4. Review composition of Board (DCMS)—in
hand.
11. CABE board member training scheduled for
March 2005 (CABE).
20. Internal audit assurance statement on management
of design review for financial year 2004-05 (CABE).
23. Conflict of interest guidance(CABE)—by
February 2005.
28. Handling strategy for conflicts of interest
(CABE)—by March 2005.
A list of all the AHL recommendations and action
points is given in the table below:
| Recommendation/Task
| Action/current state |
| Recommendations relating to Nolan principles
| |
1. Where potential for conflicts of interest exists the DCMS should formally document the assessment of any risks arising including whether this impacts on the suitability
of a candidate for the proposed public position. The
risk assessment should be re-performed at the time of
re-appointment to ensure any change in circumstances
is understood. The risk assessments should be retained as part of the appointment process. Actions required on the part of CABE to manage potential conflicts of interest should be agreed between the DCMS and CABE at the time of appointment. (15.3)
| Done—Implemented for latest appointments of CABE Heritage Commissioner and Chairman.
DCMS NDPB Chairs informed of new conflict of interest procedures on re-appointment in DCMS letter of 20 August 2004.
|
2. The profile of the future Chair of CABE should be re-defined to minimise the risks associated with any public perception of conflict of interest arising. It is not in the public interest for the post to be held by a person with material commercial interests that may come into conflict with CABE's remit. (16.9)
| Done—Detailed role specification prepared as part of recruitment of new Chairman.
|
3. Given the growth both in CABE and Stanhope, we have concluded that the position of Chair of CABE should, in the future, not be held by a property developer, with significant commercial interests. (16.10)
| Done—Role specification included the criterion "demonstrate an understanding of CABE's remit and a sensitivity to the interplay between that remit and wider commercial interests".
|
4. DCMS should review the balance of the Commissioners active in the industry and those from an independent but relevant background. (17.5)
| Ongoing, as current Commissioners come up for re-appointment; first arises in March 2006.
|
5. A risk assessment should be formally undertaken as part of the appointment of the Chair of Design Review. Such an assessment should be undertaken for the existing post and any future appointments. Consideration should be given to extending this approach to the appointment of Chair of all of the Commission's sub-committees. (20.19)
| Done as part of appointment of
Les Sparks in September. Concept of Nominations Panel accepted and risk assessment to be rolled out to each sub-committee chair.
|
6. Interests must in the future be declared to CABE at the time of intent rather than commitment, as this is when
the potential for conflict arises. (18.9)
| Done—intentions declared. |
7. The direct commercial relationships between the Commissioners, or the Chair, should continue to be monitored and recorded in the register of interests. (18.14)
| This is being done—register of interests pro forma has been amended to include Commissioners' commercial relationships.
|
8. The Audit Committee should review the risks of declared interests to CABE. This should be repeated twice a year to ensure risks are reassessed against any changes in the profile of an existing interest. The findings of this review should be reported to the Commission and also to the DCMS. (18.11)
| Done and reported to DCMS. Scheduled to be done next on
16 March 2005.
|
9. A copy of the register of interests should be formally circulated to Commissioners once a year to ensure the extent and depth of interests is understood. (18.12)
| Done—27 October 2004. |
10. The appointments process for Design Review panel members must be seen to be an open, as well as fair process. Implementation of the recommendations made by CABE on how this should be achieved is endorsed. (20.11)
| Done. The competition process was agreed by CABE's Operations Committee on 2 September 2004. Appointments to be announced January 2005. The process will be repeated annually.
|
11. In line with standard governance practice, training on an annual basis for Commissioners should be provided. (17.6)
| In hand; training event to be held on 16 March 2005.
|
12. Commissioners should sign a statement on appointment confirming their acceptance and understanding of the Nolan principles and their attendance on the induction training programme. (17.7)
| Done—introduced for latest Commissioner appointments; first will be the Heritage Commissioner, Anthea Case, in January 2005.
|
13. CABE should further consider the need to make the register of interests more publicly available, for example by including it on the website. (18.13)
| Done—notice put on the website (http://www.cabe.org.uk/about/commissioners.asp) stating that the register is available for inspection
or a copy will be provided (in either electronic or paper form).
|
Recommendations to improve procedures in managing conflicts of interest
|
14. The Commissioners' register of interests forms should be revised to include requirements to outline where an interest may amount to a potential or perceived conflict to CABE; record interests of connected parties on the register so that relevant familial or company interests are also reported (18.10)
| Done—CABE's register pro forma amended to explicitly capture this information, and conflicts of interest guidance to be amended. All Commissioners have now updated their declarations of interests.
|
15. If professional advisors are used which also represent public sector board members in a private capacity, different partners should be involved, and the interest declared. (19.3)
| Done:
(a) DCMS issued new guidance
to all its executive NDPBs on
24 March 2004.
(b) CABE: different legal advisers have been retained to ensure separation on this issue. A tender will take place to appoint a panel from whom legal advice can be sought.
|
16. The general principles adopted to determine at which level of Design Review a scheme should be reviewed, should be documented. (20.4)
| Done—Principles considered and agreed by Operations Committee on 2 September 2004.
|
| |
17. The induction process for Design Review panel members should be extended by:
— Providing further formal guidance on managing conflicts of interest;
— Documenting the induction process to ensure the importance of meeting public sector standards is covered, including Nolan principles and conflicts of interest. (20.15)
| Done—Considered and agreed
by Operations Committee on
2 September 2004. To be implemented for new DRC members starting in January 2005. Each new DRC member will have a 1:1 induction meeting with the Director of Design Review.
|
18. The person specification for "Chair of Design Review" should be included in the terms of reference for the Design Review Committee. (20.20)
| Done—Considered and agreed
by Operations Committee on
2 September 2004.
|
19. A register should be maintained of Design Review panel members' current employment. This should be circulated to all Commissioners and Design Review members. (20.25)
| Done—Circulated to Commissioners in October 2004.
|
20. CABE's internal auditors should provide the Audit Committee with an annual assurance on the management of Design Review, in respect of propriety and regularity, including conflict of interest. (20.27)
| In hand—CABE's internal auditors have been commissioned to provide an annual review of Design Review.
|
21. CABE should include in the form completed by those presenting to Design Review the fact that the opinion given will be in the public domain unless the developer requests that it be kept confidential. In instances where it is requested that an opinion remain confidential, the developer should also be required to maintain confidentiality and advise CABE when the scheme is to enter the public domain. (20.31)
| Done—Commissioner meeting on
15 September 2004 agreed that only for pre-planning application schemes will DR applicants be offered choice of DRC comments in confidence or publicly, all others will be published. And where they are in confidence, only as long as the scheme is not in public domain. As soon as it is, CABE will publish its advice.
|
22. Where relevant, the final opinion letter should reflect the fact that the scheme has been reviewed by CABE over a period of time. (20.34)
| Done—this is now done explicitly in all cases.
|
23. The Conflicts of Interests Guidance Note should be revised to reflect recommendations arising from this review. (21.7)
| In hand—Revisions to be made to CABE's guidance and will be presented to its February 2005 Operations Committee
|
24. The process for declaring new interests that are made during the year should be formalised and care taken that paper and electronic copies of the register match each other. (21.8)
| Done—A form for notifying changes has been produced by CABE. A senior CABE officer now formally monitors amendments.
|
25. The risks to CABE arising from interests declared by staff should be assessed, documented and reported to the Audit Committee. (21.9)
| Done—CABE staff register of interests and risk assessment considered by 8 December 2004 Audit Committee.
Guidance re-circulated to staff recently.
|
26. The internal audit strategy should include annual internal audit reviews of Conflict of Interest Management. (21.10)
| Done—Included in the 2004-05 Audit Plan for CABE's internal auditors.
|
27. A risk mitigation plan should be put in place for managing the risk of conflicts of interest. (21.11)
| Done—CABE Audit Committee reviews risk register every six months; conflicts of interest are top priority. Last done September 2004, next March 2005.
|
| 28. CABE should develop a handling strategy for conflicts of interest. (21.12)
| In hand—handling strategy to be presented to CABE Audit Committee on 16 March 2005.
|
| |
