Cumbria County Council bans opposition councillors from meetings

Most councils operate a Cabinet system. The councillors who are Cabinet members have long briefing meeting with council officers in private to discuss what decisions to take. Then the formal Cabinet meetings are in public. These offer a chance for the public and opposition councillors to challenge proposals, or raise points of detail, before final decisions are taken.

Some parts of these meetings are held in private when there are items of commercial sensitivity being discussed - for instance awarding contracts. The usual form here is that the press and public are excluded for these items, but that opposition councillors are able to attend.

However at Cumbria County Council, now Labour led, the Conservative opposition councillors have been excluded from an item concerning a new council headquarters.

Colchester Council keeping residents in the dark

Ben Locker, a Conservative activist from Colchester stood in the borough council election in 2012. He explains why he has started a petition to press for greater transparency in Colchester Council public meetings

Almost exactly two years ago, Eric Pickles launched a campaign for councils to open up their public meetings to local bloggers and allow online filming of public discussions. At the time, transparency of this kind wasn’t coming easily to some local authorities. As Pickles’ then Under Secretary Bob Neill pointed out in a letter to all council leaders:

There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience.

Since then, many councils have turned a deaf ear and the stories have continued to pour in.

In June 2011, blogger Jacqui Thompson was arrested and handcuffed after filming a Carmarthen Council meeting on her phone.

Last December, Croydon Council’s CEO demanded that journalists and bloggers were excluded from an open meeting of the West Croydon Community Forum because they made him ‘feel uncomfortable’.

West Midlands Fire Service spends £27,000 on junkets, £100,000 on magazine subscriptions

Spending transparency is now required not only for local authorities but also the fire service.

Consider, for example, how the West Midlands Fire Service spends our money.

• £120,000 on hospitality and food. Figures published on its website reveal that the Service has paid well over £100,000 in the past year to catering and hospitality companies.
• West Midlands has spent nearly £100,000 on subscriptions to magazines and information centres. Figures published on their website reveal they have spent £98,935 on subscriptions over the past year. These include subscriptions to business magazines, Men’s Health-type sports magazines and industry career magazines, which promote new jobs to current members of staff. The taxpayer also fund a subscription to the Asian Fire Service Association that works ‘to enhance equality and diversity’ in the fire service.
• The West Midlands Fire Service has also spent nearly £30,000 on away days and taxpayer funded jollies. Over the past year, figures published on West Midlands’ website suggest that at least £27,000 has gone on hotels, conferences and away days. These include payments to an ‘ethically guided’ travel agent who describes itself as ‘the best in corporate event management services and travel management services."

Leveson must not reverse the trend towards localism

Peter Cuthbertson says regulation would undermine local papers from holding councils to account

In 1960, the young Margaret Thatcher forced councils to open up their meetings to the scrutiny of the newspapers. Eric Pickles and Bob Neill cited Thatcher as they pushed the right for bloggers, citizen journalists and Tweeters to report from local council chambers. By 2011, it was time to prevent councils denying access to web journalists and bloggers, simply by refusing to classify them as press.

The spirit of these measures was upheld in the House of Lords ruling in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd (1993): “It is of the highest importance that a democratically elected government body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech.”

If these arguments for the benefits of local scrutiny made sense in 1959, 1993 and 2011, they still make sense now. It is in this light that Lord Leveson’s proposals should be viewed on Thursday. The pitfalls of government regulation of the national press are real enough, but at least national newspapers tend to have wealthy proprietors and top lawyers on speed-dial. Low circulation local newspapers, let alone individual campaigners and bloggers, are less fortunate.

Councils face transparency requirement on parking charges

The drive for Town Hall transparency is beinig extended to cover parking charges.

The DCLG reports:

Councils will have to publish soon as it is produced the number of off-street parking places and the revenue raised from them; the number of on-street parking places and the revenue they raise; as well as the revenue from parking fines and the number of free parking spaces available in line with the Portas Review of the High Street recommendations.

Eric Pickles says:

"We are ending an era of bureaucratic accountability and replacing it with a more open era of democratic accountability. It is right that taxpayers get to see how Town Halls spend their hard earned taxes so they can properly hold local politicians to account.

"Finally all councils have taken up the £500 transparency challenge but publication is only happening in fits and starts. By writing Town Hall transparency into law we can make certain every citizen gets open and equal access to information about local public expenditure.

"As part of that we will expose a great council cash cow cover-up unmasking punitive parking practices that hit residents in the pocket. We're calling time on local war against motorists - now, more than ever, we need to see the back of this shopping tax and encourage more people onto the high street."

Also being included are requirements for transparency on assets and grants to voluntary groups.

Good news.

Despite Prescott's bluster his misuse of a Government credit card shows him unfit for office

When he was a Cabinet Minister Lord Prescott showed the most disgraceful self indulgence in using a Government credit card for his personal benefit. Due to transparency rules brought in by the new Government this spending has come to light. Rather than have the decency to apologise and reimburse the taxpayer Lord Prescott has made the false claim that the items were cloned and that he was victim of some kind of conspiracy.

At least Lord Prescott seems to have persuaded The Guardian. Most absurd is the claim that he has been exonerated by Sir Jeremy Heywood, the head of the Cabinet Office. Oh really? Then why doesn't Lord Prescott publish the letter or authorise Sir Jeremy to do so? It seems odd to block publication of a letter about transparency.

Where I think Lord Prescott has a valid point is that we should also be able to see the spending on Government procurement cards from other departments. Again the information should be released as far back as records are kept. Why, for example, is the Education Secretary Michael Gove protecting his predecessor Ed Balls? Let's see what restaurants Mr Balls went to at our expense between 2007 and 2010 when he was Secretary of State for Children, Families and Schools.

What about Ed Miliband's spending of taxpayer's money for personal use during his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change from 2008-10? If he has nothing to hide in the way of Lord Prescott style extravagance then doubtless he would welcome publication. Or what about David Miliband's spending at the Foreign Office?

Lord Prescott is right to demand equal treatment. But that should be achieved not by secrecy for his spending but transparency for all.

At last....Labour-run Nottingham agrees to publish its spending

The Nottingham Post reports that Labour-run Nottingham City Council is to start publishing its spending. Indeed it is to publish all spending items, rather than only those over the £500 threshold. This is excellent news for residents who will now have a chance to scrutinise its spending. They will be able to consider whether the decision to raise Council Tax by 3.4% this year was really justified - given that it was already well above the national average.

Conservative opposition leader Cllr Georgina Culley said:

"This is the most embarrassing U-turn ever. What has made them change their mind?

"I believe they have spent the past 18 months getting rid of information they didn't want to come out.

"They've spent that time tidying up their accounts and now they're ready to publish them.

"This is an embarrassing backtrack."

All council spending should be published - even when undertaken by "arms length" boards

Most council housing is managed not directly by councils themselves but by "arms length management organisations." This means that the transparency requirement for their spending to be published does not apply - even though councils have to publish their own spending on items over £500. This is an anomaly as ALMOs are wholly owned by local authorities and to say their spending is not local authority spending is sophistry. At least they are covered under Freedom of Information rules.

Given that housing associations are to be asked to publish their spending all the more reason for ALMOs to do so. Housing association can, at least, argue that they are not part of the public sector. The case for ALMOs to open their books is, in fact, even greater than for Council's direct spending. ALMOs are even more spendthrift as they don't have to bother about democratic accountability - it is much easier for them to brush aside "interference" from councillors.

From the point of view of a tenant or leaseholder it is scarcely less frustrating for money to be wasted by an ALMO than directly by the Council housing department.

Anyway it looks as though the Transparency Code will be extended. The blogger Mr Mustard has the scoop. In a letter, the DCLG has told him:

Other Government Departments should catch up with the DCLG on spending transparency

Looking at the itemised spending of the Ministry of Justice we see vast sums spent that we could probably get by without. Vast sums (£41 million here, £28 million there, another £18 million splodge in June alone) to the Legal Services Commission for Legal Aid which remains staggeringly more extravagant than in other countries. Then there are all the training programmes, office rent, franking machines, computers systems, the "grant payments for pro bono services"(?). Council of Europe is £138,000. On it all goes.

The Ministry of Justice only publishes spending items over £25,000. Vast swathes of extravagance are under the radar, escaping scrutiny.

Well done to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for publishing spending items over £500. Ditto to the Department of International Development and the Department of Business Innovation and Skills. The Department of Energy and Climate Change are also exposed in this way.

More access for local bloggers to attend council meetings

The Communities and local Government Secretary Eric Pickles is bringing in a further changes to boost Town Hall transparency. This time by increasing the rights of local bloggers to attend meetings.

There will be a "presumption of openness" under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (the 2012 Regulations). It will still be possible to exclude people where there is a valid reason for confidentiality such as where commercial negotiations are under way of their is a requirement for an individual's anonymity. But these will be narrow legal reasons. A council won't be able to exclude people on the grounds of "political advice" or on the claim that there isn't a "key decision."

Individual councillors will also have greater rights - with the power to see reports in advance of the meetings at which the decisions they cover will be made.