Ministers "minded" to make transparency code legally binding
The government has published the final Code of Recommended Practice for council transparency, with ministers saying they were “minded” – subject to consultation – to make it legally binding.
The announcement came despite warnings from the Local Government Group that giving the Code the force of law under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 was “likely to create more difficulties than benefits”.
The group also attacked the Code for introducing more burdensome requirements on local government than are placed on public services more widely.
The Code calls on local authorities to follow three principles of transparency when publishing data – “Demand-led”, “Open” and “Timely”.
It also sets out the minimum datasets that should be released for reuse. These are:
- expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information)
- senior employee salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,200
- an organisational chart
- the 'pay multiple' – the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority's workforce
- councillor allowances and expenses
- copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector
- grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector. These should be “clearly itemised and listed”
- policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities' fiscal and financial position
- the location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers
- data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision-making processes and records of decisions.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said ministers’ position was that full disclosure “should be every council’s default position”, and that authorities would be expected to have regard to the Code in all their data publications. The Code will only apply in England.
The government insisted that release of the information “could provide a wealth of local knowledge and spark more improvements in the way services are delivered”.
It also claimed that a number of local authorities – such as Northamptonshire County Council, Hammersmith & Fulham, and Windsor and Maidenhead – had already adopted the code of practice into their normal publishing routines. Only one council, Nottingham City, has resisted publishing details of all spending over £500 online.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: "The Code sets out clear expectations. It will help unlock more information and increase accessibility for everyone, taking us one step closer to our ambition to be the most transparent government in the world."
In its submission to the consultation the Local Government Group insisted that local government was committed to the philosophy and practice of transparency, pointing to the number of councils to have complied with Pickles’ request for all spending over £500 to be published.
But the Group suggested that giving the Code some force of law would create more difficulties than benefits. It said these revolved around:
- "The need for wider legislative and policy coherence and clarity around public sector data and transparency;
- The implications for localism; and
- Technical issues where legislation will create difficulties and where alternative approaches will deliver a better result.”
The Local Government Group added: “Underpinning this, we believe that it is fundamentally inconsistent and wrong to create legal or quasi legal codes for transparency and open data that are more prescriptive and detailed for local government than those required of the public services more widely.
“Citizens should be able to expect an equal measure of transparency in the activities of Whitehall and in other local public services.”
The Group also reported that many of its member councils were very concerned about the resource implications of going down the route suggested by the draft code.
“We do not believe that this should prevent commitment to the journey, but we strongly urge that the more advanced elements of this transition should not be unrealistically enshrined in legislation or codes,” it argued. “The consequences of that will benefit no-one, least of all citizens.”
The Group’s submission added: “We suggest that instead of a local government code of practice backed by statutory or quasi statutory force, that there should be a collaboration between local government, citizens, the data ‘developer community’, and government to determine how we can help local authorities and others working locally through practical help. This has inherent benefits in being flexible and responsive.”
The summary of consultation responses revealed broad support for increased transparency in local authorities and across the public sector more generally.
However, a consistent theme was for greater clarity between the Code and other access to information legislation. Some responses – such as that from the Centre for Public Scrutiny – questioned whether the Code as proposed would increase transparency.
According to the summary, a further headline message was that the drive for increased transparency needed to avoid “dumping” of data onto the public, which risked blurring accountability rather than enhancing it.
The Code can be downloaded here. Ministers said they would commit to reviewing its content and scope within 18 months.
Philip Hoult
