I first wrote about the Coalition’s irritation with East End Life in October 2011, when I wrote:
I think the Government is a touch fed up with East End Life and Tower Hamlets Council’s defiant little attitude to how it spends our money – and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see all these town hall publications brought under some form of new statutory footing that properly governs how often they can publish.
And so it has come to pass.
On the day Margaret Thatcher died on Monday, Eric Pickles signalled the end for East End Life (hat tip to David Boothroyd). Eric Pickles has launched a four week consultation aimed at putting town hall publications on a statutory footing.
The proposals would give the Government the power to make directions to councils they believe are abusing their duty to communicate with residents via overtly political publications. They would do this upon evidence that councils were not complying with the Publicity Code for local government…and it would be enforced, if necessary, by court order.
Here’s the announcement from Eric Pickles, who, surprise, surprise, has singled out dear old Tower Hamlets for special mention:
Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles proposes a toughening up of rules governing local authority publicity.
The Secretary of State today (8 April 2013) announced his intention to legislate council publicity rules in order to preserve a strong, vibrant and independent local press.
Although required to comply with the ‘Code of recommended practice on local authority publicity’, brought in by this government, Mr Pickles is seriously concerned about a rogue number of local authorities who continue to flout the rules and abuse taxpayers’ money by publishing “political propaganda”.
In the broadcast media, regulator Ofcom recently concluded that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had breached ‘The Communications Act 2003’, the ‘UK Code of Broadcast Advertising’ and the ‘Code on local authority publicity’. However there are no such restrictions which stop political advertising in print.
The consultation, launched today, is seeking views on how best to frame the new legislation to stop politically contentious advertising campaigns, municipal newspapers and the hiring of lobbyists by councils.
Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said:
“Some councils are undermining the free press and wasting taxpayers’ money which should be spent carefully on the front line services that make a real difference to quality of life. It should not, under any circumstances, be used to fund political propaganda and town hall Pravdas and yet a hardcore minority of councils continue to ignore the rules despite public concern.
“The line in the sand is clear, publicity material straying into propaganda clearly crosses that line, and this legislation will stop this disgraceful misuse of public money, which damages local democracy and threatens an independent, free and vibrant local press.”
This is a victory for local Tory leader Peter Golds who has been begging Whitehall to intervene for years.
The full details of the consultation are here.
But for ease of use, here they are (points 9 to 14 are the most interesting):
Introduction
1. The government is consulting on proposals to protect the independent press from unfair competition by introducing legislation providing the Secretary of State with powers to make directions requiring one or more local authorities to comply with some or all of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity’s (the “Publicity Code’s”) recommendations.
The Publicity Code
2. Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 provides that the Secretary of State may issue codes of recommended practice on local authority publicity. That section also provides that local authorities must have regard to any such code that is applicable to them when taking decisions on publicity.
3. On 31 March 2011 the Secretary of State issued a new Publicity Code, a copy of which is at the Annex to this paper. This Code replaced earlier Publicity Codes that were applicable to local authorities in England. It was issued after both Houses of Parliament had approved a draft of the new Code, this draft being prepared following a public consultation initiated in September 2010, and reflecting recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s Inquiry into the Publicity Code undertaken during the first Session of this Parliament.
4. The new Publicity Code applies to all local authorities in England specified in section 6 of the 1986 Act, and to other authorities in England which have that provision applied to them by other legislation. These local and other authorities include county and district councils in England, London Borough councils, parish and town councils, national parks authorities, the Broads Authority, and the Manchester Combined Authority.
5. The origin of this new Publicity Code is the Coalition Agreement, ‘Our Programme for Government’, commitment for the government to “impose tougher rules to stop unfair competition by local authority newspapers” and the general election manifestoes of both Coalition parties. Such unfair competition, funded by the local taxpayer, can prove damaging to the continued sustainability of local, independent, commercial newspapers that are an important element of effective local democracy.
6. The new Publicity Code therefore, includes specific guidance about the frequency, content and appearance of local authority newspapers, including recommending that principal local authorities limit the publication of any newspaper to once a quarter and parish and town councils limit their news letters etc. to once a month.
The new Code also represented a major reshaping of the earlier Codes, for clarity grouping the guidance under 7 principles. These principles are that local authority publicity should be lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate, have regard to equality and diversity, and be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity.
7. Underpinning this new Publicity Code is the recognition both that good, effective publicity aimed at improving public awareness of a council’s activities is entirely acceptable, and that publicity is a sensitive matter because of the impact it can have and the costs associated with it. It equally reflects the government’s view that local authorities should focus their resources on frontline services, reducing resources expended on publicity such as newspapers, and above all that it is wholly inappropriate for taxpayers’ money to be used to pay for material that could be perceived as political or competing with the independent press and media.
What we are proposing and why
8. Where local authorities comply with the recommendations of the Publicity Code, local taxpayers can be confident that any of their money spent by their council on publicity is being used appropriately; and local independent newspapers – important contributors to sustaining a vibrant local democracy – will not be at risk through unfair, taxpayer funded, competition. Whilst the majority of local authorities comply fully with the Publicity Code’s recommendations, it is a matter of concern to the government that there are still cases where this is not so – for example, continuing cases where there are weekly publications of council newspapers, or concerns about the political character of a council’s publicity. Local taxpayers and electors should be able to be confident that the statutory framework for local government provides an effective safeguard against any council using taxpayers’ money inappropriately or acting in a manner potentially damaging to others – the independent press – who have important roles in a democratic society.
Proposals for giving greater force to the Publicity Code
9. Accordingly, in the Structural Reform Plan for the Department for Communities and Local Government the Government has included a commitment to give greater force to the Publicity Code by putting compliance on a statutory basis. The Plan indicates the intention to introduce legislation providing the Secretary of State with a power to make a direction requiring compliance with some or all of the Publicity Code’s recommendations to protect local commercial newspapers from unfair competition from municipal publications. To fulfil this commitment and intention, the government is proposing, at the next convenient legislative opportunity, to legislate as described below.
10. This legislation would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make directions requiring one or more local authorities to comply with one, some, or all of the Publicity Code’s recommendations. It is proposed that a direction could apply to a single named authority, to a number of named authorities, to all authorities in a particular class, or to all authorities to which the Publicity Code applies. In this context the reference to authorities includes both local authorities and those other authorities to which the Publicity Code applies.
11. It is proposed that the Secretary of State would be able to issue any such direction whenever he considers it appropriate to do so. The Secretary of State may, for example, consider it appropriate to direct a particular council to comply with some specific recommendation of the Publicity Code because from the information available to him he considers the authority is not, or there is a risk that it might not, comply with that recommendation, compliance which the Secretary of State considers important. Equally, the Secretary of State may for example issue a direction requiring all or a class of authorities to comply with one or more recommendations, compliance with which the Secretary of State considers to be particularly important.
12. It is envisaged that prior to issuing a direction, the Secretary of State would be required to give notice to the authority or authorities in question of his intention to issue a direction to them. This would give the authorities an opportunity to take any action they considered necessary to prepare for such a direction, or to make representations to the Secretary of State as to why in their opinion a direction should not be issued. In the case of a direction to all or a class of authorities, the notification could be given to such representatives of the authorities concerned as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
13. A direction would be given in writing to the authority or authorities in question. The direction may, but need not, specify the time for compliance and / or the steps that the Secretary of State considers necessary for the authority or authorities to take in order to secure compliance with the Publicity Code recommendations concerned. A direction could be withdrawn by the Secretary of State. Where a direction applied to a category of authorities, the Secretary of State would take such steps as he considered necessary to bring it to the attention of the authorities concerned.
14. Once a direction had been issued, enforcement of any continued failure by an authority to comply with the recommendations concerned would be through any interested party obtaining a court order.
Questions
• Views on the proposed legislation are invited, and in particular do consultees see the proposals as fully delivering the commitment to give greater force to the Publicity Code by putting compliance on a statutory basis?
• If there is alternative to the power of direction, how will this meet the aim of improved enforcement of the code?
• This consultation invites evidence of the circumstances where the code was not met and the implications of this on competition in local media.
Who we are consulting
15. We are consulting the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils. This document is also available on the Department for Communities and Local Government web site at https://www.gov.uk/dclg and we will be drawing it to the attention of all principal councils in England, the Newspaper Society and local newspapers. It is open to all to make representations on the proposals, which will be carefully considered.
16. Responses to this consultation must be received by 6 May 2013. A response form is attached at the end of this consultation document and is saved separately on the DCLG web site.
You can respond by e mail to:
mark.coram@communities.gsi.gov.uk
When responding, please ensure you use the words “Publicity Code consultation 2013” in the e mail subject line
Or write to:
Mark Coram
Publicity Code consultation
Council Conduct and Constitutions Team
Trial by Jeory 
This comes not a moment too soon. Lutfur’s political propaganda is despicable enough when privately funded, seeing it in taxpayer-funded publications is shameful.
How long between consultation and legislation? And how long will the new legislation need to be in place before it is enforced by court action (as I have no doubt will be necessary in LBTH)?
Tim.
Brilliant result! – but don’t celebrate too soon – some newspapers seem intent on shooting themselves in the foot.
News today (WEDS) that at least two former Associated Newspapers weeklies will be allowing “pre-approved” people like councillors, policemen and teachers and no doubt MPs to have direct input into on-line editions – un-monitored, unchecked and un-subbed.
Totally absurd – and extremely worrying. What checks and balances are there? Remember MP’s expenses? Remember Hillsborough?
The last thing needed is for local papers to surrender objectivity and abrogate their primary responsibility – to nail the bad guys.
well said, Gossy.
Great news. Not a moment too soon.
Great news for Ted’s former employer Archant Group. Typical tory take the money from the public sector and put it in the private sector. Very bad news for Tower Hamlets residents despite the politicians obvious dislike for East End Life 90% of TH residents read it for the useful information and not the politicians propaganda messages. But politicians dont care about residents they just want to get back at each other.
Hang on a sec…where does the public sector get its money from? I’m guessing you work in the public sector?
Isn’t the point that if the council wants to continue publishing EEL with just the useful info that would be fine by Pickles, but the current regime won’t take the Pravda element out of it?
Isn’t the real issue that the mayor could do the necessary thing to keep it going but won’t sacrifice his own political mouthpiece for the benefit of residents?
This is all a bit overblown in my view.
Nothing’s particular to the ‘current regime’ and a Pravda element – the paper is no different to how it was under the last regime and indeed the Majority Leader (West Wing anyone?) was on his feet in the chamber circa ’08, as Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance, defending the rag in the face of questions from Councillor Golds.
The paper carries news and quotes from the Executive because they are the ones delivering services. And it’s not just them – the last issue seemed to be mainly composed of photographs of the Speaker in his glad rags, with Camilla – and as we all know, they carry quotes from the Opposition too (I don’t think it’s that terrible if they ask them to rephrase them if the quote exposes the Council to a lawsuit for publishing it).
Tell me…why did it fail to include in its report about the findings from the Electoral Commission on alleged vote fraud that not unimportant bit on the need to re-establish trust between councillors and senior council officers?
Why? It couldn’t have been for space reasons because there were plenty of banal quotes from the Mayor that could have been chopped down…
The point I was actually making was in response to this idea bandied about as above that somehow East End Life used to be fine but this administration is abusing it.
Anyway, in response to your question, why would they report that?
The audience of the paper is local ratepayers, not councillors or officials.
Local ratepayers want to be able to vote in elections and get who they vote for. The allegations suggested this wasn’t happening properly, so when the investigation was completed the story reassured them that the allegations had not been found to be grounded.
I think providing that voters can be assured they will get who they vote for (which was the point of the story) ratepayers aren’t that bothered about internal disputes between councillors and council officials.
And in your answer, you show exactly why EEL is not fit for purpose on these things.
You ask: “Why would they report that?”
Well, I suppose that a balanced report that adhered to the Publicity Code would include information to voters on genuine concerns by a regulator that there was a breakdown of trust between the people they vote for and those they fund; and that that breakdown was not healthy for local democracy.
Clearly, you’re not a local rate-payer. I am. And I am “that bothered” about what you deem an “internal dispute” that is badly affecting the reputation of the borough.
Do you suppose EEL/the council failed to report it because it was a criticism of the council body?
And was that by any chance the reason why council officials “forgot” to include the Commission’s warning in the relevant Overview and Scrutiny report last night (p17)?
Or do council officers not think “internal disputes between councillors and council officials” are worth highlighting and discussing? Maybe they weren’t “that bothered” either.
Pathetic really, isn’t it..?
After living in east London for 25 years, I am DELIGHTED to hear East End News will be stopped. Please can someone stop the Caliph from putting his inane grinning face up all around the Borough too – it’s like living in some banana republic.
Now we just need to stop Tower Hamlets Homes for sending out its propaganda rag. Getting their self-important rag stuffed through the door as frequently as the estates are swept just rubs salt in the wound. The public highways are swept daily and are cleaner than estates run by THH, where we are lucky to get an estate swept once a month.
Just realised I called it “East End News”. That shows how irrelevant it is – I can barely remember the name of it! When it drops through my door it goes straight into the recycling. The only use I have for it is when I mop the floor and want to put some paper down to walk on…
Eric Pickes should have a look at the glossy magazine publication in the London Borough of Newham. Millions are waited are wasted on the Newham Magazine. It think it is published every two weeks. Most of it, could be considered as electoral material, with glossy photos of local councillors.
[…] other councils manage without producing their own weekly newspaper – the only other one is Tower Hamlets’ East End Life. Hillingdon Council’s communications manager Charlotte Stamper says by using the law, […]