Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alex Cunningham and Chris Williamson

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

No, I am not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) said in opening the debate, this proposal relates to substantial contracts. It does not include the smallest organisations and we must ensure that they are protected. However, I would say that such organisations have a responsibility to be accountable for anything that they do when spending public money.

In the new world, public and private providers will ultimately be responsible for delivering equivalent services, but they will be governed by different rules. If a public partnership wins a contract to deliver refuse services, it will be subject to the freedom of information provisions, but its private sector rivals for future contracts would not be. Why should that be so? Private contractors that provide services should undoubtedly be held to the same standards of responsibility as state providers. I do not believe that anyone can argue to the contrary. It is therefore logical that the right to information about their regimes and establishments should also be equivalent.

So that there is no mistake, I remind Members that in announcing measures in 2011 to allow the publication of further spending and performance data on public services, the Prime Minister spoke of the “power of transparency”. Indeed, he went on to assert that, “Information is power.” He even suggested that

“we need more of it.”

I know that this is unusual, but I agree with the Prime Minister that we need more of it.

To put it simply, many non-public sector providers shelter themselves from open scrutiny and operate behind a screen of secrecy that simply is not compatible with the principles of public service provision. Such stealth and secrecy cannot be allowed to continue. It is only right that as more and more public services that were once the sole preserve of local and national Government are contracted out beyond the public sector, steps are taken to ensure that the same access arrangements are required of private and voluntary sector providers. To do otherwise is unfairly to insulate the Government, the Department and favoured contractors from adequate scrutiny and accountability.

One of the major risk factors that flow from a position of secrecy is the potential for fraud and corruption. Other Members have addressed that point in more detail. In public service provision, that is a crime against each and every taxpayer, and the public should be granted protection against such transgressions by all providers of public services being made subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. We have already seen the failures of some companies that were happy to take the taxpayers’ billions, and some people may face legal action as a result. For such reasons, we cannot afford to overlook the importance of new clause 2. Its additional safeguards are particularly important given the Government’s recent poor track record on commissioning services.

I know that the Government will bang on about commercial sensitivity, but that is nonsense. This is about fairness, open government and, above all, trust. For those reasons, I fully support new clause 2.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to support the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), on new clauses 1 and 2. To some extent, we rehearsed the arguments in Committee, when the matter was considered in some detail. The Minister and his colleagues were singularly unconvincing in their opposition to our proposals, but I hope that, having had time to reflect on those discussions and the contributions of my hon. Friends today, the Minister will accept our reasonable new clauses.

On new clause 1, considerable amounts of local and national funding are now used jointly. It therefore seems appropriate that they are subject to proper scrutiny and auditing arrangements. To argue against that is unacceptable. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that funding is subject to proper scrutiny after deployment, particularly at a time when significant austerity and swingeing funding cuts have been imposed on public services, especially local government. They must ensure that we get the maximum benefit for the public pound in communities up and down the country. I hope the Minister will concede that the arguments that have been made are persuasive, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly.

On new clause 2, it seems appropriate that proper measures are put in place to ensure that we do not end up with a cosy relationship between auditors and local authorities. There is a real danger of that, particularly as the Audit Commission is to be abolished. There could be significantly increased opportunities for corruption and the misuse of public funds. We could find situations such as the infamous “homes for votes” scandal involving Westminster council and Shirley Porter—or maybe we would not find out about them. Without new clause 2, they would be more difficult to uncover, so there might be more such examples around the country, which would be extremely regrettable.

In the case of that Conservative-controlled council in Westminster, we saw more than just the “homes for votes” scandal. We know from the records of officers who were employed there at the time that the council leader, Shirley Porter, bullied officers, and that anybody who had the temerity to question her direction of travel was slapped down in no uncertain terms. They were told, “You’re not one of us”, or “You are a negative officer and you need to decide which side you are on.” That was totally unacceptable behaviour by the leader of a council, and I fear that such behaviour is likely to increase if new clause 2 is not accepted.

As I said, it was not just the “homes for votes” scandal. Shirley Porter rose to notoriety when she sold three cemeteries in London for redevelopment for 5p each—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Indeed. There is a happy partnership between many local authorities and the newspaper in their local area. It is a significant overstatement of the truth to suggest that local authorities producing their newspaper are in any way responsible for the decline in the local newspaper industry. Many other factors, not least access to online information, are responsible for the decline. What the Government seek to do will not arrest that decline and might make matters worse. The truth is that, where there is a partnership with the local newspaper serving the local authority area, limiting the number of times the council can produce information through its newsletters will diminish the local newspaper’s income stream. Far from assisting local newspapers, the Government will add to their decline. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to his connection with the NUJ. Let me quote the National Union of Journalists’ response to what the Government propose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, in many areas where there is no local newspaper, local people rely on the council publication for useful information and would regret the Government decision to limit the council’s ability to produce that for them. The NUJ says:

“In areas where there are no, or limited local newspapers, then sharing planning details, service changes and details of consultations on a quarterly basis is insufficient”.

It is clear that there is no evidence to support what the Government want to do. The amendment—this is pretty unprecedented, in my experience—is supported by the Local Government Association, a Conservative-led body. It is very rare for the LGA to come out and support an Opposition amendment. It is also supported by the National Association of Local Councils, the National Union of Journalists and members of the general public. It is hard to find anybody who has a good word to say about this Orwellian clause, save for a handful of hard-line Conservatives on the Government Benches.

I implore the Minister, if he has any semblance of concern for the feelings of the public or the wishes of the Tory-led Local Government Association, and if indeed he genuinely believes in a free press and freedom of speech, to support amendment 14, because that would be in the interests of freedom of speech and of the general public, ensuring that they have the information they need about services and other activities in their local area provided by the council. I hope that he will reflect on that and support the amendment.

[Alex Cunningham]

I rise to support amendments 14 to 16. Nothing is more likely to get the blood rising in the body of a journalist, even one who has not worked in mainstream journalism for half a lifetime, than the idea that someone wants to interfere in the message they are trying to deliver to their readers. That was my reaction when I first heard about the Secretary of State’s ambition to become editor-in-chief of all council publications, from city authority newspapers to parish council newsletters.

I spent many a happy year working as a journalist in the local and regional media and then in the communications industry for a blue-chip company. I never experienced any real interference, and certainly nothing like the level that the Secretary of State wants. Likewise, in my 20 years as a councillor, first for Cleveland county council and then for Stockton-on-Tees borough council, I never saw the abuse of power through publications of which the Secretary of State appears to be so terrified. It will therefore come as no surprise that, as a former journalist and councillor, I have particular concerns about clause 39, which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to comply with a specific code of conduct relating to their publicity materials.

If the Bill passes in its current form, as other Members have said, the Secretary of State will be appointing himself editor-in-chief of Local Government Inc. and assigning himself carte blanche to intervene, irrespective of whether he believes a local authority is complying with the code of practice. So that we are clear about the extent and reach of the proposed powers, I will explain that clause 39 would apply to all local authority publicity material, including newspapers, such as the quarterly Stockton News in my constituency which is delivered to so many residents across the borough to keep them informed about services and what is going on in the local authority area. It would apply to posters advertising the many events, schemes and projects that local authorities promote for the benefit of their citizens. It would also apply to the social media updates that local authorities provide to ensure that residents have up-to-date information.

As an aside, I would be fascinated to know how the Secretary of State plans to monitor the thousands of communications emanating from councils across the country every day. Does he have plans for an army of Twitter monitors, Facebook spies and online assessors to ensure that there can be no challenge to his authority? Of course not, so perhaps the Minister can explain just how that brave new world will be policed.

The powers proposed in clause 39 are entirely disproportionate and represent a stubbornly heavy-handed response, as the Government have identified only one example of a local authority apparently abusing its position. Even in that instance, as other Members have said, the local authority involved has denied the accusation of contravening the Government’s current code of recommended practice. I agree that any political bias would be unacceptable in local authority publicity, and the code of conduct requires objectivity, even-handedness and appropriateness. That much is beyond contention. It was with that in mind that we encouraged the Government to take action in cases where possible breaches are identified in order to ensure neutrality and fairness. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) has said, the Government have not even written to the local authority in question about the publication. I must therefore question whether the Secretary of State truly believes that a breach has been committed.

It is also worth repeating that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, through a series of freedom of information requests it has been established that, since coming to power in May 2010, the Government have not contacted a single local authority to express concern about potential breaches of the code. Perhaps they can tell us how many they expect to contact in the future under the new proposals. Assuming that the Government are implementing the current code of practice in full, we must take it from that that few councils, if any, are breaking existing recommendations. All of that prompts the following question: why fix something that is not broken?

When we bear these factors in mind, the context of the Secretary of State’s attempted power-grab politics becomes abundantly clear. With the lobbying Bill currently seeking to limit the campaigning that third sector and voluntary organisations are able to undertake, it appears that the unpopularity of the Government’s policies has begun to sink in. Is the Secretary of State really heading up a damage-limitation mission to control how local authorities communicate the politically toxic effects of the Government’s policies to their local communities merely by explaining the changes and cuts that they need to make?

We know from copies of the template press releases that the Department has issued to local authorities’ press teams that they encourage bias as they frame Government policy in what could only be described as positive terms. Does this mean that the Secretary of State will have to punish one of his own Conservative-led councils for being politically biased for printing material from his own Department? This illustrates the absurdity of his proposals and reveals an outrageous double standard, if ever there was one.

Clause 39 not only grants to the Secretary of State the ability to determine when and how local authorities can publish communications to local residents but assigns to him the ability to dictate the issues and information that they can communicate as well—perhaps an ideal set of circumstances that would put him on a par with the Rupert Murdochs of this world. Why does he not just ban all the newspapers, ban all the publicity and ban all the posters? It would have the same effect. If that were not extreme enough, he is similarly assigned the ability to control the language and phraseology that local authorities will be permitted to use. Perhaps the Government will manage to rid the public of the bedroom tax after all, but changing the words will not change the devastating effects that his policies are having on some of our most needy people.

I am sure that the significance of this move, coming as it does so soon after the intense debates that have been had on the topic of press regulation and the need to remove the risk of political interference and maintain the sanctity of free speech, will not be wasted on Members on both sides of the House. I am minded to ask the Secretary of State whether, were he to assume these new powers, his reformulated role would be compliant with the spirit of the royal charter in providing the public with better protection from press abuses while upholding the freedom of expression that is so central to our democracy. Surely those provisions should apply to him as well. A new term has been coined for him this afternoon—the censor-in-chief—which is certainly what he will be with these powers.

In short, such wide-ranging powers will disfranchise local authorities, removing any semblance of their discretion over communications with residents. Let us not forget that local authorities have a responsibility to represent those residents and to provide services for them, and that transparency and accountability are fundamental cornerstones of that duty. Were an authority unable to protect the interests of its residents, it would unquestionably be failing in its duties.

Given the Government’s agenda for the national planning policy framework, the plans before us appear to undermine their express goal of empowerment for local residents and fly in the face of their professed localism agenda. Members need not just take my word for it. Baroness Eaton, the former Conservative leader of Bradford council, has described as “regrettable” the proposal in the Bill that will

“centralise powers to the Secretary of State and allow central government to interfere with matters that should rightly be decided at a local level.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 902.]

Ministers have already made clear their intention to prevent local authorities from sharing information or commenting on the impact of Government policy if they disapprove of the message. That would inevitably have the effect of gagging local authorities in contentious policy areas. To give an illustrative example, a piece in Stockton News entitled “Challenging Times”, published earlier this year to inform residents of upcoming service changes, would be unlikely to make it past the Secretary of State’s red pen unscathed, referring as it does to

“a time of unprecedented reductions in Government funding to the Borough as a result of the Government’s austerity measures.”

The Secretary of State might not like the fact that Stockton borough council’s funding will have fallen by 40% between 2010 and 2016, but that is precisely what it is—a fact. We are talking about facts—political, maybe, but not politicised. That is crucial to the argument for upholding the freedom of speech. I should also make the point that, as far as Stockton News is concerned, no politicians, with the exception of the civic mayor, ever write or comment in it. The publication does not even quote them or publish pictures of them.

Local authorities often work with residents, community groups and MPs to promote the best interests of residents in matters such as the siting of local health provisions and national infrastructure developments. If the Government’s proposals pass, the Secretary of State could use clause 39 to block such collaboration, ultimately to the detriment of residents.