Examination of Witnesses (Questions 44-59)
6 DECEMBER 2004
COUNCILLOR JIM
BREAKELL, PROFESSOR
RICHARD CHAPMAN
AND MR
DENIS WILSON
Q44 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Could I ask you to give your names for the record, please.
Mr Wilson: Denis Wilson, Northamptonshire
County Council.
Professor Chapman: Richard Chapman,
Chairman of the City of Durham Standards Committee.
Councillor Breakell: Councillor
Jim Breakell, Chairman of Standards at South Ribble Borough Council.
Q45 Chairman: Do you feel the need to
make brief introductions or are you happy to go straight to questions?
Mr Wilson: I am happy to go straight
to questions.
Councillor Breakell: That is fine,
thank you.
Professor Chapman: We are all
very happy.
Chairman: Could I say that, if you agree
with each other, please do not repeat, but, if you disagree, feel
free to jump in and do so.
Q46 Mr O'Brien: Gentlemen, you all have
experience in dealing with the Code of Conduct. How effective
have the Standards Board been in promoting and overseeing it?
Mr Wilson: I think the one complaint
we have is the length of time—and that has been raised.
In overseeing the code, it takes a long time for a case to come
up, but, in promoting the code, I think the documentation they
have delivered both to the standards committees, councillors and,
indeed, the general public has been very helpful, in particular
the website for a standards committee is useful because it enables
us to look at cases and to use those as examples for training
and as examples to councillors.
Professor Chapman: I agree with
the question of delays, particularly at the beginning of the experience
with the Standards Board. I would also like to add that in the
early times of the Standards Board our experience was that we
did not get the sort of advice from the Standards Board we were
hoping to receive. Things have become better as time has passed,
but at the beginning, in particular, I think the Standards Board
was suffering from inexperienced staff and, indeed, staff who
were not necessarily the best informed either to be doing the
jobs they were doing—and I could illustrate that if you
wish.
Q47 Mr O'Brien: The current situation?
Professor Chapman: That has improved
considerably. Comparing four years ago with today, we are experiencing
a much more professional attitude from the Standards Board than
there was at the beginning.
Q48 Mr O'Brien: How long does it take
to settle a case now or investigate a case?
Professor Chapman: If you are
asking about times for settling—
Q49 Mr O'Brien: That was the problem
you raised in the initial stages, was it not?
Professor Chapman: Yes, the delays
were as much in terms of getting things through the system. Six
months or more was quite normal for anything even of a relatively
minor nature. We are blessed so far in not having had any major
complaints going through the system. Most of ours have been what
I would categorise as minor, and in some cases vexatious, but,
even so, they were, at the beginning in particular, taking six
months or more. The other thing I would like to add, if I may,
is that I do not think the Standards Board, and perhaps the ODPM
for all I know, have taken on board some of the resource implications
of the system which we have set up. We have already experienced
that to some extent with the work of the standards committee so
far, but it is going to be more significant as we get investigations
and determinations being sent down to us from the Standards Board.
Q50 Andrew Bennett: Has the Code of Conduct
really changed or is it a bit ambiguous?
Professor Chapman: You are asking
me for my personal opinion now and I am happy to give it.
Q51 Andrew Bennett: Yes.
Professor Chapman: I do not think
it is particularly ambiguous. I think it is fairly clear. I think
we are unhappy about, I think, item 7—the one that says
that councillors have an obligation to report matters which they
think could be matters for complaint and if they do not do so
then they themselves would be guilty—because this stimulates
people or gives them an excuse when they would not otherwise have
this problem.
Q52 Andrew Bennett: You think that one
bit would be better out of the code.
Professor Chapman: I would be
very happy if that bit were out of the code, yes.
Q53 Andrew Bennett: Does the Standards
Board itself interpret its own code consistently?
Professor Chapman: As far as I
can see it does. I have no experience.
Councillor Breakell: I do not
think I have experience to answer that. I am perfectly happy with
the aims and intentions of the Standards Board. I think its ideals
are very good. Like the professor, we have a council where we
do not have tremendous problems—touching wood!—but
we have similar problems. I think delay was one of the features
which we put in the written statement in the first place.
Q54 Andrew Bennett: And they are consistent
in that: there is delay for everybody!
Councillor Breakell: Consistent
on delay, certainly. Without a doubt.
Mr Wilson: On delays, the longest
we have had was two years—and that will be settled hopefully
in January—but I think we have had a later case which went
a lot quicker.
Q55 Andrew Bennett: I am tempted to ask
of the case which took years, if it was a guilty or not guilty
finding.
Mr Wilson: I have said it will
be determined in January. But that is a long time for a councillor
to be under suspicion. I think it is a problem not only for the
councillor but it is a problem for the person who complained,
and it is also a problem for his party and for the public as well.
I think it really needs to be addressed to get these cases seen
to a lot quicker than they have been in the past.
Professor Chapman: So far we have
concentrated on delays in regard to cases because that is the
way it has turned out in the questions we were being asked, but
I would like to mention that there have been delays of other sorts
as well, which are at least as serious and perhaps more serious.
This is coming up to my fourth year. I was appointed as an independent
member at the beginning of this experience and I have two more
meetings to go before the end of my term of office. The Standards
Board—and I agree with the Standards Board—recommend
that you should not carry on for longer than four years. During
my experience we would not have had any investigations dealt with
locally or determinations dealt with locally—and looking
back, this is a bit of a surprise, compared with what we had expected.
But the delays I would like to draw your attention to are delays
in introducing things like regulations under section 66 of the
Act, because the serious fact is that if you continue to have
the delays we experience in regard to that and other similar matters
then it brings the whole system of democracy, the whole structure
we have set up, into a bit of disrepute. If you have these agencies,
the Standards Board, the ODPM, the standards committees and so
on, and you cannot carry on doing what you are meant to be doing
in accordance with the 2000 Act, then the whole thing becomes
a little bit of a farce.
Q56 Andrew Bennett: Whose fault is it:
the Standards Board that they did not get the regulations out
or ODPM?
Professor Chapman: It is very
difficult for me to say assertively, but, from asking questions—and
we are not beyond asking questions in the City of Durham, may
I say: we have asked questions as far as we can every time we
have been frustrated—it seems to be that the ODPM was unable
to produce the goods for the Standards Board to give us the advice
on. From my point of view I would say that, if I had the power,
I would be going along to the Standards Board, banging on the
door and saying, "Why was the chief executive officer not
going down to Whitehall and banging on the door of the ODPM?"
But that is my personal view.
Chairman: We do not know that he was
not.
Q57 Mr Betts: The submission from Durham
Standards Committee made reference to clause 7 and said it should
not be there. Why should there not be that requirement? If one
councillor has seen something wrong being done by another councillor,
you cannot expect the individual to turn their backs on it, pretend
it did not happen, and decide it is not worthy of being reported
Professor Chapman: No, I would
come back to that and say I can take an extreme position in the
way that you appear to be taking a more extreme position than
the case I put. At the end of the day, councillors have to exercise
judgment. If they do not exercise judgments and carry on according
to the letter of everything just because that is a convenient
opportunity to make a case, then, again, the thing goes into disrepute.
I think people must use common sense. They must exercise their
judgment and they do not necessarily have to follow rules. If
you have a rule for everything in life, then that is most unfortunate
in my opinion.
Q58 Mr Betts: Coming on to the issue
of regulations, a lot of guidance has been issued on these matters.
Has that been effectively communicated? Is it easy to understand?
Mr Wilson: From the point of view
of our council and the standards committee, yes, it has been communicated
quite well. The instructions or the guidance on local determination
committees and dual-hatted committee members are particularly
good. The standards committee can set out the procedure for a
local hearing and can give advice on lobbying of dual-hatted members.
I have not fully read the new one on local investigations, but
I know that is out on the website. There, again, I would say that
all these publications are very easily available on their website,
very easy to access and very easy to read.
Q59 Christine Russell: Professor Chapman
just gave us some good constructive criticism about the early
days following the establishment of the Standards Board and the
standards committees. How would you summarise the relationship
today, four years on, between the Standards Board and the standards
committees?
Professor Chapman: On the question
of delays?
| 
