BOB’S MY UNCLE?
The idea is simple. A councillor who has an interest, financial or personal, in any matter they find themselves dealing with, should declare that interest and usually be disqualified from taking any further part. Simples.
A strange thing, according to the council’s new part time leader and old broom Cllr. Steve Eling, is that Sandwell’s Labour councillors seem unable to grasp the concept of conflict of interest. Trumpeting to the press, a change in the Sandwell councillors’ code of conduct he said “It is just providing greater clarity in terms of what relatives councillors should be declaring……. It was a bit vague in terms of relatives” In case any should think him a wild revolutionary, Cllr Eling reassured his colleagues that there was no massive change. So much for his boasts to clean up the council. So much for the impact of the Wragge (Gowling) report.
Many Sandwell councillors have no difficulty identifying the relatives who are also councillors. A substantial number of Labour councillors are married or related to a fellow councillor. One would have thought even the slowest witted Sandwell Labour councillor would be able to identify their own other relatives, but the comrades were obviously collectively unsure. Whether the change in the code will enlighten them is doubtful.
The alternative of a council maintained “Stud Book” for councillors in which their families, (not their amorous conquests), are recorded, if it depends upon the declarations of the councillors themselves is likely to be flawed and useless. In cases of difficulty, perhaps the televising of council proceedings might be enlivened by Cllr. Eling playing the part of a charisma shorn Jeremy Kyle and opening an envelope to reveal the DNA results proving or disproving that a person is related to a particular councillor. Entertaining though this might be, it would fail to discover “in law” relationships.
Anyway, we take the view that using the closeness of the family relationship to decide whether that connection should be disclosed is likely to produce the abuses Wragge recorded. Suppose Miss X is a first cousin twice removed of Cllr. Y and so falls outside the rules requiring disclosure of family relationships. But if she lives with Cllr. Y as his lover, is buying land from the council and Cllr. Y is overseeing the deal, surely he should disclose their relationship, not conceal it on the basis that she is insufficiently biologically related to him. A concentration on the closeness of family relationships can obscure the principle and be exploited by the less than scrupulous.
Consequently, the councillors’ code of conduct needs to leave no wriggle room for sleaze. It should make clear that any interest any relationship must be revealed. However, this is not enough. There must be a willingness on the part of Labour councillors to blow the whistle on offending colleagues and on the part of senior officers of the council not to wink at fault. Rules without sanctions are ineffective. There is an impression and some evidence that, in Nelsonian fashion, telescopes have been applied to the blind eye.