4 Issues raised by provisions in the
Code
Localism
46. No witness to this inquiry criticised the
seven core principles set out in the revised code; indeed most
were actively supportive of them. Such principles are well established
in current best practice and feature strongly in the professional
codes of conduct operated by both the National Union of Journalist
(for journalists) and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations
for (other) professionals working in public sector PR.
47. Nonetheless, every witness to this inquiry
representing local government—both principal authorities
and lower tiers—argued that certain provisions in the revised
code undermine and run counter to the localism agenda. Cllr Richard
Kemp, speaking for the Local Government Association, argued,
"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".[53]
Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe, representing London Councils, made the
same point in more forthright terms: "Local council publications
have been described as town hall Pravdas, but in scope this diktat
[the proposed code] is worthy of North Korea."[54]
Meanwhile John Findlay, Chief Executive of the National Association
of Local Councils, suggesting that the scope of the proposed code
of practice "is very much aimed at principal authorities"
rather than parish or town councils, warned that the Government
"would need to ensure that the localism and big society agenda
is not constrained in any way by these proposals."
[55]
48. The Minister for Local Government, Grant
Shapps, clearly disagreed, suggesting that "perhaps most
people misunderstand what is meant by localism. It does not mean,
for example, that Government simply ignores what is going on and
turns a blind eye to reality on the ground; it actually means
that the Government puts in place a framework to make sure that
localism can flourish".[56]
He continued, "One of the ways we need to do that in this
particular instance is ensure that local democracy itself—freedom
of speech and the ability of local publications to produce what
they see as the truth about local services—is not snuffed
out by state-sponsored so-called journalism. It is very important
that as Ministers we take seriously the responsibility to set
the framework and put in place something that enables local authorities
to communicate perfectly reasonably but, at the same time, does
not enable them to compete with publications that presumably present
a much fairer and more balanced profile of what is going on in
the community".[57]
49. Echoing numerous other responses to the consultation,
the LGA stressed that "Most councillors have a major desire
to communicate effectively with our constituents in our wards,
our neighbourhoods and across the council area as a whole",
and will do this using a wide range of methods or media including
their own news publications, especially when they need to reach
all parts of their local community.[58]
50. All three representative bodies (the LGA,
London Councils, and NALC) presented evidence that local authority
publications fulfil a role disseminating information that traditional
newspapers do not perform. No evidence was presented to us indicating
that local residents dislike local authority newspapers.
The LGA's Richard Kemp argued that recent government research
(commissioned by a Home Office working group of which the LGA
was a member) indicates that the most cost effective way for local
authorities to communicate with people remains that of opting
to "put a message on a piece of paper and stick it through
someone's letter box".[59]
51. In January 2010 the Audit Commission concluded
that "commercial newspapers remain the most important source
of information about the performance of local public services".[60]
A recent Ofcom study of Local and Regional Media in the UK published
in September 2009 also concluded that council periodicals continue
to be less valued for 'news' in general than other independent
sources.[61]
52. There is little disagreement, therefore,
about the appropriate and separate roles of the local independent
press, and of local authorities' own publications. There is, as
we have noted, also broad acceptance of the principles which the
proposed Code claims to espouse, which should work to support
and enhance those roles. As we note above, a typical local authority
periodical will include information about the services and activities
of the local council and its partners: this is an entirely appropriate
use of local taxpayers' money.[62]
It is those periodicals which look and feel like a local paper
and contain non-local authority content such as TV listings and
small paid-for advertising which the Code, rightly, aims to prevent.[63]
53. Notwithstanding the Government's avowed commitment
to 'localism', we are satisfied
that it is appropriate to produce a Code to regulate the production
of local authority publicity. However, we are concerned that
some of the changes proposed in the revised Code of Recommended
Practice on Local Authority Publicity run counter to 'localist'
principles and have potentially negative implications for local
democracy. The question must therefore
be whether there is evidence that the concerns which have been
raised about the publicity practices of certain local authorities
are sufficient to justify the detailed restrictions imposed by
the proposed Code—as opposed to the promulgation of some
guiding principles.
Frequency
54. Of the four provisions noted in paragraph
31 above, it is the proposal to constrain the frequency of local
authority publications to which councils object most seriously.[64]
As responses to the consultation and several witnesses to this
inquiry have made plain, the proposal to restrict council newssheets
to no more than four issues per year has little if any support
at any level of local government.
55. The LGA estimates this restriction will affect
around one in five local authorities. It warned that for many
first or second tier councils "focus newsletters would be
bad value for money if published as infrequently as four times
a year,"[65] and
suggested three quarters of authorities who responded to its latest
survey of council periodicals believe this constraint will push
up costs by forcing them to use more advertising and to print
more leaflets for direct mailing to reach every resident.[66]
London Councils went further, arguing that this restriction "suggests
that CLG Ministers do not recognise the need or value" of
town hall newspapers either to local councils or their local partners—including
hospitals, PCTs , police authorities, voluntary groups or community
organisations—which also use such publications.[67]
Citing his work as Mayor of Hackney, London Councils chair Jules
Pipe told us
I have spent the past five years moving £62
million worth of money from back-room office and efficiency savings
into the frontline, improving, changing and expanding services
while keeping the council tax frozen. Residents needed to be
informed about all those changes to services and that could not
be done just once a quarter. Distributing an additional leaflet
to houses every time an individual service changed for a particular
area would be far too expensive. Local newspapers won't and can't
be expected to carry that volume of information to local residents.[68]
56. Speaking for parish and town councils, John
Findlay of the National Association of Local Councils warned that
its members—many of which put out a monthly newsletter—"would
not want to see that restricted by a central direction".[69]
When challenged on this particular point the Minister appeared
to backtrack, telling the committee he agreed there was a need
"to separate out the parish councils" on the basis that
a parish newsletter "does not carry much of what might be
described as propaganda".[70]
57. Mayor Pipe concluded his evidence on this
point by telling us, "The question I would ask of the Ministers
behind this is: if we abide by all the rest of the points in the
code of conduct, why is the restriction on frequency necessary?".
The Minister's answers to that question relied heavily on the
claim that the content of newssheets was "propaganda":
[...] four times a year does not seem to me to be
terribly restrictive. I would have thought that if a local authority
communicated twice, three or even four times a year, in addition
to its leaflets that go out with the council tax and the numerous
other ways it has to get information out to its citizens, that
is not overly restrictive and would enable them to push whatever
sensible messages about bin collection they need to get out to
residents. […] Four times a year still feels quite regular
if you are a resident and something is stuck through your door.
It is enough to be remembered from one moment to the next. As
I am sure politicians in this room including myself know, if it
is much more than four times a year, you are operating an incredible
delivery service. The truth is that too many authorities produce
that delivery service off the back of their hard-pressed council
taxpayers. We simply cannot carry on having propaganda published
on the rates.[71]
58. We consider the issue of
"propaganda" to be dealt with adequately by the provisions
in the proposed Code relating to format and content. The evidence
suggests that a local authority's need to communicate information
to residents is commonly satisfied by no more than quarterly publication.
We have doubts, however, about the need to specify a maximum frequency
of publication within the Code and question whether such a prescription
sits well alongside a strong commitment to localism. We would
nevertheless expect councils to abide by the principles of cost-effectiveness
contained within the Code.
Statutory notices
59. The implications of the frequency restriction
contained in the proposed code for the cost of publishing statutory
notices provoked a great deal of comment in the responses to the
consultation. Local authorities have an obligation to publish
notices relating to range of applications (especially those related
to planning, licensing law and road closures) in at least one
local newspaper that appears no less frequently than once a fortnight.
Survey data from the LGA (supplied in its consultation response)
suggests that the vast majority of local authorities still currently
place most if not all their statutory notices in local newspapers,
at considerable cost to the local taxpayer. LGA estimates the
councils currently spend around £40m year on statutory planning
notices alone, and around £67.85 million (or an average of
£181,000 per authority) across the whole sector—a level
of spending the LGA points out represents "a significant
contribution to the commercial newspaper industry's turnover".[72]
60. Some councils—especially those in urban
areas where land use intensity ensures a higher than average number
of such notices must be published—opt to place such notices
in their own periodical. London Councils stated in its consultation
response that this was the rationale commonly cited for local
authority publications published more than once a quarter, especially
those that are fortnightly. As Hackney's mayor, Jules Pipe, explained
further:
The gross cost of putting a year's worth of statutory
notices in our local paper according to its rate card—this
organisation does not discount its rate card for local authorities,
because we have checked—would be £543,000. The gross
costs of producing 25 copies of our newspaper this year—I
am not trying to do any clever accounting by taking off any income
from adverts or anything—is £448,000 [...] Therefore,
certainly for us, the value for money argument is absolutely clear:
it will cost us several hundred thousand pounds more if this code
is implemented as is.[73]
Later, he made clear that the publication of statutory
notices was the main rationale for the frequency of the publication
of his authority's paper.[74]
61. Recent Local Government Association research
shows that an average council will pay its local newspaper just
over £100,000 per year to print public notices which are
routinely published online (and circulated in council newsletters).[75]
62. When questioned on this issue, the Minister
cited the work of the Audit Commission which found in 2009 that
on average only 5% of council periodicals contained statutory
notices, and less than 1% outside London.[76]
He failed to draw the conclusion from this, though, that it is
a significant issue in London itself. London borough newspapers
which appear monthly or more often will usually carry statutory
notices. As the Hackney figures show, this provision of the Code
has the potential to cost certain local authorities very significant
sums of money.
63. As London Councils points out in its consultation
response, the placing of statutory notices in the independent
press can also raise significant issues of equality and diversity,
especially in areas where the independent paper is not read by
large parts of the local community. Publication in a local authority
newssheet is likely to ensure much greater reach than publication
in an independent title which, for commercial reasons, may not
be circulated through a whole borough and will therefore fail
to reach some parts of the community.
64. The evidence we received suggests that the
requirements for the publication of statutory notices are ripe
for review. Cllr Kemp told us
If we take a statutory notice placed in the Daily
Post in Liverpool, we will do something about a road closure.
Frankly, we might as well stand on top of the Pier Head and chuck
the money away, because how many of my constituents will see a
road closure in the Daily Post or, for that matter, go through
the classified ads to see the bit in the Liverpool Echo? We ought
to be thinking very differently about how we communicate. The
only people who are interested in a very small road closure are
those who live in it and the two roads beyond. Why don't we
send out a special leaflet to them? Well, we do but we then put
in a statutory notice that no one reads. [...] We waste a fortune
on things that people do not read.[77]
65. Lynne Anderson, speaking for the Newspaper
Society, reminded us that "the reason why both the last Government
and the Scottish Parliament in the past year rejected the idea
of moving such statutory notices out of printed newspapers and
have them just posted on council websites was that members of
the public told them that they looked to their local papers for
these statutory notices, and it is an important part of the public's
right to know and access information, and not just to have these
things hidden away on a council website, where sometimes it might
possibly be in a council's interest to have it hidden from the
public gaze."[78]
Nevertheless both she and her colleague Simon Edgeley, Managing
Director of Trinity Mirror Southern, noted that local newspaper
groups recognised that more cost-effective solutions to the need
to get that information out were available, and were working with
local authorities to come up with them.[79]
The Minister also acknowledged the need for reform, conceding
that "we will see a change in the way that the statutory
notices are handled over a period of time."[80]
The Secretary of State himself is cited in the introduction to
the consultation on the proposed Code as recognising that "over
time, commercial newspapers should expect less state advertising
as more information is syndicated online for free".[81]
66. We consider it unsatisfactory
that local authorities should feel compelled to produce fortnightly
newssheets simply to meet the demands of statutory notice requirements.
We recommend that the Government review the publication requirements
for statutory notices, with a view to making them more cost-effective
and better able to take advantage of new means of publication
such as the Internet.
53 Q3 Richard Kemp for LGA. Back
54
Q4Jules Pipe for London Councils. Back
55
Q4 John Findlay for NALC. Back
56
Q80 Back
57
Ibid. Back
58
Q3 LGA Back
59
Q7 Back
60
Letter, 22.01.10 from Stephen Bundred, Chief Executive of the
Audit Commission to Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Minister for digital
Britain. Back
61
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/lrmuk.pdf. Back
62
Condoc, para 4 Back
63
Condoc, para 6 Back
64
Qq 4, 8. Back
65
Q5 Richard Kemp for LGA. Back
66
LGA consultation response. Back
67
Q4 Jules Pipe for London Councils. Back
68
Q5 Back
69
Q4 John Findlay for NALC . Back
70
Q84 Back
71
Qq 83, 85. Back
72
LGA consultation response para 11. Back
73
Q5 Jules Pipe for London Councils. Back
74
Q29 Back
75
LGA response to consultation. Back
76
Q84 Back
77
Qq 16, 19. Back
78
Q66 Back
79
Q66 Back
80
Q88 Back
81
Condoc, para 3. Back
| 
