Alan slams £100,000 Council spend on political letters
20th December 2007
£100,000 of Council tax payer’s money has gone to fund public relations, letters and bureaucracy related to the Conservatives’ proposed 10% Council Tax discount for some pensioners.
However it was revealed at last night’s Finance and Resources Scrutiny meeting that this spending does not relate to established Council policy and may be illegal.
The Conservative Cabinet agreed to spend the £100,000 preparing for the scheme at a Cabinet meeting on October 29th. But because the 10% discount has yet to be approved by a meeting of all 48 elected councillors, the Cabinet may not have had the power to authorise that spending.
After the Cabinet agreed to this potentially improper use of resources, the Council sent a letter to every household in the city, asking residents if they were over 65 and if they wanted to receive the proposed 10% discount. The cost of this exercise was met entirely by the local tax-payer.
The cost and political nature of these letters came to light when constituents who received the letter contacted their local MP.
Dr Alan Whitehead, MP for Southampton Test, said:
“That the Tories believe it is an appropriate use of resources to write to everyone in Southampton asking them if they are aged over 65 is wasteful enough. That they would do so in order to publicise a policy proposal that has not ever been approved by a majority of elected councillors is grossly inappropriate. Whatever we think of this policy proposal, spending £100,000 before it has been decided by the Council is just not right.”
“I have already written to the Council Accounting Officer asking about the legality of this spending, and as of today I am still waiting for a reply. However I believe we have now reached the point where this has to be referred to the District Auditor.”
What do you think about this story? Email Alan
More information
- To put the £100,000 spend by the Cabinet in context, the revenue cost of keeping free pensioner travel in the city from 9am is £75,000.
- The Cabinet Minute authorising this spending can be read online here:
The relevant part of the minute is ‘Recommendations ii,’ which reads:
”That the cost of implementing the relevant changes to allow a discount for older persons and special constables of up to £100,000 be approved to be met from the General Fund Contingencies in 2007/8.”
Cabinet does not have the authority to make independent decisions on resource allocation. Because the Conservative policy on the 10% discount was never approved by full Council, the Cabinet did not have the authority to spend money on it.
Also of note is paragraph 10, ‘Alternative options considered and rejected:’
“The proposals represented in this report represent the Executive’s draft budget for 2008/9 which is being published for consultation. Clearly there are a huge number of variables and alternative options that could be implemented as part of the budget and these are political in nature and will be decided as part of the Budget Setting Council in February 2008.”
3. Precisely because the 10% discount is not current council policy, surveys regarding the implementation of such a discount are by their very nature political and may fall foul of the 1986 Local Government Act. The letter may be in violation of part 11 section 2(i) of the 1986 Local Government Act, which states:
“A local authority shall not publish any material which appears in whole or part to be designed to affect public support for any political party.”
Paragraph 6 b) and c) of the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct Order, which came into force of May 2007, may also have been contravened:
“6 b ii) You must ensure that such resources are not used improperly for political purposes (including party political purposes); and
c) You must have regard to any applicable Local Authority Code of Publicity made under the Local Government Act 1986
The Code of Publicity states:
19. Legitimate concern is, however, caused by the use of public resources for some forms of campaigns which are designed to have a persuasive effect. Publicity campaigns can provide an appropriate means of ensuring that the local community is properly informed about a matter relating to a function of the local authority and about the authority's policies in relation to that function and the reasons for them. But local authorities, like other public authorities, should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy.