Memorandum by the City of Durham Standards
Committee (STA 03)
1. The City of Durham Standards Committee
has submitted written evidence, and the Chairman also gave oral
evidence, to the Graham Committee on Standards in Public Life.
It is hoped that the evidence already given will be available
to the ODPM Committee. We have nothing that is both new and significant
to add to that evidence. We are, however, very happy to present
the following responses on the issues listed in Press Notice 49/2004-05-15
September 2004.
2. The Standards Board has been reasonably
effective in promoting and overseeing the Code of Conduct for
members of local authorities. As the ODPM Committee will know,
the Code for members was promulgated soon after the Standards
Board was created. There was first a period of consultation on
the draft Code, and the City of Durham was among the authorities
that commented on the draft and added clauses to the model Code
before adopting it (the additions related to memberships of clubs
and societies, and to the offer of gifts even where an offer was
declined). At that time, and since, we have not been entirely
happy with clause 7, that requires members to report other members
thought to have contravened requirements of the Code. We continue
to feel that the Code could be improved if clause 7 was omitted
or revised.
3. Effectiveness in promoting and overseeing
the Code requires more than drafting and promulgating the Code.
Effectiveness relates to the achievement of specific, measurable,
desired ends—that is, the achievement of objectives. It
may therefore be that the effectiveness of the Standards Board
should be assessed against the (hoped for) elimination of complaints
about members. This has by no means been achieved, though it should
be noted that a very significant proportion of complaints seem
to have been of a rather petty or vexatious character. Perhaps
the small number of serious complaints indicates that the ethical
standards of members of local authorities is better than it was
thought to be, though petty and vexatious complaints may themselves
on occasions be seen as unethical. It is our belief that the procedures
and structures that have been created are out of proportion to
the problems intended to be rectified. In particular, it seems
unnecessary for all complaints to be considered by the Standards
Board itself before possibly being referred to Standards Committees.
4. One consequence of the procedures associated
with the Standards Board is that there are regrettable delays
in dealing with cases. This is a serious criticism because long
delays in dealing with complaints can lead to injustice, or at
least unfairness, for some individuals alleged to have committed
misconduct. This seems contrary to natural justice.
5. The relationship of the Standards Board
with local authorities has been good in some respects but less
good in others. The annual conference has been well received by
participants, but for the past two years we in the City of Durham
have not been able to attend because it has been too expensive.
Some of the literature issued by the Standards Board has been
useful, but some has been rather superficial or inadequate. When
Standards Board staff have been involved in training their contributions
have been welcomed, but it has sometimes been felt that they could
do more (eg by preparing material for use in training at local
level, especially case studies and role-play exercises). Much
of the general advice has been welcome but it has been difficult
to get helpful advice and support in particular circumstances
where the Board has been contacted. This means that support from
the Board, for the establishment and operation of Standards Committees,
has been patchy.
6. At a local level, our Standards Committee
in the City of Durham has worked well and has a number of achievements
to its credit (these are often the result of informal contacts
locally). Nevertheless, the feeling of our Committee is to doubt
whether the resources used in the creation and in the work of
the structures and procedures associated with the Standards Board
at the national level have been justified in relation to its achievements.
Much might have been done with simpler, less costly approaches.
Some potentially good candidates for service as local authority
members may have been discouraged, perhaps even lost to local
government service—and in the interest of local democracy
this is very regrettable.
|
