Memorandum by the London Borough of Hackney
(STA 11)
I write on behalf of the London Borough of Hackney
to submit evidence for consideration of the Select Committee regarding
the role and effectiveness of the Standards Board for England.
The London Borough of Hackney places considerable
emphasis on the importance of a robust ethical framework in promoting
public confidence and in turn in enhancing our ability to deliver
high quality public services. This submission reflects that belief
and also the Council's experience as an authority which undertaken
substantial work to develop and promote its ethical agenda both
before and after the adoption of the Members' Code of Conduct
in November 2001.
The Council shares the belief with many other
local authorities that standards of conduct and behaviour in local
government are generally good and that local authorities themselves
are often best placed to deal with issues of misconduct and poor
behaviour. Local determination of complaints by Standards Committees
could provide a far faster resolution of complaints to the benefit
of both complainants and those complained against. The potential
for the Standards Board to refer allegations to Councils for local
investigation under the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local
Determination) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 may assist in this
respect. Nevertheless this Council believes that the initial process
of filtering complaints to assess the level seriousness would
be best carried out by local authorities with minor cases being
dealt with locally and only more serious cases being referred
to the Standards Board.
In submitting this evidence the Council acknowledges
that the Standards Board is at a cross-roads. Until recently it
appeared to have been overwhelmed by the volume of work. Furthermore
the relationship and interaction between the Standards Board and
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has by no means been obvious
to standards committees. The experience of Hackney's Standards
Committee has been one of frustration at delays in the production
of regulations and subsequent statutory guidance. Whether that
frustration is the responsibility of the Standards Board, the
ODPM or both is not apparent to local standards committees, but
it is to be hoped that the Standards Board has now developed the
capacity to provide guidance and determine complaints in a timely
manner. Further to the above, to date the Standards Board has
not been seen to act as a champion for those authorities that
are attempting to innovate nor has it spoken against retrograde
proposals. A relatively recent example of this occurred with the
bar on common independent membership of standards committees and
independent remuneration panels.
This Council has been particularly enthusiastic
in its work to develop the links between high standards of behaviour
and high standards of performance. This was facilitated by the
synergy that was previously achieved through Independent Members
having common membership of the Standards Committee and the Independent
Remuneration Panel. The work of one body informs the work of the
other and the development of a common knowledge and practical
experience of the ethical framework and of the remuneration framework
had proven to be invaluable. It would have been of even greater
significance in the future as the Council seeks to develop and
extend its ethical framework to include partner organisations
and community groups. Although joint working as opposed to common
membership is not unfeasible it is not ideal and the separation
of the two roles represents a lost opportunity. For the future
we would hope that the Standards Board will be in a better position
to defend good practice.
1. The effectiveness of the Standards Board
for England in promoting and overseeing the Code of Conduct
1.1 The Standards Board's capacity to provide
timely advice and guidance to Councils to promote the Code has
been a matter of concern from the outset. The volume of work generated
by the apparent reluctance of large numbers of parish councillors
to accept application of the Code impaired the ability of the
Standards Board to lead in promoting or overseeing the Code. The
experience in Hackney was that the Council's Standards Committee
had already implemented a work programme to promote the Code,
established local mechanisms for overseeing its implementation
and carried out a programme of training for members before the
Standards Board was fully operational.
1.2 The guidance and training materials
that the Standards Board subsequently provided were welcome and
were useful in helping to embed the Code, but their impact was
reduced by the fact that it was not available when it was most
needed. This pattern of delay in the production of guidance and
advice has been repeated thereafter as regulations have come into
force. At the time of writing it is not known whether guidance
on the 2004 Regulations will be provided within a reasonable timescale.
1.3 The Standards Board accepts that the
Code of Conduct is a living code that needs to adapt and change
in the light of experience, but has shown little evidence of being
proactive in this respect. The Standards Board is likely to continue
to struggle to live up to local expectations until it is able
to apply greater resources to providing leadership in these areas
of its core business.
1.4 The Code has now been in operation for
three years and its practical application has raised a several
issues on which the Standards Board could usefully provide a lead.
A key issue for Hackney, arising from a case determined locally,
is in respect of paragraph 3(a) of the Code: "A Member must
not(a) disclose information given to him/her in confidence
by anyone, or information acquired which he believes is of a confidential
nature, without the consent of a person authorised to give it,
or unless he/she is required by law to do so." The Council
would wish to see this paragraph amended to include a test of
reasonableness to in respect of a belief that information is of
a confidential nature. Other Councils have questioned whether
there should be a public interest defence regarding the disclosure
of confidential information. Regardless of whether the Standards
Board wishes to pursue these particular examples it does need
to demonstrate that it is keeping the Code under review, engaging
with stakeholders and making appropriate recommendations.
2. The role of the Standards Board for England
in ensuring local authorities adhere to a Code of Conduct and
its ability to assess allegations of misconduct in a timely and
fair way
2.1 Once again the Standards Board's effectiveness
has been hampered both by the volume of work involved in dealing
with parish councils, by either having to, or choosing to deal
with relatively minor cases of misconduct and by the delay in
producing regulations governing local determination and investigation
of complaints against councillors.
2.2 We have no evidence to indicate whether
the Standards Board is able to judge whether many local authorities
adhere to the Code of Conduct. However the London Borough of Hackney
has serious reservations about whether the Standards Board is
able to assess allegations of misconduct in a timely manner, which
in itself has an impact on fairness.
2.3 We believe that there are three aspects
to fairness: fairness to the complainant in taking the issues
they raise seriously, fairness to the councillor complained against
and fairness to local councils in helping them to ensure that
their members comply with the code or are held to account for
not doing so. We are unsure of the effectiveness of the process
by which the Standards Board goes about deciding which complaints
to investigate and which not to pursue further. The Council has
first hand experience of the Standards Board being reluctant to
investigate a serious complaint about a Councillor who had been
convicted of a fraud resulting directly from his office. The Council
is aware of other cases which were potentially serious which the
Standards Board refused to investigate, although we cannot be
sure whether such instances are commonplace.
2.4 Conversely case studies accessible through
the Standards Board web-site illustrate that significant numbers
of trivial allegations are investigated often with a finding of
no breach of the code or no action taken. The Standards Board
must be able to demonstrate that it has a fair and effective process
in place for sifting complaints if it is to satisfy any of the
parties to complaints that it is behaving in a fair and even handed
manner. At present this authority, among others, is not convinced
that the Standards Board has the capacity to carry out this function.
2.5 Our experience of the Standards Board
role in respect of facilitating local determinations of complaints
has also been problematic. Of particular concern has been the
Standards Board's assertion in a case heard locally that the Standards
Committee must be guided by their legal advice on interpretation
of meaning of the Code, rather than by Standards Board guidance
which was silent on the issue, or the advice of the Councils legal
officers. This had the effect of undermining the autonomy of the
Standards Committee.
2.6 The role of the local authority as a
party with a legitimate interest in the outcome of complaints
has also been a point of contention between the Council and the
Standards Board. This Council has taken the view that in cases
referred for local determination after a Standards Board investigation,
the authority as a corporate body has a legitimate interest in
ensuring that the Standards Committee has the facility for proper
advice from its officers in the form of presenting factual information
and setting out the options available, as it would in any other
area of its work.
2.7 The Standards Board has taken the view
that Council officers have no role in the determination of complaints
other than to provide procedural and legal advice. This difference
of opinion remains unresolved, but the Council maintains that
to provide for fair hearings and outcomes it is essential that
there should be scope for standards committees to request and
receive advice, including reports on any aspect of a case short
of reinvestigation.
2.8 The timeliness of assessment of allegations
of misconduct by the Standards Board is a further area of concern.
It is clearly important to all parties to a complaint that the
matter is resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. It is
invidious for a councillor subsequently found to be blameless
to have to wait for a months for that judgement to be made. It
is equally wrong for lengthy delays before corrective action can
be taken in cases where the allegation is well founded. Yet these
are exactly the circumstances that have prevailed during the last
three years. It is however premature to form a view about whether
this situation will continue to be the case in the future given
the capacity for less serious cases to be referred for local investigation
or at least local determination.
3. The Standards Board for England's relationships
with: (a) other regulatory organisations that support the
ethical framework set out in the Local Government Act 2000; (b) central
Government; and (c) local Government stakeholders
3.1 As stated earlier in this evidence the
quality of the relationship between the ODPM and the Standards
Board is not clear. Whatever the relationship, it does not appear
to manifest itself in "joined up" working or in the
production of timely guidance and information for local councils,
nor to date in the sort of leadership on an ethical agenda that
had been anticipated.
3.2 The relationship between the Standards
Board and this authority is developing in a positive manner notwithstanding
the criticism set out in other sections of this evidence. The
Chief Executive of the Standards Board made a significant contribution
at our "Raising Standards" conference where we examined
the link between high ethical standards and the ability to improve
services in depth. This has in turn led to improved liaison and
discussion on taking the ethical agenda forward.
3.3 Our experience has been that the Standards
Board is increasingly accessible to discussing and dealing with
criticism from local government stakeholders and is prepared to
engage in robust debate. The contribution the Hackney's Deputy
Mayor made at a major debate at this year's Annual Assembly of
Standards Committees was an example of the Standards Board's willingness
to engage with constructive criticism. This Council is optimistic
that there will be further scope to work with the Standards Board
on developing an agenda to drive up ethical standards.
4. The role of the Standards Board for England
in supporting the establishment and operation of standards committees
at a local level
4.1 Hackney's Standards Committee pre-dates
both the code of Conduct and the Standards board. Even at the
early stages of its development the Standards Committee formed
the view that adherence to and promotion of high standards of
conduct goes to the heart of local governance arrangements and
that there is a causal relationship between high standards of
conduct and the ability to improve council services. In the context
of the legacy of Hackney's quite recent past and the relatively
slow progress made by the Standards Board in supporting the development
of standards committees it was important for the Council to make
substantial progress in developing an implementing an ethical
agenda over a relatively short timescale. It was therefore, not
possible for the Council to sit back and wait for a lead from
the Standards Board.
4.2 The Council's Standards Committee has
therefore overseen or carried out a substantial body of work:
(i) Dealing with complaints about the conduct
of councillors prior to the provisions of the Local Government
Act 2000 coming into force.
(ii) Development of a Training and Development
programme for members.
(iii) The monitoring of complaints about
council services and members' enquiries.
(iv) Development and implementation of the
Whistle Blowing policy, publicity and procedures.
(v) Development and dissemination of the
Protocol for Member/Officer Relations.
(vi) Development of the Procedure for local
determination of allegations about the personal conduct of Council
members.
(vii) Development and implementation of Planning
and Licensing Protocols.
(viii) The conduct of Ethical Audits.
(ix) Local investigations (pre-Standards
Board) and determination of complaints against Councillors.
(x) Hosted a major local conference on the
link between high ethical standards and improved service delivery
and promoted a consequent programme of work.
(xi) Sponsored the development of a web based
Governance Manual.
4.3 The majority of this work was carried
out on the initiative of the Standards Committee and was led locally
rather than by the Standards Board. More recently the Standards
Board was able to provide a much appreciated input into our local
conference, while the development of the Annual Assembly of Standards
Committees into a vibrant forum for the exchange of views and
experience has been valuable.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the reservations
expressed in this evidence, the Council recognises the important
role played by the Standards Board and would wish to see it engaging
in a continuing dialogue with those authorities that are willing
to contribute to the continued development of local ethical agendas.
Should you require any further information regarding
this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me. Finally
the Council would wish to offer the Select Committee the opportunity
of taking oral evidence from the immediate past Chair of Hackney's
Standards Committee, Professor John Gabriel and the current Chair,
Stephanie Boyde. Both are Independent Members and between them
have a wealth of experience in the development and implementation
of the ethical framework and of local experience of the work of
the Standards Board.
Claer Lloyd-Jones
Director of Law and Democratic Services
|