A matter of some interest?

****

I'm sure, my friends, that you are aware of my dislike for the "standards" system imposed on Councillors by Tony Blair's Labour Government. The intention was to deal with the scandals associated with Labour rotten boroughs like Doncaster but the result was onerous, officious, distrusting and, ultimately, a vehicle for political spite rather than the raising of standards.

The Code of Conduct enshrined in the 2000 Act contains many things to criticise but no-one seems to challenge the manner in which it treats what are called "interests". The Code requires that Councillors register interests and, where a matter of Council business concerns that interest, declare that interest. The problem here isn't the requirement for disclosure - that seems entirely right and proper - but the accompanying need to withdraw from the vote where the interest is "prejudicial". And the code places a pretty broad definition on "prejudicial":

A member of the public, who knows the relevant facts, would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

Consider this for a moment - it could cover a huge array of considerations. And it has led to the most common of problems - predetermination in regulatory matters. It appears that the new Localism Bill intends to amend the regulations to allow someone elected to office on the back of opposing a proposed development to actually vote to try and achieve what it was that person was elected to do! However, there is a bigger problem and to illustrate this I will refer to a colleague on Bradford Council - Carol Beardmore.

Now Carol has a very specific personal interest that under some circumstances might be portrayed as prejudicial - she is the parent of a severely disabled person. So that member of the public referred to in the Code might perceive that, for Carol, the funding of services for disabled adults is a prejudicial interest. However, I believe that the Council's consideration of these matters is made worse by excluding Carol from debate - which is the requirement of the Code. Indeed, most Council Monitoring Officers would not even allow Carol to attend a meeting at which the matter of her prejudicial interest was discussed.

By way of comparison, let me speak of MPs. Just like Councillors MPs make declarations of interest and, in debate, it is custom and practice for a member to refer to an interest at the outset of a speech. However, no constraints are placed on the MP in terms of speaking, voting or attendance. Indeed, in many cases, MPs with the sort of deep personal interest that Carol Beardmore has are listened to attentively and carefully because what they say is usually better informed and has the weight of personal knowledge and experience.

It seems to me that the majority of "interests" act to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the Council rather than to compromise decision-making or promote some form of corruption. The problems in Doncaster were about Councillors taking backhanders to fix planning not those Councillors voting on issues where they have a personal interest. In the end the electorate - a wise old bunch in the main - are capable of distinguishing between Councillors using their position to promote personal interests and Councillors whose interests coincide with those of the place and people they represent.

There should be no requirement beyond declaring the interest - if Councillors are daft enough to vote on their own house extension or their farm's new barn then the public (and I suspect the local party too) will rumble them and show them the door. We do not need complicated Codes of Conduct and phalanxes of expensive lawyers to manage such a process.

....

Why shopping your neighbour to the authorities is against your interests

A thought has been bothering me for some while. And it takes the form of a question:

Why are there so many people so willing to shop their neighbours to the authorities?

Hardly a day passes without at least one story where a member of the public reports another member of the public to the police or the council or the taxman or…

We read of ringtones, photographers, local councillors and smokers all grassed up by their neighbours. I want to explore why this might be so. And, dear reader, I will be (as is my wont) taking something of a utilitarian approach to the assessment. What precisely might I gain from reporting you to the authorities for some minor infraction of the rules?

Let’s suppose that you cut me up on Alwoodley Lane doing about 65mph in your BMW. And, rather than shrug and carry on, I take your number and (having safely pulled over to the side of the road) ring the police informing them of your appalling and dangerous act. What do I gain from that act? There are several possibilities:

Some sort of personal advantage – this might be the case if I know who you are and your problem might be to my advantage. Say, for example, you’re a Labour councillor and the act of reporting might create a nice negative story to my party (and my) advantage.

Future protection – your lunatic driving is clearly a menace and will end with some innocent motorist being killed or injured. And of course that motorist might be me – providing the needed self-interest

Advantage from ingratiation – I want (and believe this to be in my interest) the authorities to think well of me, to see me as being on their side against those who would break the rules. Rules that were introduced for the “good of us all”. Importantly, I see this – rightly or wrongly – as a form of insurance against the possibility of someone reporting me.

Advantage from collective protection – by reporting your bad driving, I am protecting the group (me and other road users).

What we need to understand is that the reporting of someone to the authorities is never done as a selfless act of citizen duty. Never. It is always self-interested – which explains the popularity of anonymity. And it shows no pity to the person reported – the very act of you grassing them up proves your moral superiority to them and, more importantly, their sin.

One of the most common appeals to authority is that based on offence – what someone says or done ‘offends’ you in some way. It is, of course, impossible to deny offence – I may not have intended offence but you saying you are offended means that ipso facto I am guilty of offence. And, even where you are not offended, you can complain about my words on the basis that someone might be offended – especially if that someone belongs to a defined minority of some sort.

But understand that this appeal to offence is – just as in the speeding example above – only resorted to when the individual seeks some personal gain or advantage from the act. Even if that advantage is merely being seen as a ‘good citizen’ by those in authority. And authorities encourage and promote such behaviour through setting up telephone lines, enacting complex codes of conduct, providing the screen of anonymity and mitigating punishment through the shopping of others.

So next time you are tempted to tell the authorities – be it the boss, the police, the taxman, the benefits office or some standards quango – think about why you’re doing it. Do you just want to “get” that individual so as to obtain advantage? Or are you cravenly sucking up to those in authority for your own protection?

If the former, I feel rather sorry for you as you aren’t a very nice person. If the latter, all you do is encourage more interference, more ‘shop your neighbour’ campaigns and more busybodies charged with interfering in how we exercise our freedom. I guess I’m saying – don’t shop your neighbours, colleagues or the lunatic in the black BMW. It doesn’t serve you well at all whatever you perceive as the short term gain.

....