Standards Committee - 25 September 2007

Elected Members

• Councillor Mrs S Dewhurst
• Councillor B J Fagan
• Councillor J A O’Neil
• Councillor Mrs J Prescott
• Councillor P Thompson
• Councillor R T Splaine
• Councillor F B Walker

Independent Members

• Mr G Wood (Chairman)
• Mr D A Lea
• Mr P G Pennington
• Mrs P A Wheal

Parish Council Members

• Councillor Mrs M A Thompson (Haigh)
• Councillor J Ball (Shevington)

27 Apologies for Absence: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R Winkworth and Mr R Kidd.

28 Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 31 July 2007 were approved as a correct record.

29 Exclusion of the Public - Section 100a Local Government Act 1972: Resolved: The public is excluded from the meeting when the Committee discusses the following item for the reason set out below:-

Items not subject to confirmation by the Council

30 Adjudication Panel for England/Ethical Standards Officers Decisions: This item would now be considered at Minute 35.

31 Parish issues (if any): There was none.

32 Discussion period: No issues were raised.

33 Standards Board decisions: (a) Case SBE 19238.07: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had improperly used his position as an elected member by seeking to prevent a developer securing planning consent. The complainant alleged that the Member acted in this manner to ensure his own employment was safe. The complainant alleged that the site was not in the Members ward so he could not use the defence that he was acting as an advocate for his electorate. The complainant alleged that he signed his objection as a Councillor and was therefore using his official title to influence the outcome.

The Standards Board for England noted that the Member’s objection to the proposed development appeared to be based on sound consideration and there was nothing to indicate from this alone, any ulterior motive for his objection. While the complainant’s concerns had been noted it was considered that further information was required in order to determine whether the issue should be referred for investigation. In particular, there was no information to determine the nature of the two businesses and how planning consent of the application would have a direct and detrimental effect on the Member’s employers.

The Standards Board for England decided that if further information was provided, they would consider afresh whether the issue should be referred for investigation. However, this should not be taken as an indication of the decision that they were likely to take. Until further information was received, the Standards Board for England would take no further action on the allegation. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(b) Case SBE19324.07: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the abovementioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member added a business and a property to his entry in the member’s register of interests, despite him having had these interests for some time.

It was alleged that the Member had a further property which he owned. The complainant further alleged that the Member had spoken on housing issues on numerous occasions during his period of office but had not declared any of the above interests. It was also alleged that the Member had spoken on business issues and again not made any declarations of interest.

The Standards Board for England had obtained a copy of the member’s register of interests to assist with their assessment of the complaint. It was noted that both the business and property were listed. Whilst the complainant alleged that the Member had had these interests for some time, this was not further explained by the complainant. The Standards Board for England was therefore not able to take a view on whether these interests should have been registered at an earlier date. In any event, it was noted that they were now on the register and therefore no current potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed.

In relation to the allegation that the Member owned a further property, the Standards Board for England noted that the complainant stated that it was his ‘understanding’ and it was ‘unclear’ whether it was being rented. In the absence of any information to support a view that the property was owned, leased or rented by the Member and would therefore need to be registered, it was considered that this aspect of the complaint should not be referred for investigation.

In respect of the alleged failure to declare interests, it was not considered that these interests would necessitate declarations of interest being made in discussions on housing issues and business issues. In the absence of any information to support the view that the member had taken part in discussions where he had a personal and/or prejudicial interest in the topic under discussion, it was not considered that a potential breach of the Code was disclosed.

The Standards Board for England decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation. Having taken account of the available information, the Standards Board for England did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(Councillor B J Fagan declared a prejudicial interest in this item because he was the subject of the case and left the meeting during consideration of this item).

(c) Case SBE19280.07: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the abovementioned case. This related to an allegation that on 16 May 2007, at a sub group meeting of a Township Forum, a Member had failed to treat him with respect.

The complainant alleged that the Member had made a number of allegations concerning work the complainant had organised during his period as a Councillor, together with a private issue that had been placed in the public domain via a local paper. The complainant reported that he had made a formal complaint via email to the Chief Executive of the authority and that his letter also requested that the Member personally apologised so that the issue could be resolved. The complainant stated that, to date, no apology had been received.

It was further alleged that at a meeting on 11 July 2007, the Member again raised the same issue, but restricted his comments to stating that the complainant had acted illegally. The complainant reported that a member of the public intervened on his behalf, but despite this, the Member made clear his belief that the complainant had acted illegally.

The complainant stated that in neither of the instances quoted by the Member, had he broken the law and that for a Councillor to make these claims at a public meeting was disgraceful.

The complainant also reported that from the reply he received from an officer of the authority ‘it was obvious that the issue had been discussed’ which suggested that the Member had revealed information that was given to him in confidence. He alleged that the Member was ‘using the Council as a means to conduct a vendetta’ against him.

The Standards Board for England noted from the information provided that the complainant was not present at the relevant meeting. Whilst it is noted that the complainant disputes the accuracy of the comments made by the Member and suggests that they are untrue, the Standards Board for England does not generally consider the accuracy and validity of allegedly factual information that Members place in the public domain. Furthermore, it was not considered that expressing concerns about such issues would amount to a failure to comply with the Code and whilst the complainant disputes the accuracy of the statements, the Member was entitled to hold and express his opinion on such issues.

The Standards Board for England noted that the complainant considered the alleged comments to be a ‘slur’ on his character. With regard to alleged defamation, the Standards Board for England took the view that complainants should seek independent legal advice on the legal avenues for redress. It was not considered, on the basis of the information provided, that any comments allegedly made by the Member at either of the stated meetings had the potential to amount to a failure to treat the complainant with respect under the Code.

With regard to the allegation that the Member had revealed information that was given to him in confidence, it was noted that the complainant did not allege that the Member was responsible for this, but rather alleged that it was his comments at the second meeting which disclosed confidential information. It was also noted that the Member reportedly did not name or make reference to the complainant when allegedly making these comments. Therefore it was not considered that the information provided supported a view that the Member had disclosed information that was given to him in confidence.

The Standards Board for England decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation. Having taken account of the available information, the Standards Board for England did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(Councillor B J Fagan declared a prejudicial interest in this item because he was the subject of the case and left the meeting during consideration of this item).

34 Local investigation SBE17890.07: The Committee considered a report on the investigation of a complaint referred by the Standards Board for England for local investigation and determination.

The Committee was advised that on 17 April 2007, the Standards Board referred a complaint that a Member had failed to treat others with respect and had brought her office and the authority into disrepute for local investigation and determination. An investigation was undertaken and a report was prepared that concluded that there had been no failure to comply with the Code of Conduct in that there was sufficient evidence of any breach.

The Standards Committee was advised that they must now consider the report. The Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determination) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 provided that in these circumstances a Standards Committee may only make one of two findings:-

• That it accepts the finding of no failure (a finding of acceptance): or
• That the issue should be considered at a Hearing of the Standards Committee conducted under the regulations.

The Standards Committee was advised that at this stage it may not find that there had been a breach of the Code. The Standards Board for England guidance stated that the Standards Committee should only consider the report and not seek to interview witnesses or take representation from parties.

The Committee was advised that if they found that the issue should be considered at a hearing, then the Standards Committee would need to appoint a sub-committee to deal with the hearing under the 2004 regulations.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the finding in the report of no failure (a finding of acceptance).

35 Direction of the Standards Board for England cases SBE17830.07 and SBE17831.07: The Committee considered a report that advised Members of the direction given by the Standards Board for England and sought views from Members on appropriate actions in response to the direction.

The Committee was informed that the direction from the Standards Board for England confirmed Wigan Council’s status as having the most complained about Members of metropolitan authorities in the country. The Standards Board for England believed that this was significant not only because it illustrated the difficult relationships that existed between the political parties in Wigan, but also because unless resolved, it was likely to pose a significant problem for the Council when complaints would be considered by the local authority as opposed to the Standards Board for England.

The Standards Board for England acknowledged the steps that the authority had undertaken in trying to address the issue, however, it was noted that while some members of all groups were supportive, others were not and further work was required to ensure that all members worked together to build a positive and productive environment.

The Committee was asked to consider the direction submitted by the Standards Board for England and what steps could be taken to improve working relations between members and officers. The Committee was advised that there was an obligation to submit a report to the Standards Board within four months and accordingly early steps would be needed to implement the proposals that members may agree.

Resolved: The Committee requested the Deputy Director of Legal and Property to:-

• arrange for the direction from the Standards Board for England to be brought to the attention of all Members and their comments be sought;
• investigate, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the possibility of securing external help to address the problem of relationships between political groups and between councillors and officers; and
• report back to the Committee on further possible steps that may be taken to improve the current situation.