Memorandum by Somerset Association of
Local Councils (LGA 11)
This evidence is submitted on behalf of the
Somerset Association of Local Councils whose membership comprises
the Parish, Town and City Councils in the administrative county
of Somerset. There are some 260 Local Councils (distinct, independent,
elected local authorities) in the county ranging from the Town
Council of Yeovil, the City Council of Wells to the Parish Council
for Cutcombe (a small settlement in the middle of Exmoor). There
are 2,319 Councillors on the Parish Councils in the county. This
evidence has been prepared by Peter W Lacey, the County Secretary
of the Association.
Much of the Local Government Act 2000 is not
directly relevant to the workings of Local Councils. This memorandum
therefore addresses, in the main, only the issues that are relevant
to Parish & Town Councils.
1. The duty for local authorities to promote
economic, social and environmental well-being does not apply to
local councils. A similar power exists in the Local Government
Act 1972 at section 137 (as amended), but is generally thought
to be more restrictive than the new power. Further guidance is
understood to be coming from the Department shortly. The section
137 power does carry a cash limit, currently £3-50 per elector
per year, which is due for revaluation when parliamentary time
permits. The 2000 Act power does not carry any cash limit thus
producing an example of "some are more equal that others",
and a different set of rules for particular authorities. It is
hardly surprising that the public are confused.
2. The new arrangements with respect to
executives, elected mayors and cabinets, do not directly affect
Parish & Town Councils but there are two consequences that
have yet to be fully followed through. Firstly, there is the possibility
of confusion for the public in those cases where a major town
in the District has a Town Mayor and then a District mayor is
appointed. Secondly the day-to-day operation of cabinet style
government and the scrutiny committee structures have not yet
been in operation long enough for a proper test. There are to
date some concerns around the difficulties of accessing the busy
cabinet members and properly influencing the decision-makers.
Once again, it is hardly surprising that the public are confused
3. The new provisions relating to the conduct
of councillors and officers are directly relevant to our member
authorities and have been the subject of a number of misleading
newspaper articles. The remainder of this memorandum relates only
to the new Ethical Framework.
4. Members are supportive of the General
Principles as set out in The Relevant Authorities (General Principles)
Order, SI 2001 No: 1401. The translation of those principles into
the detailed Code of Conduct has given rise to many uncertainties
and to some threats from councillors to resign their membership
of their Council. The major stumbling blocks appear to be the
requirement to Register landholdings in the Parish, and to Register
shareholdings. As a result of training activity it is now becoming
clear that there may well be some difficulties in maintaining
an effective Council in some smaller authorities where the councillors
are also members of other, usually charitable, bodies operating
in the Parish. This recognises the shortage of volunteers to take
on unpaid, voluntary, community activity.
5. The Mandatory Code of Conduct has to
be adopted by 5 May 2002, it is a matter of regret that the necessary
training for Parish Councillors and Clerks started rather later
in the process than some would have liked (the earliest that I
am aware of was in mid-February), and that the necessary subordinate
legislation was not issued until nine weeks prior to the latest
adoption date. Training has been (or in one District will be)
offered in all areas before the middle of April. The standard
of training has varied significantly and it is proving difficult
to get a common answer to some of the frequently asked questions.
It is clear that the Monitoring Officers have not had (or made,
or taken) the opportunity to consider the effects of the new Code
in the Parish Councils.
6. The application of the Code is somewhat
uncertain in a number of areas and the early issue of guidance
from the Standards Board (or others) is eagerly awaited. The current
position being that the members are assuming the worst case scenario,
and then, in public or the Press, describing the Code as intrusive
and unreasonable. The Association hopes that the long-term result
of the introduction of the Code will be an improvement in the
standing of all elected representatives and a lively interest
in community affairs from members of the public. The delivery
of initiatives such as Quality Parish Councils (Rural White Paper
November 2000) will depend on there being local people with a
long term interest in their community, and in its proper local
government.
7. Some members have concluded that the
requirements placed on Parish Councillors are more extensive and
onerous than those required of Members of Parliament. Hence, some
comparisons have been unfavourable to Honourable and Right Honourable
colleagues of Members of the Committee and I consider that some
thought ought to be given to the establishment of a common Code
that could apply to all elected representatives.
8. There is much concern over the operation
of the "whistle-blowing" requirement which with the
"bringing into disrepute" paragraph could produce a
golden opportunity for councillors and others to try and settle
long-running disputes with colleagues or members of the public.
This may well prove to be unfounded when the Standards Board issues
guidance and case studies prior to case law developing over the
years. To a limited extent the Inquiry is too early with regard
to the operation of the Code as much will depend on its effects
on actual cases. There is much scope for the malicious and vexatious
complainant.
9. The Association welcomes the clarity
in the Code setting out the need for a member who has declared
a prejudicial interest to leave the room or chamber.
10. The Register of Interests is an aspect
that is causing concern for Councillors. In particular the use
of nominal value for shareholdings and the identification of land
in the area. The nominal value for shareholdings has produced
some silly examples but it is appreciated that the individual
councillor will have papers that disclose the nominal value. It
is noted that the daily newspapers publishing Stock Exchange prices
do not include details of the nominal values. In the course of
preparing training sessions for councillors we have identified
two example holdings that show the extent to which the reality
of market value is divorced from nominal value. To reach the Registration
threshold (£25,000 nominal value) a shareholding in Royal
Doulton plc will have a market value of approximately £3,750;
a shareholding in WS Atkins requiring Registration will have a
market value in excess of £32 million. The information required
to identify landholdings is also causing concern as the answers
given by the various authorities are suggesting different methods
ranging from a general address (Land at Home Farm) to the ordnance
survey field numbers with a need to state the map edition number.
A lack of standard interpretation is not helping the introduction
of the parts of the Code which can be seen and interpreted as
intrusions into personal information and privacy. A question raised
recently was whether a burial plot in the village cemetery would
be included as an interest in land. The requirement to include
grasslet arrangements as licences to occupy land for more than
28 days brought a further groan from the farming members.
11. The requirement to Register membership
of Charities, Trades Unions and Professional Bodies (as distinct
from being in a position of general control or management) is
bringing out a few unexpected questions, ones perhaps that those
who drafted the Code did not envisage. Is it relevant that a councillor
is a member of The National Trust or the Royal Air Force Association
(Brussels Branch)? It is clearly relevant if she/he is a member
of the Village Hall Trust or the Parochial Church Council (an
exempt Charity). What is the position for a member of the Anglican
Congregation who is on the church electoral roll? Is that membership
of a body directed for charitable purposes?
12. The requirement to Register membership
of a body whose principal purposes include the influence of public
opinion or policy is also interpreted differently by various Monitoring
Officers. It clearly includes a paying member of the "We
want a by-pass Group", but does it include a political party
and does it include a body such as Amnesty International? There
are arguments that membership of Amnesty International is hardly
relevant to one's actions and views as a Parish councillor.
13. The requirement to register Gifts and
Hospitality with a value over £25 is now more accepted following
the clarification from DTLR that the Christmas present between
spouses does not have to be included. An early press item stated
in error that such gifts should be registered.
14. To summarise regarding the Ethical Framework
from the perspective of a Local Councils Association providing
help and support for Councils, Councillors and Clerks: it is a
welcome improvement on the previous Code and legislation but greater
care could have been taken in the implementation at the smaller
authority end of the spectrum. There is a perception that the
views of Parish Councils are not sought or, if sought, are then
not taken fully into account in the implementation of change.
The real test will be in May 2003 in seeing how these many recent
changes to Local Government introduce new individuals to seek
to become Councillors (at any level) and how many of the electorate
vote in the District and Parish Elections.
| 
