Paper D
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL STANDARDS COMMITTEE.
Report on Third Annual Assembly of Standards
Committees, ICC, Birmingham,
13-14 September, 2004.
Attended: Bruce Claxton, Independent Chairman; Chris Mathews had been
unable to attend due to pressure of work.
The first session
involved all delegates being present
with addresses from:
Sir Anthony Holland, Chair, The Standards Board for England,
David Prince, Chief Executive, The Standards Board for England,
Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP,
Minister for Local and Regional Government,
Sir Alistair Graham, Chair, Committee on Standards in Public Life,
Patricia Hughes, Deputy Chair, The Standards Board for England.
Sir Anthony Holland said that the two principle issues at present were
the final part of the Section 66 Regulations and changes to the Code. The final
part of the Section 66 regulations was promised to be published within days. A
Code for Employees/ Officers is also to be released soon for consultation.
Changes to the Code would await feedback from the operation of the full section
66 provisions.
Since his appontment David Prince has exerted pressure to improve
efficiency in the processing of complaints. Currently the period to determine
whether or not to investigate a complaint has been reduced from 20 days to less
than 12 days. The target for next year is to reduce this to less than 10
working days.
There has been consultation on two areas of guidance, Lobbying and
dual-hatted roles; further guidance will be issued before the end of September.
Next year David Prince will tour the country to hold sessions with all
concerned with the ethical agenda for local government ( Standards Committee
chairs, Monitoring Officers, Chief Executives and others). Dates and locations
will be set well in advance.
David Prince wants to encourage a self-assessment toolkit. This will
include a review of how the Code is operating, Monitoring Officers
investigations, the new Code of Conduct for Employees, the maintenance of
integrity and safeguarding and enhancing confidence in Local Government. He advocated monitoring parliamentary
candidates who are councillors for spurious allegations. Action was required to
discourage spurious and unjustified complaints in the run up to the general
election; a record needs to be kept of
such allegations. Another area of concern was the loss of professional
knowledge in debate due to the withdrawal of councillors having personal and
prejudicial interests.
The Standards Board for England is poised to give support to local
knowledge and expertise in building public confidence in local investigations
and local standards committee decisions. This will be followed by developing
the strategic view about the Code and the ethical framework as a whole. The
public is concerned about ethics in local government. Ethics are everyone=s business because high standards go hand in
hand with good services.
Workshops attended.
I was allocated all the workshops I had preselected. Without Chris
Mathews there were many concurrent workshops unattended by Isle of Wight
representatives.
I attended: Not enough leaders,
Developing the Code
Good Enough?
Learning from outcomes
Independent perspective, and
Bullying.
Not enough leaders.
This workshop demonstrated the connection between a high level of public
ethics and leadership. There is a triangular relationship between Leadership,
Ethics and Trust. The roots of leadership lie in Authority, Knowledge and
Conduct. Councils need cultures that promote openness and learning etc.
Developing the Code.
Various analyses of the allegations referred to the Standards Board for
England show that:
Freedom of speech, Whistle blowing, Disrepute and Misuse of council
resources are areas which cause some problems which will be further examined in
the process of developing the code in the future.
Disrepute calls into question a persons fitness for office which may
depend on public perception and that can vary according to local cultures and
social structure.
The Richardson Question is quite vexing. A councillor may be excluded for
a prejudicial interest and is therefore unable to express the views of
constituents. Such councillor may be the only expert in the matter and have
valid and important information or explanations to assist with good decision
making. Such situations may be reconsidered for dispensations comparable to the
similar status of a common interest held by sufficient parish councillors whose
non participation could leave their council inquorate.The Dispensation
Regulations have been tested and the reviewers are reconsidering them.
The Wellington case was also reviewed regarding bias and
predetermination; the real point should relate to ACommon Sense@.
Good Enough?
This session focused on exploring what level of investigation is
necessary for non-major cases both locally and nationally. The history of >the standards industry= starting in 1994 by the establishment of the
Committee on Standards in Public Life to the present with an examination of the
several thousand allegations through to decided cases, nationally and referred
to local Standards Committees was discussed. Then we split into groups and
worked on various case studies .
Learning from outcomes
This workshop was lead by a representative from the Adjudication Panel
and an Oxford professor. The former reviewed the statistics of cases referred
to the Adjudication panel; the latter compared the UK management of ethical
standards in public life with those in the USA and Europe. The USA has its main
focus in conflicts of interest, nepotism, gifts, lobbying, campaign finance at
local level etc. The European approach has its traditions in Roman Law.
The UK code is of broad scope, covering transparency, conflict,
behavioural styles, internal relationships and institutional reputation. In UK
local government, its focus is on the elected tier. It is non-penal in
character, but with a very formal mechanism having the potential for resolving
issues of interpersonal relations and individual behaviour.
Comparisons with other systems available in the UK such as the criminal,
tort, contract law were discussed. It
was noted that if other organisations decided to pursue due process such as a >Prosecution=
for down loading pornography onto council property there would be no need to
pursue a complaint to the Standards Board of England and thus save duplication
of costs. However a number of cases were explained where such other systems
were not invoked, often because police forces were selective in the pursuit of
performance targets!
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has just published ASurvey of public attitudes towards conduct in
public life@.[www.public-standards.gov.uk].
The session was summed up as >The Public expects certain levels of
responsibility from persons in public life - non-criminal activities are fairly
covered by the code=.
Independent perspective
This session was lead by Anne Rehill and Peter Rowland. It was noted
that seven forums had been formed since last years= assembly. Vast areas of the country are not
covered. Those present who had experience of a forum declared the significant
advantages and benefits to be gained from membership of a forum. It was
generally noted that the areas where a forum existed owed much to the support
of monitoring officers within the areas. Because of the differences of Fire and
Police Authorities there was discussion regarding separate forums for these
specialised authorities.
A key issue that emerged was that of the length of service, periods of
appointment and number of terms to be served, for independent members. This
matter was addressed in Standards Committees News No. 1 February 2004 page 4.
It was noted that the legislation and
regulations do not specify these. Sir Tony Holland said that >tenure= was a crucial issue; there should be
protection against getting rid of an effective member for spurious reasons.
The Standards Committees News letter should be a medium for exchange of
views.
Bullying.
This topic is both fascinating and terrifying. Some definitions of
bullying were given and the handout is available on request. There appears to
be a cultural impact of bullying. Bullying occurs at member/ officer as well as
member/ member interfaces. High performing councils are associated with high
standards of behaviour. Low performing councils have low outcomes.
Bullying is often perceived after a change of council control and
becomes a continuing problem if not dealt with quickly. Councils often exercise
a form of bullying in their dealings with children and the elderly which in
other words amounts to child abuse and elderly abuse.
The Standards Board for England is taking this matter very seriously. It
advocates thorough listening, the keeping of diary notes and hearing witnesses.
It notes that sweeping statements are unhelpful and do not amount to evidence
in a specific context. The roles of the Council Leader and the Chief Executive
is extremely important particularly their behaviour and interpersonal skills
with members and staff.
Standards Committees can be used for setting standards of behaviour by
discussing bullying and the bounds of behaviour by stopping gossip,
particularly malicious gossip. If a
person=s behaviour changes then be alert. Be more
active regarding complaints regarding bullying and harassment.
During discussion the following ideas were put forward by the delegates
in our group:-
A. Standards Board to provide teaching
materials such as training videos on behaviour including examples of bullying.
B. Avoid setting up groups with a single
woman who might feel excluded by a male dominated group.
C. Local groups can warn that behaviour
might amount to notifiable activity and thus provides a platform for
introducing more training.
D. Chairman training; behaviour and conduct
at meetings often reflects the skills or lack thereof in the ability of the
chairman to control.
E. These topics to be included in
induction programmes for new members and refreshers as necessary.
There was another session for all delegates entitled >More than making the Trains run on time?=
This started with the question >Is the ethical agenda a distraction or an
integral part of good government?=
It reviewed such issues as >Managing your Reputation= ie find a mentor; developing a culture where
people can grow and develop; develop peoples understanding of their roles;
integrity of leadership.
It examined the relationship of electorate expectation with the
rationing of resource allocation to suit resource supply.
It noted that there is a tendency for some to become drunk on power
which leads to doing something stupid, developing a climate of fear which might
lead to bullying.
Jessica Crowe, Deputy Mayor of the London Borough of Hackney gave an
inspiring review of Hackney as change was implemented from a state of real
trouble, of almost ungovernability, to one of structure and more balanced
control. Hackney had developed a poisonous political culture to the extent that
Stephen Byers, minister responsible at that time, promised to take over
control. The absence of good governance destroyed service delivery.
Now the Hackney Standards Committee deals with members= development, deals with complaints as a whole
as well as driving the ethical agenda. This recovered authority has carried out
a satisfaction survey which shows enormous improvement. The lesson from Hackney
for the Standards Conference, was the raising of standards for the council and
the community as a whole at the initiation of its independently led standards
committee. It is important to improve relationships with the Press and Public -
the 4 th estate.
Feedback.
The final session was feedback by
Patricia Hughes. It was clear that the delegates had made an impression
and that the Standards Board for England was listening.
It had been noted that there had been frustration through not having the
whole of the Section 66 regulations all together. Guidance would follow the
final tranche of the regulations at the end of September.
Monitoring Officers are under resourced, the point had been strongly
made to the Minister.
There was strong support for local investigation.
Training and training materials; The standards Board would work with IDA
over this issue.
Work was continuing with the Audit Commission on ethical issues.
Case book No. 2 had been distributed with the conference packs.
Various issues had arisen from the Workshops asking for a variety of
advice and guidance particularly regarding bullying and the filtering of
complaints at local level for transmission of the more serious to the Standards
Board. However a period for experiencing the full Section 66 regulations would
be allowed before this was reconsidered. Moreover, the publication of Sir
Alister Graham=s report would also predate such a review.
A systematic review would cover code issues such as:- private behaviour;
privacy as for MPs; the obligation for reporting other members= breaches possibly by filtering by Monitoring
Officer and Council Chair; no public interest defence; prejudicial interest and
dispensation; disrepute.
There was a need for stronger chairing of meetings and party control;
the impact of cultural changes was noted; the fact that delegates had the
appetite to deal with these complex issues was noted.
Registration matters such as freemasons, gifts values (,25 for councillors cf ,550 for MPs).
The establishment of independents Forums was most important for finding
out about and learning from others= experience of GOOD PRACTICE.
It was noted that all slides and handouts would be on the Standards
Board=s Website.
Items arising from the Assembly for Isle of Wight Standards Committee
consideration:-
1. Bullying,
2. Watching out for increased levels of
complaints/ allegations in the run up to an election,
3. Length of service of independent
members,
4. Training,
5. Information packs for candidates for
election,
6. Induction for new Members.