MPA cases dealt with by the Standards Board for England

Report: 9
Date: 05 October 2006
By: the Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report provides summaries of cases where the Standards Board for England has investigated and come to a decision on allegations made against MPA members.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee receives this report.

B. Supporting information

1. The Standards Board for England (SBE) has recently completed investigations and come to a decision on five cases where allegations were made that MPA members had breached the Code of Conduct (four cases were the same allegation made jointly against four members). In the case involving Peter Herbert the Ethical Standards Officer found that, in the circumstances of the case, no action needs to be taken. In the case involving Robert Neill, Richard Barnes, Anthony Arbour and Elizabeth Howlett the Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

2. The case summaries produced by the SBE are attached. The SBE gives the full report to those members concerned and to the Monitoring Officer. Section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 prohibits the disclosure of that report or any of the documents used as evidence.

3. The Monitoring Officer will report orally at the meeting.

C. Race and equality impact

Relevant issues are addressed in the case summaries.

D. Financial implications

None.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Simon Vile, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Standards Board case summaries

Case no. SBE13265.05

Member: Mr Peter Herbert

Authority: Metropolitan Police Authority

Date received: 14 Nov 2005

Date completed: 04 Aug 2006

Allegation: A member disclosed confidential information, brought his office or authority into disrepute, improperly secured an advantage for himself, failed to withdraw from a meeting when a matter in which he had a prejudicial interest was discussed and improperly sought to influence a decision on the matter.

SBE outcome: The Ethical Standards Officer found that, in the circumstances of this case, no action needs to be taken.

The complainant alleged that Mr Peter Herbert improperly sought to influence a Metropolitan Police Authority decision on an issue in favour of a charity with which he was associated.

Mr Herbert allegedly phoned and texted some members of the authority, urging them to vote in support of the charity, and sent a letter containing misleading information for the same purpose. He also allegedly disclosed a confidential Metropolitan Police Authority document to the charity.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered that Mr Herbert had not acted improperly when he lobbied for the charity. Mr Herbert did not seek to exert pressure on anyone to support the charity; he was not dishonest; his interest was well known to members of the authority; and he did not have any personal stake in the matter.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered that Mr Herbert did not disclose confidential information to the charity, as the information in the authority’s confidential report was already known to the charity, and some of the information had originally been submitted by the charity.

The Ethical Standards Officer also investigated whether Mr Herbert failed to withdraw from a meeting of the authority on 30 June 2005 after he declared a prejudicial interest in the item being considered.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered that Mr Herbert did not have to withdraw from the meeting, as the authority did not formally consider the matter in which he had a prejudicial interest at the meeting.

Finally, the Ethical Standards Officer investigated whether Mr Herbert brought his office or authority into disrepute by misleading the Monitoring Officer about a request to access property belonging to the authority, which he visited on behalf of the charity.

The Ethical Standards Officer did not consider that Mr Herbert deliberately misled the Monitoring Officer.

The Ethical Standards Officer found that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Relevant Paragraphs of the Code of Conduct

The allegation in this case relates to paragraphs 3(a), 4, 5(a), 9 and 12 of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 3(a) states that "a member must not disclose information given to him in confidence by anyone, or information acquired which he believes is of a confidential nature, without the consent of a person authorised to give it, or unless he is required by law to do so". Paragraph 4 states that “a member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute”. Paragraph 5(a) states that a member "must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, use his position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for himself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage". Paragraph 9 states that "a member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent". Paragraph 12 states that a member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must "withdraw from the room or chamber where a meeting is being held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being considered at that meeting" and that he must "not seek improperly to influence a decision about that matter".

Case no. SBE14417.06, SBE14418.06, SBE14419.06 and SBE14420.06

Member: Mr Robert Neill, Mr Richard Barnes, Mr Anthony Arbour and Ms Elizabeth Howlett

Authority: Metropolitan Police Authority

Date received: 28 Feb 2006

Date completed: 20 Sep 2006

Allegation: Members failed to treat others with respect and brought their office or authority into disrepute.

SBE outcome: The Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

It was alleged that Metropolitan Police Authority members Mr Robert Neill, Mr Richard Barnes, Mr Anthony Arbour and Ms Elizabeth Howlett failed to treat another member of the authority with respect and brought their office or authority into disrepute.

The four members allegedly criticised, interrupted and ridiculed the other member at meetings of the authority, as part of a pattern of behaviour intended to undermine the member.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered that the four members’ criticism of their colleague and the views he expressed at Metropolitan Police Authority meetings was within the reasonable bounds of political debate, and was consistent with their conduct towards other members of the authority, taking into account the member’s own conduct during the meetings. The Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence that the members targeted their colleague and tried to undermine him as part of a pattern of behaviour.

It was also alleged that the four members agreed to systematically undermine their colleague after he suggested that the editor of a weekly political magazine be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. The members also allegedly discriminated against their colleague on racial grounds and victimised him for seeking the prosecution of the magazine editor.

The Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence that the members had entered into any such agreement to undermine their colleague. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that the members did not discriminate against their colleague on racial grounds or try to victimise him because he had sought the prosecution of the magazine editor.

It was further alleged the members made a malicious and spurious complaint to the Standards Board for England about their colleague, and persuaded a member of the public, who allegedly belonged to their political party, to make another wrongful complaint to the Standards Board about the member.

The Ethical Standards Officer did not consider that the complaint made in the name of one of the members was spurious or malicious. The Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence that the members tried to persuade a member of the public to make a wrongful complaint to the Standards Board and noted that he was a member of a different political party.

It was alleged that Mr Barnes, Mr Neill, Ms Howlett or Mr Arbour provided a local newspaper with details of complaints against the member in relation to the disposal of Metropolitan Police Authority property, before those complaints were officially submitted to the Standards Board.

The Ethical Standards Officer was unable to determine how the newspaper got hold of the information, but noted that even if a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority had passed on the information to the paper, this would not have amounted to a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Finally, it was alleged that the way in which the four members treated their colleague was an abuse of process.

The Ethical Standards Officer did not consider that the members’ behaviour was an abuse of process.

The Ethical Standards Officer considered that the members had not breached the Code of Conduct by being disrespectful to their colleague, or by bringing their office or authority into disrepute. In reaching this view, the Ethical Standards Officer took into account advice on equality and diversity issues from a specialist consultant.

The Ethical Standards Officer found that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Relevant Paragraphs of the Code of Conduct

The allegation in this case relates to paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 2(b) states that a member must "treat others with respect". Paragraph 4 states that "a member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute".

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback