Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-122)
JAMES PURNELL,
MR STUART
ROBERTS AND
MR PHIL
WOOLAS
31 OCTOBER 2005
Q120 Mr Betts: If councillors actually
live in their own ward and therefore they are a resident who could
be affected—
James Purnell: Then they can.
Mr Woolas: As a member of the
committee?
Q121 Mr Betts: No; not on the committee.
James Purnell: If they live within
the vicinity, then they can make a representation as a resident.
If they do not qualify as being within the vicinity, they can
make a representation if they have representations from constituents
and there is nothing to stop them going out and getting those
representations.
Mr Betts: That is not how it is being
interpreted.
Q122 Chair: We might need to clarify
this with your Department in writing afterwards. There is a certain
degree of disagreement amongst us. It might be better, rather
than ploughing on, to sort it out in writing subsequently.
Mr Woolas: May I add two other
points? In addition to the question which has been raised, there
is also of course the consideration of the code of conduct of
the standards board and the findings of the Graham review of standards
in public life. Key amongst our considerations in the response
is the evidence from this Committee. There are issues around what
is called the double-hatted issue where restrictions are placed
on councillors and perhaps have a perverse, unintended consequence.
I would want to look at the issue which has been raised in the
round to ensure that there are not further unintended consequences
and that is a very important piece of work. We would want to look
at the evidence you present in your findings on this particular
issue.
Chair: May I thank you both very much?
We shall certainly be making recommendations and we are relieved
to hear that you are both going to consider them and that we may
actually be able to work with you to improve the system the next
time round. Thank you very much.
| 
