Skip to main content

Graham Report - 10th report into public standards

The Graham Report has now been released.

I welcome the publication of the 10th Report into Public Standards. This report recognises that the current procedures where councillors have been sacked for:

- sitting in a meeting with a constituent without saying they are a councillor (Coleen Gill-East Riding-Lib Dem)
- writing to an MP (Coleen Gill-East Riding-Lib Dem)
- taking the wrong route out of a dinner (Blackpool-Labour)
- agreeing to the erection of gates (Tameside-Labour)
- representing a constituent as a solicitor (Tory)
- saying F**k - amongst other things (Peterborough-Tory)
- issuing a leaflet complaining about lack of action on anti social behaviour (Hull-Independent)
- revealing an officer's salary (Yorkshire somewhere - SDP)
- revealing an unlawful payment to a nuclear power company (Lancaster-Green)

are wrong.

It is important, however, that any changes fully recognise that the role of the councillor is to hold the system to account. If people are rude from time to time then they should apologise. We should not have local representatives that are merely clones there to defend the bureaucracy. The Standards Board for England is used frequently as a threat by Council Officers to prevent Councillors from challenging the bureaucracy. This has to stop.

Clearly corruption cannot be allowed. However, the current rules have acted more to prevent democracy from operating than to maintain standards.

What happened with the current system is that it delvered something to protect the bureaucrats from challenge. Hopefully we can move back towards a proper democratic system which is accountable to the voters and where only real corruption is subject to sanction.

There have been a small number of cases through the Standards and Adjudication Process that were entirely valid. One I can think of is one in Walsall where a councillor interfered with the actual tenders for a building. Although the motivation there was good and the councillor obtained no personal gain, that was in fact wrong.

However, a substantial number have been not only wrong, but counter productive and anti-democratic.

Comments

Paul Varjak said…
Coleen Gill has been ejected from the Council because she only considered the mother in a child protection case - not the child!

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…