No hard evidence that council newspapers compete unfairly: MPs

There is little hard evidence to support the view of the commercial newspaper industry that council publications are – to any significant – competing unfairly with independent newspapers at present, MPs have said.

In a report on the draft Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, the Communities and Local Government select committee nevertheless acknowledged concerns that this competition could escalate in future.

The select committee endorsed a recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport committee that the government should commission an independent inquiry “to assess competition in the local media market and quantify the impact of council publications on commercial entities operating in their locale”.

The Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has previously rounded on local authority newspapers as “town hall Pravdas” and “propaganda on the rates”.

In their submission to the consultation on the draft code, local authorities argued that the proposals – and in particular the requirement to limit council newssheets to four issues a year – would compromise their ability to account to local residents for their decision-making and their spending of council tax revenue. They also claimed it would impact on complying with their duty to communicate effectively with residents.

The CLG committee report said: “We believe that, if properly enforced, the provisions in the proposed Code relating to cost effectiveness, content and appearance are sufficient to deal with the excesses of certain council papers, which are in any case confined to only a very few examples.

“We consider that a local authority’s needs to communicate information to residents would usually be satisfied by no more than quarterly publication, in line with the principle of cost effectiveness contained within the Code. We have doubts, however, about the need to specify a maximum frequency of publication within the Code, especially in the context of the government’s professed commitment to greater ‘localism’.”

The committee recommended 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”.

On the issue of local authorities hiring lobbyists, which the draft Code also seeks to restrict, the MPs said they were persuaded that the issue was an important one which central government needed to address.

“However, we are not persuaded that a code of practice on local authority publicity is the correct tool by which to apply constraints upon such activity,” they warned.

The committee recommended instead that the government should work with stakeholders to develop guidance to “enable close adherence to best practice and detailed attention to cost effectiveness” by all councils.

Responding to the CLG committee’s report, Baroness Margaret Eaton, chairman of the Local Government Association, said: "The findings show there is scant evidence of council publications competing unfairly with local newspapers.

"This proves how unneccesary it would be for the government to draw up draconian new rules dictating to local authorities how often they should communicate with residents. Not only would this be at odds with the government's commitment to localism but it could harm local democracy and burden councils with increased advertising costs.”

Baroness Eaton added that newsletters delivered to people's homes had consistently proved to be the cheapest ways for councils to directly communicate with residents and keep people informed about local services.

"Most council publications are distributed between four and six times a year and pose no threat to the local press, on whom the growth of the internet has had a far greater impact,” she insisted.

Local government minister Grant Shapps told the BBC: “The age of wasting taxpayers’ cash on pet projects like local propaganda sheets or employing lobbyists to push a certain agenda is over.”