
public money. Does that mean that the Minister is rethinking his
externalisation agenda? Does he believe that more local authority
services should be provided by an in-house work force, rather than
farmed out to the private sector to enable companies to make a profit
using public money? I would be interested if he could clarify that
point for
me.
We
have no difficulties with the seven principles in the proposal as such;
it is about the detail. It is not appropriate for the Government to
meddle with the frequency with which local authorities distribute their
newsletters. Nor is it appropriate for the Government to meddle in
local authorities’ use of lobbyists, although I am grateful to
the Minister for his clarification of that point. It seems that the
Government are not meddling overmuch in that regard. From what the
Minister says, it seems that it would still be acceptable for local
authorities to get expert support in certain circumstances, perhaps to
make a case for their area having a greater share of resources to bring
in new inward investment. It is important that local authorities are
able to acquire expertise that may not exist in their work force, to
ensure that they can make the best possible case for their local
area.
The
frequency of the distribution of newsletters must be a matter for local
councils and the local electorate who vote for them, particularly
because hard-pressed councils such as Hackney might have to find
another £100,000 to satisfy the terms of the decision if it goes
through. That would be a genuine waste of public money. The
measure is a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it is not necessary and I
urge the Minister to think
again.
3.6
pm
Bob
Russell:
It is probably just the excesses of a few local
authorities that have provoked the proposals. After reading them, I
think that the Colchester Courier—the Colchester borough
council publication—will not be adversely affected, if it is
affected at all. It is complementary to the local media and not in
competition with it, whereas the examples that the Minister has brought
to our attention are local newspapers in all but
name.
I
advise Members of my local newspaper background; indeed, I also have a
local government background. I worked on local newspapers and for a
time I was the editor of a local newspaper. In those days, the vast
majority of the community bought the local newspaper. In fact, we
carried house adverts that boasted of the fact that we sold more
newspapers than there were households in the community—100%
penetration. The figure is only about 30% now, if that.
Local
councils have a duty to get their messages across to their community,
but not to provide alternative newspapers. That is the important point.
As an aside, may I ask the Minister if he would comment on Suffolk
county council spending in excess of £1,000 so that the chief
executive could have glamour photographs taken to distribute? In case
people get too excited, I should add that the chief executive is a
female.
I
am grateful to the spokesman for the Opposition for quoting Councillor
Richard Kemp, as I wanted to do so too. Councillor Kemp is absolutely
right; it should not
be for central Government to tell local councils what they should or
should not do, but it is the role of central Government to make sure
that there are parameters beyond which local councils do not go, and I
say that as a former council leader. Indeed, it was in the halcyon days
when I was leader of Colchester borough council, when the sun shone
every day, that the Colchester
Courier was established. Over the
years, it has been well received by the community. If my memory is
correct, it has even won awards, so the Department for Communities and
Local Government may want to look at it as an example of best
practice.
However,
I question whether central Government should tell local councils what
their publications should look like. That is a matter for local
decision, provided that councils do not stray into the party political
arena. If they want to use photographs or a certain typeface, that
should be at local discretion. I can inform colleagues that a wonderful
newspaper called the Colchester Star comes out from time to
time, in which the hon. Member for Colchester is portrayed as a good
guy—that the newspaper is published by Colchester Liberal
Democrats is just one of those extraordinary coincidences. However, we
are talking about a local council promoting its leader or leaders in a
party-politically biased way. It is one thing for a political party to
put out its own literature, but it is another thing for a local council
to put out a party-political piece of literature. Unfortunately, a
handful of local authorities appear to have strayed into that area,
which is why we are in Committee
today.
I
will be supporting the draft code, but I urge the Minister to reflect,
as the year unfolds, on whether the powers we are discussing will
become necessary. We must trust our local councillors, those of all
political persuasions and none. I am concerned that, while parameters
are necessary, they should be elastic rather than a
stranglehold.
3.11
pm
John
Mann:
I object to this puny proposal, perhaps for entirely
the opposite reasons to those of the Opposition spokesman, my hon.
Friend the Member for Derby North, who is concerned about the draft
code going too far—it goes nowhere at all. The proposals include
nothing to stop the appalling practice of Nottinghamshire’s
Conservative county council which does not advertise anything in the
local press, so supporting free enterprise, the freedom of the press
and local newspapers, but instead puts it all inside its own in-house
publications. That does not mean a shift in how the general public see
things.
We
are rather over-governed in this country, with MEPs, MPs and, in my
area, county councillors, district councillors and parish councillors.
I have parish newsletters, sometimes done by the church, which are
excellent. I advertise in them and give them good information and
factual stories to run, which they like to put in. They are well read
and well received by the local community. They are excellent, and the
taxpayer pays
nothing.
Then
we have district council publicity. We have a district council, now run
by the Conservatives for some time, although no one seems to know who
runs it. No one reads its publicity, because when the free newspaper
arrives, Bassetlaw News, it goes straight in the recycling bin.
We also have Nottinghamshire County News, which
is an even worse publication. With the district council newspaper,
whoever is council leader gets his photograph on the front page and the
inside page, and can attack regularly anonymous sources—that
means me—for disinformation. With the county council publicity,
they all have their photo in—hundreds of photos of councillors
from all parties, and they all think it vitally important. When the
householder gets all of them, they are recycled immediately as well.
Indeed, the shrewd householder has the recycling bin next to the letter
box, so it is straight in, straight out—a bit like Liberal
Democrat leaflets, were we ever to get
them.
The
question is not whether councillors are stupid enough, on the rates, to
waste money on propaganda that no one reads, conning themselves, as the
Tory leader of Bassetlaw council is conning himself at the moment, that
someone reads such stuff. The question is about the public information
that Tory Nottinghamshire county council is not putting in the public
domain, in newspapers which the public actually read to see what is
happening and to look for jobs or at planning issues. For example, no
one knows that the incinerators were passed, because they were
advertised inside internal publications. Everyone is saying to me,
“Well, what’s this? Where’s this come
from?” I say, “I don’t know, what
incinerator?” They tell me that there is one about to be built.
I go and check, and I cannot find anything in the public domain. I have
to challenge the authority then to force it to backdate the proposal
and go through all the processes again, wasting more public money. That
is what happens when the Tories are in charge of Nottinghamshire county
council. To be fair, I suspect that should other parties have control,
or when they did in the past, they would love the fact that they could
have their photograph in propaganda that nobody ever read.
So, I have a
dilemma. The draft code does not do what it should do, which is to
ensure that public information is properly put across. Instead, it puts
in some arbitrary limits. I heard what was said about the health trust,
but this is the biggest scandal. Here we have a Tory-Liberal coalition
cutting hospitals, trying to get rid of accident and emergency and
maternity wards. Using taxpayers’ money, hospital foundation
trusts, such as the Doncaster and Bassetlaw foundation trust, are
attacking good MPs like me, anonymously, for the truth we have told and
using taxpayers’ money to do it through council
propaganda—that is what is going on. I am sure that the Minister
has read it, though to be fair it would be difficult, as I said
earlier, for him to get hold of these newsletters and newspapers
because they are binned so quickly. However, I am sure that somewhere
in county hall and in Bassetlaw district there will be one copy left
that I will be able to
provide.
The
problem, of course, is the Minister. He cannot get his head round it.
The newspaper industry—they love these publications. Johnstone
Press prints these things, which is why they look like newspapers. Now,
the Minister must have got his head around that. They look like
newspapers because they are printed cheaply by the newspaper
industry—by the same people. The Johnstone Press produces the
Worksop Guardian—a very good newspaper with a very good
column in it that is well worth reading and available on the
internet—the Mansfield and Ashfield Chad and other great
publications, but it also prints the diatribe on the rates that nobody
reads.
The Minister
has not quite got this legislation anywhere near where he wants it to
be. What we need is to stop bodies doing this kind of thing. We need to
stop the pretence that we get on health cuts, which are being put
across as if they are council information and public information. It
would be dangerous if anyone ever read it, which they do not, because
they bin it.
The
Government are trying to get rid of unnecessary regulation—that
is what the Chancellor said—but they have immediately come in
with some unnecessary regulation today. The Minister had better have a
word with the Chancellor to see whether this one will be
“cleared”. This is the cycle that they get into when they
bring forward unthought-out, unreconstructed attempts at creating a few
headlines before the local elections.
I would like
to see some proper clarity to stop these health bodies, which are
misleading the public in their attempts to persuade them—using
taxpayers’ money—that cuts are in their favour,. That is
what the Minister and the Government should be concerned about, but of
course they love these cuts, because they are behind them. They are not
going to stop that kind of propaganda on the rates. I hope that the
Minister—having had a word with the Chancellor to see if he can
get clearance for this new regulation that he has introduced, and which
the Chancellor says we are not going to have any more of—will go
and have a look at the rubbish put out by Nottinghamshire county
council and Bassetlaw district council, one of which will not be
Conservative-run by early May, to ensure that they are not doing
anything improper by putting across the cuts that they are making and
trying to pretend to the general public that is what they
want.
This
job-cutting Government were given the opportunity to create a brand new
enterprise park—let us call it an enterprise zone—in the
town of Worksop only three weeks ago, but they backed a moribund Tory
council and stopped the creation of 1,000 jobs at the Vesuvius site,
saying that such a zone would not be in the interests of the general
public. The council has used its publications—I have kept
copies—to put forward its case against the enterprise zone. So
effective were those publications so that one person was in favour of
stopping the creation of those 1,000 jobs, whereas I was able to get
12,500 in favour of creating them. My hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield South East is right to say that the electorate should
determine the question and, on 5 May, they will determine
the future of this rotten council. I can assure the Minister of that.
He would be welcome to observe the results that night, and I hope that
he remembers this discussion when he has to comment on
them.
That
example demonstrates the fallacy of propaganda on the rates—a
Tory council proposing a useless policy that nobody agrees with and
nobody reads because the leaflets are immediately recycled. The
Minister should apply his mind to stopping these health bodies using
such propaganda to put across Tory and Liberal cuts, because the public
do not want them.
3.21
pm
Mr
Betts:
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, Mr
Turner. I am not a member of the Committee, but I attend as Chair of
the Communities and Local Government Committee, which held an inquiry
on the proposed
changes to the code of practice. It made recommendations to the
Government and it has had a response. I shall comment on that later,
but I wish to begin with a few brief personal
comments.
I
stand by the Committee’s reports, but I instinctively come at
this issue from a localist perspective. From the debate today it is
clear that there is more than one interpretation of localism. Indeed,
the Minister gave a very interesting and inventive interpretation,
although I have to say that I was not totally convinced by it.
Even if I disagree with something that a local council does—and
I look at some of the publications and think that I would be rather
upset if they were being published in my constituency—my general
instinct, as a Member of Parliament or, hopefully, a Minister, is that
that is no reason to legislate to stop it. That is the fundamental
issue of localism. Ministers and MPs can have views, but we should not
try to enforce them on a local
authority.
The
principles of even-handedness and objectivity laid down in the code
would be sufficient on their own to exclude party propaganda and
stories designed to put the point of view of one individual or group. I
just wish we had stopped there—and that is broadly a criticism
of the previous Government as well, who had a much more detailed code
of practice. I am therefore not making a party point, but I am
stressing the localist
agenda.
If
I may put my Chair’s hat on, I first thank the Government for
the way in which they have approached this. The Select Committee
decided to have an inquiry and it was sensible of the Government to
agree to share the evidence they received with us, rather than us
having to have a separate call for evidence, which would in most cases
have been a duplication. Given the time it took to hold that brief
inquiry and get our report together, the Minister agreed to postpone
slightly the publication of the Government’s conclusions so that
they could take our comments on board—if not in their
entirety—and respond to them before the final version of the
code was produced. I thank the Government for that approach, which was
the proper process for Governments and Select Committees to follow in
acting together and exchanging information.
I have four
substantive points to make. The Select Committee found
that
“scant
evidence has been presented to this inquiry, and to previous
inquiries”—
the
Culture, Media and Sport Committee also had an inquiry on this
issue—
“which
would sustain the claim that local authority publications have
contributed significantly to the decline of local newspaper advertising
revenues or
sales.”
It
is the change in people’s approach to newspapers that is the
cause. Young people do not buy them as much as older people did, so the
demographics are changing, and use of the internet has also increased.
That is what is changing sales and advertising potential for local
newspapers. That is happening across the country, whether councils have
publications or not.
I did not
agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw
said, but he made one point that was absolutely correct. If we look at
the damage to
local authorities, I am not sure whether that can be
substantiated—there is very little substantiation. If we look at
the contracts that newspapers have for printing local authority
publications, we find that the commercial presses are making more money
out of those arrangements than they are losing in sales and revenue
because local authority publications exist.
The Select
Committee found—going along with the drift of what has been
policy over many years—that there should be a code of practice.
It recognised that a small number of newspapers gave general
concern—and they were newspapers. The Government are minded in
the code to say that local authority publications should not look like
newspapers and should restrict their content to local authority
activities. If such publications do that, if they state clearly that
they are from the local authority, and if they look at
cost-effectiveness, why is it necessary to say that a local authority
cannot publish five times a year? It seems complete overkill. A local
authority might publish four publications, with its last being in
January. If something big came up that it needed to explain or
communicate to its electorate in February or March, it would be
prohibited from doing so. The Select Committee thinks that in that
measure, the Government take a step too
far.
I
have raised the matter of lobbyists with the Minister, and I think we
have got there, but I want to be certain. It seems that the Government
are concerned about activity rather than organisations. However, an
organisation can be labelled as a lobbyist firm, but it might have some
specialists from whom a council might want to seek advice on a
particular issue. That process would not involve the firm picking up
the phones and arranging meetings with Ministers or MPs, but it might
help the local authority to put a case together. I hope such situations
will not be prevented, but from what the Minister has said, they will
not be. Essentially, the measure is about local authorities not
employing people to do the up-front work of making the contacts and
setting up the meetings. They must not try to do those aspects of
lobbying as opposed to providing information. Information could be
provided by firms, and such firms might be labelled as lobbyists even
though they might not be doing purely lobbyist activities. I would like
clarification on that matter.
Finally, we
might find something that we can agree on completely. I am disappointed
that we have not had a slightly more positive response from the
Government about the publication of statutory notices. The Select
Committee agreed unanimously on those—indeed we have written
back to the Government following their response. Statutory notices are
a very expensive issue for many local authorities. Some authorities
told us that the cost of publishing a fortnightly newspaper was cheaper
than paying for statutory notices, so we should ask ourselves whether
they are cost-effective. Who reads them? They are published in
commercial newspapers and may be a source of revenue for them. In terms
of value for money for local authorities, however, who reads about the
road closures and the planning notices? We must find a better way to do
it.
The Select
Committee received a response from the Government. All we asked was
that statutory notices be reviewed; we did not say that they should be
abolished or that there was another way of doing it, we simply wanted a
review to find out whether statutory notices
were fit for purpose in the modern age. The response was that the
Secretary of State had been clear that
“in the internet
age, commercial newspapers should expect over time less state
advertising as more information is syndicated online for
free”.
Commercial
newspapers should expect that to be so, but they are obliged to publish
statutory notices; they cannot choose to do that elsewhere.
Perhaps the
Minister and I might end up on a point of agreement. Will the
Government at least say, without committing to abolishing statutory
notices, that they will institute a review to see whether a real saving
could be made in expenditure to hard-pressed local authorities at this
difficult time?
3.29
pm
Robert
Neill:
This has been a useful and interesting debate. I am
grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. They have raised
important points, which I shall seek to do justice to. I hope
that I can do so succinctly and in the same careful spirit within which
they were raised.
In response
to the hon. Member for Derby North, I think there is a
difference. I do not accept the characterisation of this as a
sledgehammer. There is perhaps a difference of view, but I stand by the
Government view that localism can and should properly be defined as
including more than the institutions and organs of the council. As for
partisan support, of course, there are rules that deal with partisan
matters. However, the vice that is complained of here, goes beyond that
which is merely partisan in terms of electoral rules and other
regulations. It is the steady promotion of a particular view; more to
the point, the potential squeezing out of an alternative source of
information and challenge. That is the difficulty with which we are
dealing. That is why, for example, the use of the TV listings as a sort
of loss leader to attract people away from other independent
publications is a greater vice than just the amount of pages it is
printed
on.
When
the hon. Gentleman talks about costs, we need to look at the costs in
terms of statutory notices. I will come back to that in a moment,
because the matter was raised not just of the cost of the statutory
notice, but the total costs of publication, production and distribution
of the papers. One has to compare like with like. In that regard, it is
worth noting that the impact assessment gives a best estimate in terms
of its overall picture of the analysis of costs of about £28.8
million and benefits of about £51.5 million. Overall, we
anticipate savings from this proposal. The estimated total savings to
local authorities on the cost of producing newspapers is put at about
£2.9 million a year. Those may not be significant sums in the
overall scheme of local government expenditure, but they are
significant if it is a local newspaper, which is against competition
from that source, and is perhaps in a difficult and marginal
situation.
That
independent challenge is important, as that is the means by which one
can assist the elector to pass judgment on the council at the ballot
box. That is the important point to bear in mind here. That was taken
up by the hon. Member for Colchester, who made a very fair point. I
accept that there is a difference between parameters and a complete
free-for-all. It is not the Government’s intention to go beyond
the wording of
the code. We think that deals with an abuse in a
minority of local authorities. I stress that again, but the abuse can
be serious in its impact on the publications in the
area.
In
response to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I cannot believe that anyone
would mistake him for an anonymous source. He has a certain uniqueness
about him. We may not agree—he comes from a different angle from
the rest of his party—but he is not entirely unfamiliar with
that situation. In the age of modern technology, if people want both
information and entertainment, we could produce a DVD of the hon.
Gentleman’s speech and circulate it, but it will probably need
an imprint on it, just to ensure that it did not fall foul of his hon.
Friend the shadow Minister’s concerns about partisan matters.
One point the hon. Gentleman raised is the value of parish newsletters,
and that is why we have excluded parish newsletters from the
restrictions on frequency and circulation. They do not compete with a
commercial newspaper, so we have adopted a different approach, which we
think is fair and
proportionate.
In
response to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, I am grateful for
his comments about the way we have sought to appreciate it. The test is
not whether I like it or not, or any other Minister or hon. Member
likes it or not. It is whether or not the conduct has a deleterious
effect on someone else. That is the vice we seek to deal with here;
that is where the unfair competition has a deleterious effect on the
newspapers in that area. That is why we seek to do it.
I hope that I
have clarified the position on lobbyists. I can make it
abundantly clear for the hon. Gentleman that, under the revised code,
local authorities should not retain lobbyists with the intention of
using them to publish any material designed to influence public
officials to take a particular view on any issue. I confirm, as I said
before, that it is acceptable to retain experts to give professional
advice on technical issues; the code is against the retention of
lobbyists for political ends. It is that common-sense distinction that
we are keen to
promote.
Mr
Betts:
I just wanted to ask whether the Minister will
comment on statutory notices. Will he come to
that?
Robert
Neill:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and valid point,
and I am grateful to him for reminding me about that issue. It is fair
to say that in the internet age, everyone, including the commercial
newspapers themselves, should expect that over time there will be less
state advertising, as information is often syndicated online for free.
We have asked the Newspaper Society how it can work with commercial
newspapers to make statutory advertising more effective. There are some
examples of good practice in the field. However, in a digital age, it
is reasonable to ask whether local authorities should for ever be
compelled to place advertisements in local papers. The issue is not
entirely straightforward, and it is one where we want to proceed
carefully.
Mr
Betts:
Proceeding carefully does not exclude having a
review to which everyone can contribute. Can the Minister not go that
little step further and say, “Yes, there will be a
review”? It seems to be an issue on which there are many views,
not least from local councils themselves.
Robert
Neill:
Having asked the Newspaper Society to come up with
a response, it would be courteous to wait for it to do so before taking
the next step, but this is not something that the Government intend to
ignore in the long term. Having dealt with the points raised by hon.
Members, I commend the draft code to the
Committee.
Question
put.
The
Committee divided: Ayes
9
, Noes
7
.
Division
No.
1
]
Berry,
Jake
Buckland,
Mr
Robert
McCartney,
Jason
Mercer,
Patrick
Neill,
Robert
Russell,
Bob
Stride,
Mel
Walker,
Mr
Robin
Wiggin,
Bill
Dowd,
Jim
Mann,
John
Moon,
Mrs
Madeleine
Qureshi,
Yasmin
Smith,
Angela
Wicks,
rh
Malcolm
Williamson,
Chris
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Code of Recommended Practice on
Local Authority
Publicity.
3.38
pm
Committee
rose.
