ASA Adjudication on Bedford Borough Council

Ad

A regional press ad, by Bedford Borough Council (BBC), was headlined "SAVE IT OR LOSE IT Your leisure facilities are at risk and need your support. In their unitary bid to the Government, Bedfordshire County Council have indicated that they will average the current spend per head of population on parks and leisure across the county. As Bedford Borough provide far more parks and leisure facilities than Mid and South Beds Council's [sic] the only conclusion that can be drawn is that services in Bedford will be cut if the County Council bid is successful. Please show your support for the Borough bid to save Bedford's leisure facilities by signing our petition ... TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO USE YOUR LEISURE FACILITIES FOR FREE NOW, AS THEY MAY NOT BE THERE IN FUTURE ... "

Issue

Bedfordshire County Council (BCC), who said they had not indicated in their bid that they were proposing to average spending on leisure services and, furthermore, had no intention of doing so, challenged the claims:

1. "Bedfordshire County Council have indicated that they will average the current spend per head of population on parks and leisure across the country ...",

2. "the only conclusion that can be drawn is that services in Bedford will be cut if the County Council bid is successful"; and

3. "SAVE IT OR LOSE IT Your leisure facilities are at risk ...".

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1., 2. & 3. BBC explained that the claims in the ad concerned the local government re-organisation of Bedfordshire and the application by BCC to become a unitary authority.  BBC also applied to become a unitary authority.  

BBC sent the ASA a copy of an extract from the BCC unitary bid titled "Key Financial Information". The document featured seven graphs in a chart titled "District service expenditure cost per head of population" which showed that BBC had a higher expenditure cost per head than the other authorities included in the chart.  A second chart titled "District potential savings through unit cost" showed the savings that BCC believed could be achieved by lowering unit costs in line with the other local authorities.  The estimated savings ranged between £20 million and £50 million, and it was stated that savings of just under £27 million appeared reasonable.

BBC said they had expressed concern to BCC that the savings were calculated on flawed assumptions. They understood that the only way the estimated 90% saving on expenditure could be achieved was through cutting spending on services. They explained that Bedford Borough had a higher number of leisure facilities and parks than the other two District Councils and spent more than local authorities generally.  They therefore understood that the savings would be made by cuts that would adversely affect the standard of leisure services in that area. BBC sent copies of e-mail exchanges between the two organisations in support of their comments.  BBC said they had sought to make the public aware of BCC's intentions were they to be successful in the unitary bid and maintained that the claims in the ad were not misleading.

BBC said they had no plans to use the ad again.

Assessment

1., 2. & 3. Upheld

The ASA noted from BCCs unitary bid proposal summary document that they estimated annual savings of £26.6 million could be made through the reorganisation of local government.  We understood that BCC believed those savings could be achieved by reducing management costs and this would have no impact on service delivery because the savings could be re-invested in services.   

We noted spending on services in Bedford Borough was high compared to South and Mid-Bedford.  We noted, for example, that Bedford Borough spent £17.80 per head of population on its parks compared to £1.37 in South Bedfordshire.  We understood from the summary document that BCC proposed to move to "lower unit costs, in line with other authorities" and because Bedford Borough had the highest spending, BBC believed cuts in that area would be the most dramatic.

We considered that BBC had demonstrated that, in order to make the estimated annual savings, substantial cuts would have to be made.  We did not consider, however, that they had provided us with robust evidence to back-up their claims that these cuts would affect parks and leisure in Bedford or place leisure facilities at risk.  We considered the claims were based on unfounded assumptions and would be seen as statements of fact by readers rather than simply BBCs opinion or interpretation.  We concluded that claims were not substantiated and that the ad could mislead.

On all points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 8.1 (Opinion).

Action

We noted the ad was no longer appearing but told BBC to take greater care with future, similar ads and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team for guidance.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)