Copied from Local Government Chronicle online

Local government must be prepared to take a stand
Council papers could turn out to be a testbed
6 March 2014 | By Emma Maier

Not long after the 2010 general election, the communities secretary set out his three priorities: localism, localism, localism.

This has not stopped him from taking a close interest in the operation of local authorities, including commenting on the frequency and type of bin collections, telling councils to share services (but to stop short of unitarisation), recommending they spend reserves on revenue spending and suggesting they should remove the chief executive role. To the untrained eye, this regular comment might seem somewhat directive. But we are assured that it is, in fact, simply “guided localism”.

The recently enacted Local Audit and Accountability Act brings more of the same. LGC understands Mr Pickles plans to use it to pursue one of his other focus issues: council newspapers.

Under the act, Mr Pickles will be able to direct one or more specified councils to comply with his publicity code, which says, among other things, that councils should not publish a newspaper more than four times a year.

Beyond issuing a direction, Mr Pickles does not have any powers of enforcement or intervention. Councils will only find themselves in court if a resident or pressure group, such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance or the Newspaper Society, takes it upon themselves to spend the £50,000-£100,000 needed to pursue legal action. In other words, it is relatively unlikely.

However, in the meantime, there is a small window between the act coming into force and the start of purdah in which political capital could be reaped from a press release headlined “councils ordered to scrap propaganda freesheets”.

There are many good reasons for councils to publish more frequently – not least that it can be the most cost-effective way to convey important information about services and local issues. With councils taking on responsibility for public health, there is more reason than ever to communicate with residents.

Attacking “expensive looking glossy publications” is seen by some to be an easy vote winner. But if councils are compelled to reduce the information they share with residents, and to spend more doing it, those who will lose out most will be residents.

This is an important issue over which councils should be prepared to take a stand – and to work together in the event that legal challenge is brought. The need of councils to communicate with residents is fundamental.

Council papers could turn out to be just a testbed. The publicity code also seemingly prevents councils from lobbying on behalf of residents on issues of government policy – something citizens living on the HS2 route or under the Heathrow flight paths expect their councils to do for them.

This edition is my last as LGC editor before moving to sister magazine Health Service Journal. I would like to thank LGC readers, contacts, columnists and partners for your valued support over the past five years, and to welcome acting editor Nick Golding. As the health integration agenda picks up I look forward to seeing how local government continues to develop.

Emma Maier, editor, LGC

Copied from the Local Government Chronicle online
Pickles set to move on publicity powers
6 March, 2014 | By Chris Smith

The communities secretary is preparing to step in and use new powers to try to prevent councils from publishing newspapers more than four times a year.

Five London councils are at the top of Eric Pickles’ hit list when he acquires new powers next month, LGC understands.

When the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 comes into force on 4 April, it will allow Mr Pickles to direct councils to comply with his 2011 publicity code, which states that councils should not publish more frequently than quarterly.

According to the most recent figures held by the LGA, 41 councils in England currently publish a newspaper more than four times a year. But Mr Pickles is understood to be focusing on five London boroughs: Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Greenwich, Newham and Waltham Forest LBCs.

Highest on the list is Tower Hamlets LBC, whose weekly publication East End Life, was named by Mr Pickles in Parliament as the worst offender in publishing frequency.

However, the legislation does not give Mr Pickles any powers of enforcement or intervention, so it is unclear what would happen if a council that had been issued with a direction chose not to follow it. It is thought that any legal challenge would need to be brought by residents or campaigners. The councils involved estimate legal costs of pursuing a case would be between £50,000 and £100,000.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance warned of potential court challenges but stopped short of committing to pursue a test case. Chief executive Jonathan Isaby said: “Those council leaders choosing to ignore the guidance are exposing themselves and their local authorities to legal action.”

The councils involved say that newspaper closures would lead to an increase in advertising charges from local paper owners. They also say increased costs would contravene the publicity code’s demand to be cost effective. They also say that the reach of their communication would be limited.

Hackney LBC said its review of costs for Hackney Today found that to produce a quarterly newsletter and place statutory advertising in a local newspaper would be more expensive than continuing fortnightly publication. The findings were supported by the council’s district auditor.

Hackney mayor Jules Pipe (Lab) said: “I have repeatedly told the secretary of state and his colleagues, both in writing and in person, that we will cease fortnightly production of Hackney Today as soon as he ends the costly and outdated requirement on councils to place statutory advertising in a local newspaper.”

A Greenwich RBC spokesman defended its publication, Greenwich Time: “The paper is published on a weekly basis to inform residents about local services and to promote social housing available through our choice-based lettings scheme. It has also reduced expenditure on advertising costs by approximately £1.5m per annum which we have passed back to our residents in the form of successive council tax freezes.”

A Department for Communities & Local Government spokesman said: “Ministers have been clear that they intend to take action to defend the independent free press from unfair municipal competition and stop any abuse of taxpayers’ money.”

The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014

This received Royal Assent on 30 January and comes into force on 4 April. It enables the communities secretary to direct one or more councils to comply with all or part of the publicity code. He must first write to a council informing them of his proposed direction.

Councils have 14 days to make their representations about the proposed direction. After the 14 days the secretary of state may make the direction.

Copied from Local Government Chronicle online
DCLG accused of ‘silliness’ over combined authority names
21 February, 2014 | By Kaye Wiggins

Councils forming combined authorities have accused the Department for Communities & Local Government of “silliness” and “kindergarten games” after being told they cannot use the word “region” in their names.

At least three of the four areas setting up the new authorities are embroiled in a row with the department, which has suggested changing their formal names before they are established on 1 April.

Roger Stone (Lab), leader of Rotherham MBC, said councils in the Sheffield city region had been asked to rename themselves as the Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster combined authority.

“I think it’s because Eric Pickles doesn’t like the word region, because it sounds too European,” he said.

“We’re insisting it be called the Sheffield city region because that’s what we all agreed on from the start of negotiations. And the DCLG’s alternative name would leave out North East Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Bolsover and Bassetlaw, which are all part of the combined authority.

“At the moment it’s like a tennis ball going back and forth. We’re insisting on the city region but DCLG wants it changed. It’s childish. It’s kindergarten games.”

Graham Burgess, chief executive of Wirral MBC, said the Liverpool city region was in a similar situation. DCLG officials have suggested a name change to the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral combined authority (HKLSSWCA).

“All six areas agreed on the name Liverpool City Region, but DCLG has refused to let us use the word region,” he said.

“So much for localism.”

Paul Watson (Lab), leader of Sunderland City Council, said he had been told DCLG officials wanted to prevent his area from using the name North East combined authority.

“They want to call it the Northumberland, Durham and Tyne and Wear combined authority which is a bit of a mouthful,” he said.

“It’s just silliness. I just want us to be left to get along with actually doing the work rather than having to spend time thinking about acronyms.”

A DCLG spokesman said: “A number of responses to the consultation requested a change of name, which is why we changed the legal name. If the new combined authority wants to use something snappier as shorthand, that’s a matter for them.”

READERS’ COMMENTS (1)

Roger | 24-Feb-2014 9:48 am
‘Silliness’, I think they are being far too polite when describing yet another stupid and petty diktat from Pickles and his minions.
Unsuitable or offensive?

Copied from Local Government Online
Second midlands county looks to unitary route
18 February, 2014 | By Mark Smulian

Proposals by Warwickshire CC to start a public debate on county unitary status come only a week after Leicestershire CC said a county unitary there could save £30m a year.

Conversion to county unitary status is also being considered in West Sussex despite lack of government enthusiasm for the model.

Seven counties converted under the previous government, but similar plans for Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk were halted by Eric Pickles in 2010 in one of his first acts as communities and local government secretary.

Warwickshire chief executive Jim Graham’s (pictured) report said the county needed to save £92m over four years and “unitary local government merits further exploration”.

If Warwickshire’s six councils were cut to one or two unitaries, fewer than 100 councillors would be needed, against 276 at present, and service delivery could be better integrated with less spent on administration.

Savings could reach £17m a year with a single unitary council, or £12m a year with two.

Mr Graham cited savings from councils that converted five years ago of an average of £15.6m a year.

The two-unitary option is designed to deal with different economic conditions in the county’s urban north and rural south.

Mr Graham said a change to unitary status needed government consent and while the coalition was “not actively inviting submissions within this term of Parliament, this could change beyond May 2015, and this does not preclude proposals generated locally from being put forward to government”.

The idea had a hostile reception from two district leaders. Nuneaton & Bedworth BC’s Dennis Harvey (Lab) said: “The borough council recently voted to oppose any idea of a unitary Warwickshire, which we believe is an unnecessary diversion from the savage cuts being made by the county to essential services.”

Rugby BC leader Craig Humphreys (Con) said: “I’m not sure why the county is spending time on something that can’t come to fruition, as some districts oppose it. We should not create remote monoliths.”

He said the position was complicated by Stratford-upon-Avon DC having set up shared services with Cherwell and South Northamptonshire DCs, neither of which is in Warwickshire.

West Sussex last week decided to canvass views on the unitary idea. Leader Louise Goldsmith (Con) said: “While one of the arguments for this approach is the money any such move would save – and that is potentially correct – there would be a considerable cost to making it happen in the first place. This is not a decision for the county council to arrogantly make without any reference or dialogue with our partners and residents.”

Local government minister Brandon Lewis poured cold water on the move towards unitaries.

“One of the first acts of the coalition government was to legislate to scrap the last administration’s plans for top-down unitary local government restructuring,” he said.

“Such top-down upheavals would have been expensive and disruptive, distracting from the need to promote growth and to tackle the deficit left by the last administration. This stance is, and remains, government policy. There is great potential for more locally led joint working and sharing of services in local government.”

Gloucestershire last autumn established a working group to explore the county unitary idea, but Brian Oostuysen (Lab), overview and scrutiny chair, said: “We met with all six district councils and there wasn’t unanimous support to move towards a unitary authority.”

READERS’ COMMENTS (1)

Roger | 19-Feb-2014 6:17 pm
As an administrative model, there’s probably little doubt that unitary is more cost effective than 2 tier can ever be.
Eric Pickles’s constant undermining of local government (with an occasional pause to equally and spitefully undermine the EA) is likely to see any reduction in democratic representation, go virtually un-noticed by the public until it’s too late.
Such undermining must surely come from expecting ‘volunteer scoutmasters’ to represent several thousands of taxpayers across the whole spectrum of local government.
Before any unitary councillors start sounding off, I’d like them to pause and think carefully if they really do believe that they can deal with issues in exactly the same way as district councillors do. If they can, is it because their unitary authority offers them a far greater level of admin support, than any small district council could dream of?
I actually agree that single tier authorities are better value and far less confusing and frustrating for the taxpayer. However, I don’t agree that you can simply cull every district councillor and pass on this work to the current county councillors. Nor do I believe that you can simply vacate every district council office and draw everything into county hall.
Finally, have all those councils that have gone down the unitary route, passed on their projected savings to their taxpayers, via substantial reductions in their council tax? Or, have they come up with token reductions, whilst the remained has been spent on so called service improvements?