HL Deb 02 April 1996 vol 571 cc190-8

5.53 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Dean of Harptree) in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Publication at direction of either Commission]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1: Page 4, line 5, at end insert— ("() The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 5. Clause 5 is concerned with the publication of performance indicators. It is not easy to make the Committee feel that performance indicators are the most exciting thing imaginable. But they are important and they are important because they enable local authorities to demonstrate to their electorates how the local authority has been performing.

Given the fact that the majority of local authorities in this country are now Labour, the performance indicators, when published, will reveal a record of first-class performance for local people. Therefore, I am delighted that in bringing forward this Bill, the Government will enable the many efficient and effective Labour authorities up and down the country to demonstrate how well they are doing in serving their local people.

I turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 1 seeks to introduce a code of practice in order to give wider discretion in the publication of performance indicators. The amendment seeks to permit the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to determine how that may be done. There are precedents for that under Section 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Secretary of State may make regulations to enforce the provisions of a code of practice to cover such matters as annual reports by local authorities. It seems to me that given that there is such a precedent, it would not be a very major step to have also a code of practice governing the publication of performance indicators. There is a precedent for it and it would be a helpful way in which to proceed.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 seek to achieve a similar end by different means; that is, they seek to permit a local authority to publish information about performance indicators possibly in its own publication or periodical if it has one. That would enable the information to be published not merely through free newspapers not owned by local authorities but through free newspapers owned by local authorities. It seems to me that that is quite a sensible step and I do not know why the Minister resisted such a suggestion on Second Reading. After all, private companies publish information for their shareholders in their own publications—in their annual reports and so on. Provided that the publication produced by a local authority reaches sufficiently widely, I cannot see why that is not a proper way in which to publish its own information. I cannot see that there would be any hint of bias in such a local authority paper as regards publishing performance indicators. That would seem to me to be an extremely cost-effective way of ensuring that voters are given information. After all, local authorities do their best to ensure that their own newsletters or publications reach every household, which is more than can be said for the other methods of publication.

Therefore, I should have thought that if the aim is to ensure that performance indicators economically and efficiently reach all people in a local authority area, where the local authority has its own free newspaper or publication which it distributes, that would be an excellent means of achieving that.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned with a slightly different matter. In Clause 5, conditions are imposed on free newspapers before they qualify for having performance indicators published in them. Those conditions are somewhat more onerous than those imposed on paid-for newspapers. There is not a distribution condition which applies to paid-for newspapers but such a condition applies to free newspapers in that they must have a circulation sufficient to reach the majority or all of the people in an area.

Therefore, a free newspaper would have to be extremely well distributed whereas a paid-for newspaper would not have to be. The point of Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 is to achieve similar distribution conditions for free newspapers as for paid-for newspapers. That merely levels the playing field as regards those two sets of publications.

I hope that the Government will consider the earlier amendments. It seems to me that having established a basis for distributing performance indicators to local people, it would be sensible to adopt these amendments as an improved way in which to achieve such distribution if the local authority has a newspaper and chooses to use it rather than choosing the other methods suggested in Clause 5. I beg to move.

6 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I apologise to the Committee for not being in my normal place. I broadly support the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has brought forward, and I do so for two main reasons. First, it seems to me impossible for any local authority to exercise any power over a newspaper, whether free or not, to distribute its product anywhere that it does not wish to distribute it. Therefore, I do not see how you can exercise upon a free newspaper any kind of means to ensure that it reaches, as it says in the Bill, each household, each dwelling.

In fact, I would like to ask the noble Earl the Minister what he considers to be the reasonable steps which local authorities should take to ensure that newspapers are delivered to each dwelling. I would also like to ask him what the Government suppose the criteria for a local authority's success in this matter would be. Would the local authority be proved to be successful if the free journal reached 70 per cent. of dwellings, 50 per cent. of dwellings, or 30 per cent. of dwellings? What is the criteria for success and, if the Bill goes through, will we be leaving it to the courts?

My second point relates to what I take to be the main aim of the amendment, which is in one way or another to achieve the ability for local authorities to use their own publications to circulate information about performance indicators. I believe that would be an excellent idea for the following reasons. First, it is one way to ensure that the publication actually does reach each dwelling, and I believe it is the only way of doing so. Secondly, legislation already exists and the code, if that is the method that we adopt, could reinforce this to prevent such publications from taking on a party political tone. Thirdly—this is something people have not talked about before—in those areas, at least, where a two-tier system has persisted despite the Government's best efforts and where the responsibility for allied services are divided, the publication of a joint publication by both county and district authorities could reduce the total cost of informing local people and contribute to the enhancement of the two-tier system which the Local Government Commission recommended.

I support these amendments and I suspect that, even if the Government reject them today, the ideas that they represent may appear sooner or later in the legislative process.

Earl Ferrers

First, let me say how distressing it is to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, sitting where she is and not in her normal position on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thought for one moment that she might have left them behind but, no, she has not; she merely finds herself sitting in a wheelchair as opposed to on a seat on the Bench. I am sure that the Committee would extend their sympathies to the noble Baroness for her indisposition.

I enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as one always does. Then, all of a sudden, he went off and he banged the drum for the Labour Party in the most astonishing way in an extraordinary extravaganza of imagination. He was saying that he was looking forward so much to reading of all the wonderful work that the Labour Party has done and the local authorities have done—let it all be published and then everyone can see how good they are. That is a very good thing and, of course, it is exactly what we want to see as a result of this Bill.

The amendments which the noble Lord has put down do not come as any great surprise to us because, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will no doubt be aware if he read the proceedings in another place—I have no doubt that he did—they were put down in another place, too. However, I am bound to reiterate the argument which my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment put forward in another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, indeed, the noble Baroness, and I share a common objective in this matter. The objective is to ensure that local authorities publish information about their performance in a way which is unbiased and which informs the people in their area. We think that the Bill as drafted at present achieves this by providing that the publication must be subject to independent editorial control.

The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his Amendment No. 1, that the Secretary of State should issue a code of practice for the publication of performance information, might be used to the same ends, but we must consider what would be involved in that kind of measure. First, it would land local government and the Government with more regulation. That would mean more intervention; we would need yet another code of practice, and that would mean more bureaucracy. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, likes that kind of thing, but I doubt that she does. I am quite sure that her party does not, either. Of course, the party of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, loves that kind of thing, and that is probably why he put down the amendment. However, we do not agree with that, and I am bound to say to the noble Lord that it does not attract us very much.

The code of practice would need to specify not just what information should be included, but also what information must not be included. One might ask, for example: how would a code deal with the Government's concerns that the indicators should provide independent information about an authority's performance? One might ask also: would a code allay the suspicions which the public may have about statistics which councils publish in their own publications? Would the publication need to be what one might describe as a stand-alone document? That would mean more expense for local authorities.

I have no doubt at all that the Government's way is better. Local authorities and Parliament will be in no doubt whatever about the publication requirements and they will not face the possibility of changes to those requirements from year to year. I do not think that we wish to increase the level of interference.

Of course, the remainder of the noble Lord's amendments are closely tied to the first one. The removal of the distribution requirement in subsection (3) and the independence requirements in subsections (3) and (5) could mean that local authorities could publish performance information in an in-house newspaper, which not only was editorially biased, but which might also have only a very limited distribution. That would entirely negate the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve.

We believe that, whatever forms of publication are chosen by a local authority, the information about its performance, as measured against the Audit Commission's indicators, should at least he available throughout its area in a publication which is wholly independent of the authority. We attach considerable importance to that information being readily available to all those who wish to obtain it, and to it being available in a context where an authority cannot seek to put its own gloss on the results of its own performance. Of course, it is entirely open to the authority to publish this kind of additional information about its performance. In addition to publishing it in a newspaper of independent editorial concept, it can also publish it perfectly easily in an in-house journal which is delivered to the public. Some authorities have produced their information in a very good and a very understandable way, and I congratulate them on that. The point is that that should not be the only way in which to transmit the information.

The picture which emerged from the second national publication is one in which many of last year's worst performers have risen to the challenge of improving the services which they provide. That is the purpose of publishing the information, and I congratulate the local authorities on that. Perhaps those were the local authorities which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had in mind—the ones that had done so well and had made such an improvement on last year because, perhaps, they had not done so well in the previous year.

The increase in flexibility in the minimum publication requirements—in other words the ability to publish in a free newspaper—which is contained in this Bill is intended to assist local authorities in the publishing of their performance indicators, and members of the public in having access to them. One of the reasons for that is that free newspapers often reach more people because they are free than do paid for newspapers which have to be bought.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how an authority could know whether the free newspapers would reach people. The authority has to check with the editor of the free newspaper to ascertain whether the paper is distributed throughout the area—that is the important point. If the authority is satisfied by the editor's assurance that the paper is distributed throughout the area, and if, subsequently, the paper fails to be delivered, or some houses do not receive it by mistake, or there are publication difficulties, the local authority cannot be criticised. The noble Baroness asked about publication in areas which have retained a two-tier system. The performance indicators demonstrate local authority performance against a decision by elected members. The county and district each have a duty to report separately to their electors, but the two authorities could share the cost of publication by, say, taking out an advertisement together.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was worried that the distribution requirements for free newspapers could be more onerous than for newspapers for sale. I do not think that one can have a distribution requirement for newspapers for sale. The public make a choice when they buy a newspaper. The point about buying a newspaper is that it is independent of a local authority. While I understand the concerns of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I hope that they will agree that all those concerns can be met by the local authority publishing its information in its own paper, provided that it also publishes it in an editorially free newspaper.

Lord Dubs

That was interesting. I was surprised when the Minister said I was tub-thumping for the Labour Party. I made the mildest of pro-Labour council comments. If the Minister thinks that was an example of my making full scale pro-Labour Party comments, I am afraid that he has not heard me when I really want to do that. The Minister said that the amendments happen to resemble those that were put forward in another place on this Bill. That may or may not be a coincidence, but they were tabled because I had hoped better of the Government in this place than the Government achieved in the other place. Sadly, I am disappointed.

The Minister said that he was against too much interference and bureaucracy as regards local authorities, and suggested that I liked bureaucracy. I certainly do not; I dislike bureaucracy very much indeed. However, the Minister is setting up a complicated bureaucratic system. I put it to him and to the Committee that my amendments would lessen the bureaucratic load on local authorities rather than increase it. Let us consider Clause 5. As regards free newspapers, Clause 5(4)(a) states, with regard to the condition imposed on local authorities, that they should, take all reasonable steps to secure that a copy of a publication containing the information is distributed to each dwelling in their area". It is quite a burden for local authorities to establish that a paper is distributed to each dwelling in their area when that newspaper is not within their control, and indeed when they might have the choice of using a newspaper for sale where they do not have to worry whether it is distributed widely. It might be distributed in a narrow area. The Minister said that if a local authority's own publication was used, there would be the danger that a local authority would put its own gloss on the performance indicators. However, he then said that there is nothing to stop a local authority from using its own publication provided the information also went into one of the other publications specified in the Bill. He thereby conceded that if a local authority wanted to put its own gloss on the figures it could certainly do so. That does not seem to make much logical sense. I have a feeling that the Minister's heart was not in it because it does not stand up as an argument. I should like the Minister to say a little more before I decide what to do with my amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

Of course I shall comment further. I shall be more than delighted to help the noble Lord. He said that his observations were merely mild pro-Labour Party comments. That is fine; I understand that. I shall watch out for the blast when he really gets going and I shall take cover! The noble Lord said that he thought better of the Government in this place than in another place. It is gracious of him to say that and I am sure that was a personal compliment that he was making to me. However, he will realise that governments tend to have a unified view as regards this place and another place. However, the exposition of it may be slightly different. That is the reason that I did not feel I could accept the noble Lord's amendment. I thought the phrase he used was charming when he said that if we accepted his amendment that would do away with bureaucracy. What is the very first amendment the noble Lord has tabled? His Amendment No. 1 states, The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State". I shall let the noble Lord into a little secret. Since I have been in the Department of the Environment, I have seen codes of practice that appear on my desk which are submitted for approval. They are usually vast documents. I keep on saying that we should think of the people who have to read those documents. They are enormous great documents which state exactly what is to be done, how and why it is to be done, and who should do it, and other such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggests that we should produce another one. It will be quite simple but it might be half an inch thick and all his local authority councillors will have to read through the wretched document—and what for?—to find out whether they can publish the information in their in-house newspaper. That is a waste of time. They can publish all the information they want in the in-house newspaper provided they also put it in other local newspapers.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was lost in imagination as to how an authority might publish the facts and possibly put a gloss on them. He did not seem to think that was at all conceivable, but then he went on to say that it was perfectly all right for them to put a gloss on the facts if they published that in a newspaper for sale. He therefore admits that they might put a gloss on the facts because if they can do that provided they put the facts in a newspaper for sale they can also do it if the facts are not in a newspaper for sale. The noble Lord made the argument against his case, hook, line and—if I may say so—sinker.

I do not think that the noble Lord has his heart in this. Now he is talking to the noble Baroness on his Benches because he is trying to inveigle her into getting involved. However, I do not think she will because her heart is not in it, either. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows perfectly well that if we proceed with the Bill as it stands all a local authority has to do is to publish the information either in a newspaper for sale or in a free newspaper, and in the local authority's newspaper—with a gloss, if the local authority wishes to put such a gloss on the information, which I am sure not even a Labour authority would wish to do as it would wish to give the facts—and then everyone will be satisfied.

Lord Dubs

I shall read Hansard tomorrow with great interest because in referring to putting a gloss on information, I was quoting what the Minister had said. If my memory is right—and I am pretty confident that it is—the Minister said the trouble with only publishing in local authority newspapers is that local authorities will be tempted to put a gloss on the information. I then suggested that if the Minister was happy that local authorities should publish the information in their own newspapers provided they also published it in others, he was saying that the gloss did not matter.

However, if the Minister is against codes of practice, I would refer him to a previous code of practice concerning the publication of financial statements and annual reports by local authorities which was published in February 1981. If the Minister is against the suggestion in this amendment, he is presumably against things that the Department of the Environment was putting out some years ago. However, there is a simple answer. The Minister needs only to accept my other amendments which do not cover a code of practice but which simply say that the local authority may publish in its own newspaper if it so wishes. I fear that the Minister is not to be persuaded this evening. I deeply regret that but I feel it would be wrong to take up any more of the Committee's time in what is a matter of some importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.