Examination of Witnesses (Questions 103-119)
6 DECEMBER 2004
SIR JEREMY
BEECHAM, MS
CHLOE LAMBERT
AND MR
ROY WILLIAMS
Q103 Andrew Bennett: Has the Standards
Board been a success? Has it raised standards in local government,
or has it increased the public's view that there is some corruption
in local government?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I do not think
it has raised standards. I think it has contributed to raising
public confidence in local government. There is no evidence to
suggest there is any significant problem with corruption in local
government and of course the Board is not dealing with corruption
in the criminal sense because that would be a matter to be pursued
by the courts. As the Committee of Standards in Public Life has
pointed out on more than one occasion, standards in this country
are generally very high, and that is true of local government.
In the relatively small percentage of cases where a finding has
been made, they have been subjected to a full investigation.
Q104 Andrew Bennett: Is it a big bureaucracy
that could be got rid of?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: No, I think
it is important to retain the structure, working perhaps more
quickly than it has been able to do in the past, and it is seemingly
more effective as the regulations have now come into force and
resources are made available. It is important to have an independent
structure to deal with the issues as they arise. I do not take
the view that some people do that this is an unnecessary bureaucracy.
That is not the Local Government Association's position, although
we do think its ways of working might be improved—and hearing
the last witnesses, that view is not restricted to us. A local
gateway might be a better way of filtering some of the claims,
but subject to that it has an important part to play. It is not
necessarily the only body that needs to be concerned. There is
a responsibility on political parties in particular to be active
in promoting high standards and dealing with those who transgress
them.
Ms Lambert: I think the Standards
Board has been a success in terms of raising awareness of the
need to have a code of conduct and a certain standard of behaviour.
The delays we have heard about, which are not being addressed
by more local determination, have been the main cause for complaint
amongst our members.
Q105 Christine Russell: Can I ask you
for your views on compulsory training for elected members on the
code of conduct, perhaps especially for those members that serve
on committees involved with planning and licensing?
Ms Lambert: It is essential. I
do not see how people can do their jobs as elected members, particularly
on those two committees, without the necessary training. I see
it as part of any necessary induction when you are first elected
to a council, but also you need regular refresher training to
keep yourself up to date. The important part about it is that
if you are trained, then, again, you are giving more public confidence
in the work that councillors do.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I agree with
what Chloe has just said, that one needs to be proportionate.
It is essential for members of principal councils to have training,
but it is not absolutely necessary to train 80,000 parish councillors
to the same extent—though maybe the chairs of parish councils
should receive the training.
Q106 Christine Russell: As an organisation,
has the LGA collected any evidence of the contribution of the
lack of training to submissions to the Standards Board?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: No. I am not
sure what the Standards Board reports back, as it were, apart
from the numbers of cases dealt with. There are records of some
decisions, but I do not think we have trawled through those, and
if we did I am not sure it would show training as a particular
feature in the cases that go there.
Ms Lambert: I think it is important
that the Standards Board does offer more in the way of training
and guidance to local councillors. I am particularly thinking
of the introduction of the new licensing responsibility on local
authorities.
Q107 Christine Russell: What form do
you think that should take?
Ms Lambert: It needs to be in
all sorts of different forms. I heard today, when I was receiving
some licensing training myself, that there is going to be an interactive
DVD on licensing hearings, which I am sure will be a best-seller!
You need different sorts of training—role-playing as much
as anything in that particular case.
Q108 Christine Russell: The difficulty
is, as we heard earlier this afternoon, that there are still a
high percentage of parish councils that are not even connected
to the Internet.
Ms Lambert: I understand that,
and that is why it needs to take different forms. Also, you need
to work with local authorities, the principal authorities, to
liaise with their parishes.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Training is
not necessarily to be confined to elected members. One of the
problems that sometimes arises is the excessive caution on the
officer side, where, frankly, a more common-sense and robust view
might well be more helpful to members. As it is, sometimes extremely
cautious advice is tendered and effectively pressure not to participate,
when it would be perfectly legitimate for them to do so. We think
that clearer guidance from the Board, and perhaps more training
for monitoring officers and others would also be relevant.
Q109 Chairman: Is the LGA confident that
the Standards Board understands subtleties of planning law sufficiently
in terms of their judgments where allegations have been made in
that sort of arena?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I would hesitate
to comment on the judgments they have made. We do have fairly
regular contact with them, but we do need to make clear that one
has to use common sense in these situations, and in turn they
should make that clear. I think it would be wrong to comment on
the outlook of particular cases.
Ms Lambert: I think there is still
a need for further training and guidance with specific examples
of scenarios presented to those who are receiving the training
about declarations and interests, particularly where a member
is two-hatted.
Mr Williams: There is also a third
element in training, and perhaps a feature that is coming more
to the fore, which is any training or guidance that needs to be
given to members of standards committees locally where they are
now going to be able to undertake investigation and adjudication.
Until now they have not been able to take forward the investigation
element, but the regulations have been recently put in place.
There may well be a need for a certain amount of training and
guidance on how to conduct that sort of investigation and adjudication,
to ensure a consistency of approach across the country.
Q110 Mr Betts: Should all individuals
who are complained about be made aware of the complaint against
them before a decision is made to carry out the investigation?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I would have
thought so, yes.
Ms Lambert: It is only fair that
there should be.
Q111 Mr Betts: We have had complaints
that there have been occasions when the individual complained
about first read about it in the local press.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Absolutely
wrong.
Ms Lambert: It is quite wrong.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: There is a
concern about publicity. The Board is clear that there should
not be publicity until the matter is adjudicated on. Sometimes
there are leaks and sometimes a deliberate move to embarrass people.
I am surprised, frankly, if it is the case that complaints have
been made and members not notified.
Q112 Chairman: Do you think the whistle-blowing
protection would be compromised if the member making the complaint
were named during the investigation?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: There are
a number of issues around whistle-blowing. I do not think it is
necessary to identify those who make the complaint. We are rather
more concerned about the duty that is imposed on elected members—
Q113 Chairman: The Clause 7 rule?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Yes, to blow
the whistle, as it were, and a failure to do so in itself of course
becomes a breach. We think that goes too far and is unnecessary.
Ms Lambert: It would also tend
to lead to more vicious or vexatious claims, which could be made
for political reasons for instance.
Q114 Andrew Bennett: On the question
of publicity, it is quite a ploy, is it not; that you complain
to the local papers that you are going to make a complaint to
the Standards Board in March just after somebody's nomination
has gone in, and sometime the following March some adjudication
says there is no case to answer? What should you do about that?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: We have argued
that the committee of standards and the Standards Board—a
disclosure of that kind should itself be a breach and it should
be capable of being adjudicated upon by the Board. In other words,
it should be an offence to disclose a complaint.
Q115 Andrew Bennett: If you were a councillor
it would be an offence, but if you were just a member of the general
public it would not matter, would it—or if you were a candidate?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: No.
Q116 Andrew Bennett: Particularly if
you were not expecting to be elected.
Ms Lambert: It is extremely difficult
to legislate against such cases.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: You cannot
stop that.
Q117 Andrew Bennett: No, but you could
say that if people seek publicity for their complaint, the Standards
Board would not investigate, and that would be a pretty firm way
in which you could stop that sort of abuse.
Mr Williams: That might be a little
difficult because that pre-supposes that the complaint is vexatious
and does not necessarily warrant investigation.
Q118 Andrew Bennett: So it is all right
if you receive publicity for a genuine complaint; it is only wrong
if you get publicity for a vexatious complaint.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I am not sure
that Mr Bennett has not touched on a rather good idea, actually!
Mr Williams: The other function
of that is that time has been taken up to now to investigate.
Q119 Andrew Bennett: So there is this
problem about publicity beforehand. What about publicity for the
council on the website when a decision has been reached? Should
they go on to the website, found guilty or found . . .
Sir Jeremy Beecham: They should
certainly go on if found guilty because that is regarded as an
issue of public confidence; and if they wish they could go on
if they are not guilty, but that must be a decision for the individual
council, which may well wish to go public, but on the other hand
it may wish to let the matter lie.
| 
